To the editor:
Is there any logic or common sense behind the appeal that the smoking ban violates a business owner's constitutional rights? The concept that the smoking ban somehow violates Mr. Steffes' constitutional rights is absurd. This is equivalent to saying that it is Mr. Steffes' constitutional right to expose any employee or patron of his businesses to the documented health risks of secondhand smoke. Heck, if you follow this logic, then it would be Mr. Steffes' constitutional right to serve food that has been stored, prepared and served with unsanitary methods and the laws prohibiting this are also unconstitutional.
It is quite apparent that businesses that can't adjust to changing customer patterns, codes and laws will go out of business. This is OK. They do not have a constitutional right to be in business; rather, in this great nation they have the opportunity to run a business that complies with national, state and local laws.
The smoking ban is simply common sense. Smoking is still among the top modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease death for men and women in this country. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and smoking is not permitted in any other venue where people congregate (i.e., churches, schools, courtrooms, sports stadiums - even those outdoors) so it defies logic that it would be permitted in the bars and restaurants where people congregate.
Dennis Jacobsen,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
larrybill (anonymous) says…
I just want it to be known that all of the places that mr. jacabson listed are all places where children may be present or a person must attend. I don't want my child to be around smokers for many reasons. I think a person should have a choice to smoke. just like it should be a persons choice to attend a bar where they allow smoking.(oh I forgot it still is a choice to attend a bar). If you want to ban smoking because you don't like it, is wrong. I can name any number of things that people dont like. That doesn't mean we should ban them. Like religion. How many people have died over religion, this could be a health risk but we don't force a person to participate it is still a choice. Cars that burn fossil fuel are also known for causing health problems. Lets ban drivivg in limited public venues like downtown lawrence. Then see who complains about it being unfair and unconstitutional. This change to the "customer pattern" is not a change like a fad that went out. This change was inflicted by people that just dont like smoking.
This is what makes america great. A few people that think they know whats right for the majority change laws because they dont like it or refuse to understand it.
p.s I am not a smoker
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Actually, London has severely restricted driving in its city center, and it's been widely accepted as having made it a much more pleasant place and it's easier to get around, now that the gridlock, and pollution, have been reduced. Lots of other big cities are now considering similar actions.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Where are the conservatives here? Where are those talking about personal choice and personal responsibility?
Is it really up to the city of Lawrence to protect me from second-hand smoke?
Is it really up to the city to insure that no one is offended/smells something bad/sees something that they don't like?
Why does everything, everything, need to be "family-friendly"? It's a bar, ferchrissakes! If you don't like bars, don't go to them.
This sees like a perfect situation for the free market to decide. Bars and restaurants can choose to be non-smoking and they can compete with those that allow smoking. Simple. Everyone is happy and the city of lawrence isn't playing the role of nanny.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Totally free markets eventually turn into dog-eat-dog free-for-alls. That's what happens with wholly unregulated smoking in bars and restaurants. All it takes is a few smokers in a bar to fill it with second-hand smoke, and those who can't or won't tolerate it are the ones who don't get a choice of whether to go out or not. That's because the business is fickle enough that no bar owner will voluntarily limit a potential customer base that has a disproportionate number of smokers.
But smokers should be able to go to a few bars and coffee shops where smoking is permitted. The present law is designed to protect employees, not patrons, though, so it would be possible to open up an establishment run only by owners. Wonder if anyone will seek to exploit that "loophole."
Skeptic (anonymous) says…
Smoking and second hand smoke are not on anybody's list of top workplace hazards.
But don't worry Dennis, your vice is next on the ban list.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
BULL! The whole business of "protecting the workers" is NOT crap, pure and simple! If folks relied on business's personal responsibility to protect them instead of relying on government to do it for them, there would be A BIG problem! There used to be no safety standards at all for businesses and there was a big problem.
In fact, we DO have the right to cause you to change YOUR business plan to suit our silly "need of the moment" to be in a safe workplace.
"The present law is designed to do nothing but further erode the rights of the private sector and control private business."
Like hard hat laws and other similar worker safety breakthroughs? Sounds like you want to trade the public's safety for the rights of business owners to make money. Both have rights yeah, but geeze, lets draw the line at killing people.
Worker safety standards ain't socialism, it's one of the things that make this country great. Be careful when you generalize and label as "socialist" (gasp!) and any govt. program that results in an improved quality of life of it's citizens. Careful what you wish for:
It's a worker safety issue. Period. Just simply an area that has managed to escape the scope of the safety laws.
meggers (anonymous) says…
THX1138,
A person can choose where they wish to work. It's absurd that a private business owner who happens to smoke is not allowed to do so in his or her own place of business.
I wouldn't want to breathe laquer or car exhaust all day, therefore I wouldn't apply at any business that would require me to do so. The same rule applies to smoking/non-smoking establishments. It's a matter of personal choice.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
Is it absurd? Is it absurd to have worker safety laws? We as a society have already determined that it is absurd (and illegal) for employers to expose workers to certain dangers. This type of thing (in other areas) is already regulated and rightly so! Is it absurd for a business owner who happens to work with hazardous chemicals to expose his employees to toxic gasses without adequate protection? Hey! You can work somewhere else, right?? You gotta have standards. If there were no standards, very few places would be safe, and you wouldn't have a choice.
You do have a choice to work somewhere else, but we as a society have adopted certain standards that apply to every workplace. we already do this, and it wouldn't be fair if it didn't apply to the toxic chemicals in second hand smoke. All I'm saying is lets have a set level of consistent safety standards. I agree it is a conflict of rights. If you protect the workers, you hurt the business. If you lift all restrictions from the businesses, you help them but hurt the workers. I'm saying that I think providing every worker a safe workplace takes precedence over a business to operate free of restrictions. If you value the rights of business owners as a whole over the welfare of employees as a whole, I understand but respectfully disagree. Mostly I want to try to make people realize that it is a worker safety issue; not an issue of providing comfort to customers.
meggers (anonymous) says…
If it's solely about the safety of workers, why not give employees the option of wearing masks if they work in a place that allows smoking? Or even mandate that they wear them?
Problem solved.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim, all in due time. That's the point. You're welcome.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
Marion, I'm not ignoring that fact. Actually, I just posted a lengthy arguement in response to it.
Smoking bans are indeed about govt control; govt control over worker safety. Much like govt control ensuring free speech, etc. Once again, just because the govt imposes standards on something doesn't make it wrong. This is where you get your guaranteed rights.
So you don't believe that the local govt isn't actually doing this for the benefit of workers, and that it is some clever plot so the local govt can have the pleasure of being in control? You lost me.
"If smoking bans were really about health and worker safety, there would be no subisidies for tobacco farmers, the city would return any revenues generated from the sale of tobacco products and smoking would be completely illegal."
Huh? Why? You can preserve a smoker's right to smoke (anywhere but in a place of employment) and protect worker safety at the same time...via the smoking ban. We are so not on the same page are we?. Oh well. Thanks for the debate. See you next time
djazz (anonymous) says…
Thats all well and good, but what about the Casinos on both sides, Ks and Mo. They are the smokeist places on earth.
So if the govt. wants to ban the activity, ban it there as well. No more retirees smokin and gamblin!
I wonder if Casinos could survive if somking was banned?
meggers (anonymous) says…
THX1138,
What about my suggestion? Employers in smoking establishments could be required to supply masks to employees that request them. Everybody gets a choice.
If you don't find that option acceptable, I can't help but believe you aren't exclusively interested in the safety of employees.
Hell, let's ban bleeding people from hospitals. After all, they pose a health risk to hospital employees.
sweetpeagj (anonymous) says…
ok..I have to say that Marion is dead right on this. We do have a choice where we work and where we eat and hang out. I smoke and decided that Lawrence didn't need my income and started going outside the town to go to dinner, bars, dance clubs etc.. It shouldn't be mandated by anyone other than the owner. Employees are told (if they haven't done their research) that it is a smoking establishement and asked if they have a problem working in that environment. What's the problem then? Give people back the right to make their own choices and stop banning things that don't involve you. Safety requirements, sucha s hard hats, are actually for the safety and workmans comp requirements for the business. That was actually an uninspired example and not pertaining to choice at all THX1138. Nice try though.
craigers (anonymous) says…
I know that in bars and clubs we should expect smoking and don't think it should be banned there. However, in restaraunts I think it should be. Everybody is saying well if you don't like smoke then don't go and that is a horrible argument. It is hard for pregnant women to go out and then hard after the child is born to enjoy an evening out because you need to protect your kids and their developing lungs. Some don't really seem to care that non-smokers would like to go out and do their thing without having smokers making their night miserable. Smoking causes not only health risks for to-be mothers, but asthmatics, children, and the workers. I believe meggars suggested a mask for those not wanting to expose themselves to the smoke, and I think we could reverse that. Have smokers wear a helmet that traps all of the toxins of cigarettes in it while they smoke. This will not only help others have a better environment, but it will allow smokers to get the full effect of the cigarette. Not to mention, it might make them look a little funny too!!!
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Smokers look funny enough as it is.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Craigers, you don't think there were enough restaurants, with some of the same menus, to go around for both smokers and non-smokers? Mexican food? I'm sure, before the ban, you could find Mexican restaurants who allowed smoking, and ones that did not...so the non-smokers could go to one that did not...it's not as if they didn't have a choice of where to go.
But now the smokers no longer have that choice, the choice that you seem to treasure so highly...so you were miserable in smoking establishments before the ban...well, no one held a gun to your head and forced you to go in there, did they? Just as now, with the smoking ban, the smokers don't have to go to any restaurant if they don't want to...if they are there, then that means they chose to go there.
The things that bothered me the most in restaurants before the ban didn't even include second-hand smoke. It was people wearing so much cologne and perfume that it seemed they'd poured the whole bottle over themselves...restaurants that persisted in mopping the floors with almost pure bleach water, while you're sitting there eating...the smoke from someone's order of barbecued anything, or grilled anything...not to mention the belching car exhaust in the parking lot...or don't you think those things are a health risk to patrons and employees as well? If you think they aren't, then you need to do a little research online about what those fumes and chemicals can do to people...
Alas, the perfume, the cologne, the barbecue, the bleach still exist in restaurants...
You did have a choice before the ban...there were many, many restaurants that didn't allow smoking anyway...but now the smokers don't have any choices at all.
Any time a choice is taken away, for a perfectly legal activity, it is not a good thing. Wait until they come knocking at your door to take away a choice that you enjoy right now...and it will happen someday...once they start taking away choices, it won't stop at just smoking.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
Sweetpea:
Doesn't it have to do with choice? My point with the choice is this: the current state of affairs is that safety standards exist on a sweeping scale for businesses in general, and these current policies reject the notion that "no safety standards are needed anywhere because if the employees don't like it, they can work somewhere else". I agree with this rejection and ask why shouldn't the deadly chemicals in cig. smoke fall under the same umbrella of these safety standards. By your logic are you not in effect saying it is unfair to impose ANY safety restrictions on businesses because "you can just work somewhere else"? I'm not hearing any arguement besides "you have the choice to work somewhere else."
"Safety requirements, such as hard hats, are actually for the safety and workmans comp requirements for the business"
I (currently) fail to see why this fact invalidates the argument that smoking is a worker safety issue and should be treated as such. Why do we have safety standards? Answer that question, then ask yourself why shouldn't non-smoking be included as a safety standard for the same reasons? What's the difference? I've got a pretty open mind; help me see the difference. Thanks
craigers (anonymous) says…
crazyks, good argument about nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to go there. Point is that this ban makes the restaraunts more available to all to enjoy a clean and hazard free envirnoment inside the establishment. You say plenty of places didn't allow smoking? Where were these places? I am sure you are talking about the ones frequented by most people... Applebees, Chilis, Old Chicago, El Mezcal, Molly McGees, JB Stouts. The list goes on. The whole it is my choice to smoke and kill myself is fine, but when your choice starts to put other people's health at risk is when the line should be drawn. Choice is a valuable thing in this world, but choice shouldn't override the value of health.
meggers (anonymous) says…
craigers- A business owner has every right to cater to the clientele of his or her choice. If a bar or restaurant owner chooses to allow smoking, that is their choice- just as it is your choice to refuse to frequent that particular establishment.
Personally, I don't like places that fry food without good ventilation. I don't expect the owners of those places to be required to change a damned thing- instead, I simply avoid those establishments. Personal choice is a wonderful thing.
THX1138- You still didn't respond to the suggestion I presented.
craigers (anonymous) says…
meggars they don't have that choice, they are regulated all the time for those with disabilities among other groups. For example, if somebody wanted to go to a restaruant and had a wheelchair, would that place be required to adapt, absolutely! As if an asthmatic goes in the establishment and can't stand the atmosphere because of the health concern why shouldn't they change? Would you tell the handicap person in the wheelchair the same thing as you would the asthmatic? Well it is your choice to come here, we don't have to change for anybody. This ban better serves the community. It provides a clean atmosphere where you can actually smell the food and enjoy the establishment. We have it so good in Lawrence. When I go to a place in Kansas City and go to the non-smoking section by choice it still smells like smoke. The smokers in the smoking section pollute not just their section but the whole place. How is that fair? When I am in Lawrence it is so nice because I can go out to eat and my wife and I can come home not smelling like smoke and have only endanger our health by our choice by eating a fried food or some other food they serve, not because of another's choice to light up.
meggers (anonymous) says…
craigers,
You do raise a valid point regarding regulation, however a person with asthma can have an attack triggered by a number of things, including walking into their auto mechanic and breathing exhaust fumes, getting their hair permed, walking into a freshly cleaned and chemically sanitized restrroom...the list goes on and on.
There are limitations within the confines of the ADA which exclude certain medical conditions, as well as defining reasonable accomodation. I'm honestly not sure whether or not asthma meets the legal definition of disability, as defined by the ADA. It's my understanding that only new construction is required to be in full compliance with the structural ADA standards. Older buildings were grandfathered in- something far more reasonable that the enactment of the smoking ban.
If you wanted to establish some air purification regulations, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but I still believe an outright ban on smoking overreaches the authority of the government.
I can certainly understand why you would enjoy frequenting restaurants you might have avoided in the past due to the smoke, however those restaurant owners should not have been forced to lose their smoking clientele, solely to cater to you or to anyone else's personal preferences.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Valid argument Meggers.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
To further Meggers's point, (absent of the worker safety issue) shouldn't the free market determine what restaraunts are smoking and which are not? The reality is that non-smokers simply don't care enough to vote with their pocket books on this issue. If non-smokers really cared, they would boycott and create a huge market for non-smoking bars and eateries. The Bella Lounge tried it the policy failed. The Granada (interestingly enough) originally opened as non-smoking the policy failed. Unfortunately the sad fact of the matter is that non-smoking bars and restaurants do not survive (at least in Lawrence) because the non-smokers just aren't sensitive enough to the issue to change their spending behavior. So be it. The people have spoken.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
OK meggers I'll bite; what kind of mask are we talking about here? Wouldn't the only effective alternative be a gas mask? Have you thought it out that far? Are you just speaking theoretically? No sarcasm intended; I do want to hear your full idea.
THX1138 (anonymous) says…
An interesting side note to my "let the free market rule" rant is that now that non-smokers have been able to bask in non-smoking utopia for a while now, if it were suddenly taken away, would they revert back to their apparent indifference? Or would it be different this time around? Would it be possible that there could be barely enough demand that one measly non-smoking bar and grill could barely scrape by just enough to stay in existence?
My Opinion: Not bloody likely, but it would be nice.
mermily (anonymous) says…
note a few changes in marion's postings.....
Posted by Marion (anonymous) on December 21, 2005 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"No one is forced to work in a [sexually hostile] establishment or to enter one.
. . .
[Sexual harassment] bans are about government control, pure and simple.
Thanks.
Marion.
Posted by Marion (anonymous) on December 21, 2005 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BULL!
The present law is designed to do nothing but further erode the rights of the private sector and control private business [to sexually harass their employees].
If a bar, resturant, paint store or public rest room is declared a [sexually harassment area], no one is forced to enter or work there.
Period.
The whole business of "protecting the workers" is crap, pure and simple!
If folks exercised personal responsibility instead of relying on government to do it for them, there would be NO problem!
Example:
I run a bar and I wish to permit [sexual harassment] in my bar.
If you do not want to be in a [sexually hostile] environment you do not have to work here or enter.
You do NOT have the right to cause me to change MY business plan to suit your need of the moment.
You want to hear the band that is going to play but don't like [to be sexually harassed]?
Stay home.
See the band elsewhere.
Take that IWW, socialist cow plop and put it in Lenin's tomb!
I do realise that some of you out there are not capable of leading responsible lives without constant government direction and intervention but that does not give you the right to impose your disabilities on me or anyone else.
Thanks.
Marion.
marion, there are many things that the gov't, through our election process, have determined are unacceptable. they weigh the intrusion factor and the ill to be cured and POOF you have a law.
by your logic, you don't want to be date raped- don't "ban" rape, but instead instruct people not to date. you don't want to be killed by a drunk driver, don't infringe on your "right" to drive drunk, but instead advise people not to be on the road.
banning an unconsitutionally protected "activity" that doesn't just harm the actor, but all those around him/her and even those who take your advice and don't go to your bar (tax supported health care!!), seems like sound reasoning to me!
meggers (anonymous) says…
Craigers,
Thanks, I see your point, as well. As far as restaurants go, I would be in favor of allowing restaurants that have been business for a certain amount of time (20 years, for example) to install an adequate air filtration system as accommodation. Any newer establishments would be required to install an adequate air filtration system, as well as an air-lock between the smoking and non-smoking sections of the restaurant if they are to permit smoking. As many businesses are located in building structures that don't have adequate space for an air-lock, they would need to apply for special exemption from the city, citing space, habits of customers, other acceptable accommodations, etc. The air-lock would be a requirement for any new restaurants approved for construction. Bars would require an adequate filtration system, but smoking would be allowed. ALL establishments, be it a restaurant or bar, would be required to post on the outside of their business whether they are a smoking or non-smoking establishent.
Some of the above seems a bit harsh (esp. for business owners) and I'm not sure I would support all of it, but it's still not as harsh as an all-out ban of a legal activity within a privately owned business. While we all have individual rights, we don't have any right to tell a private business owner where his or her bottom dollar should be coming from. I would expect there is room for compromise, if the city commission is willing to listen.
THX1138,
I'd guess a charcoal mask, but you're correct, I didn't think far enough ahead to evaluate different types of masks and their effectiveness for specific airborne toxins. My point is that if there is a way to "protect" the employee from the habits of customers and staff of the business, would that be enough for you, or would you still insist on a complete ban?
Ember (anonymous) says…
Okay, THX, if this is about 'worker's safety' issues, then how about presenting some hard facts about exactly how many employees in a given bar developed a health condition due exclusively to second hand smoke?
How about as a tertiary cause? That's the third place ranking, if you didn't know. Don't know if you do or not, so just thought I'd explain it.
The fact of the matter is a few exceptionally vocal people, who seem to think that the universe should revolve around the vicinity of their anus, badgered the city leaders into pushing this through.
Did you even inspect the data that was put forth at those meetings? The numbers in the report that was used to convince the city council was, for starters, 5 years old. Second of all, the deaths that were 'attributed' to smoking were roughly 1/2 of the numbers of recorded drunk driving fatalities.
Driving while intoxicated is definately a law, last I knew, so how did a law prevent those deaths? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it did nothing. Laws don't exist to stop someone. They exist to provide a generalized guideline for punishments in the advent that someone is convicted of a given crime. But that is beside the point.
We know smoking is bad for us. This isn't exactly rocket surgery here, dude/dudette. Drinking isn't all that good for you after about the second drink, or first drink in the case of a double.
Pure and simple, there are NO numbers showing what effects second hand smoke has on anyone. None. Zilch. Zip. Nadda. I've written the E.P.A. dozens of times, requesting information on these studies, and I have been repeatedly told that there are no studies directly tracking that.
But yet all of these deaths occur because of it?
Care to tell me where this information is located, so I can read it for myself? I'm really starting to rank them right up there with the urban legend of the woman who brought a rat home from Mexico thinking it was a stray cat.
I've smoked cigarettes and cigars since I was in the 6th grade. No cancer here. Or any other pulmonary diseases for that matter. I turned 30 this last summer. Care to tell me where exactly all these harmful effects are, by chance? Oh, that's right, they are in those pesky reports that no one knows where they are.
PoeticHeteroSapien (anonymous) says…
I'm a half-socialist, half-capitalist, so I believe in government regulation but small-scale economic liberty for businessowners; and I guess as part of that nature, I see room for compromise.
Clearly businesses lose money by banning smoking. That is why the Granada and other projects failed to maintain themselves as smoke-free. Free-market thing. So if we have members of society who want smoke-free environments, let's structure things so they come into existance on their own.
A quick study can be done to determine about how much money is lost by business-owners in going smoke-free on their own, and tax-break incentives in that approximate amount would be offered to the businesses who applied for "smoke free" operating licenses. At the same time, those establishments who wish to allow smoking should meet the filters/locks requirements, above, to ensure that nonsmokers who do go there, and waitresses/chefs/etc who want to work there do not have to deal with it.
I have a real problem with the ban largely because I do not smoke cigarettes, but I do enjoy hookas, and I miss being able to go down to the Aladdin Cafe on Mass, get a hooka, and enjoy a nice mint smoke with my hummus. Sure, I can sit on the two-foot-wide porch out front on nicer days but it's not the same and makes it hard to eat.
There is a middle-ground, if we'd all put down our ideologies and start looking at practical solutions that can work for people. I think my idea at least offers a step in the right direction, no?
mermily (anonymous) says…
ember-
actually, the EPA classifies secondhand smoke as a group A carcinogen. so you might want to give drop them another quick letter or two! or instead, as you realize smoking is bad for you (it isn't "rocket surgery" i believe you said), then maybe you can just make the not so difficult leap in believing that if someone takes in, and you do so through breathing, the same chemicals as direct smokers, they too might be exposed to the very same dangers as direct smokers.
if you really want information about secondhand smoke, try the american cancer society or the american lung association for starters:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/con...
http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/co...
if you but look, you'll find articles from credible journals that show second hand smoke increases the risk of everything from your cat dying to breast cancer (yes, breast cancer) to all the normal horrors of smoking. children of smokers have significantly higher rates of asthmas....the list goes on and on.
am i really online putting forward evidence that second hand smoking is bad? intelligent design to be taught in schools- of course, that's a no-brainer! but believe in decades of evidence that second hand smoke kills- nahhh, that's too much like science!
ember, i'm glad you have yet to have the potential ill effects of smoking visited upon you. you might be too young yet, you might have very low family risk factors, you might not have had your lungs xrayed recently, who knows....i hope you remain in the clear. however, your lack of symptoms doesn't give you the right to impose upon others a potential deadly combination of chemicals that they might not be so lucky with.
mermily (anonymous) says…
"Clearly businesses lose money by banning smoking." is there any evidence that this is the case? i'm here defending that second hand smoke is even harmful (despite so so much evidence) and you're putting forward this statement without any indication of whether this assertion is founded in any data. from what i've read, the evidence remains contradictory at this point.
what i do know is that my friends that smoke, haven't stopped going out- they're addicted, but not so much so that they refuse to leave their house for a place they can't smoke! i on the other hand have started going out more. i don't have worry about dry cleaning my clothes after a night out, washing my hair both before and after i've gone out, or having a sore throat the next day and, as such, i am inclined to head out to the bars!
certainly i would never offer myself or group of friends' actions as conclusory evidence of the way of the world, but it is definitely a valid response that has occurred for at least some people and should be taken into account. to suggest there is only one side- that smokers won't go out for drinks with their friends b/c they have to get up and go outside every so often- is selective reasoning as well as a powerful suggestion that smokers are governed by their addiction to an extreme point!
Ember (anonymous) says…
One minor problem with the EPA reports that you cited, THX.
The results of those tests are faulty on one major premise. The machines that were used to recreate the scenario of being around a smoker were in fact not even close to being within the scope of what would be present in a public establishment.
Each sealed room contained 2 machines, one to 'smoke' the cigarette and 1 to measure the levels present in the air of various chemicals.
I have NEVER seen a bar downtown with less than 5 people in it, excluding the individuals working there.
Second fault in them is that the 'lungs' that were used in teh experiments were more akin to a Hoover than to a pair of human lungs. There was no moisture at all present in the 'lungs', nor was the material of a spongue-like nature, unlike human lungs. There was little or no actual absorption of the chemicals in the same ways that occur in human lungs, thus providing a less than optimal exposure of the second 'human' in the room with the first one.
Flat out, the tests were exceptionally askew, and were debunked to an extent roughly 2 years afterwards by a Congressional probe into the findings. However, those reports are still touted as being akin to Gospel.
I agree with Marion on this emphatically, although we just as emphatically disagree on other topics.
This is a blatant and disgraceful attempt by the powers that be to regulate 'proper and acceptable' public behaviors, and yet they insist that they get their share of the taxes garnered by the sales of cigarettes.
Ever stop and wonder why smokers pay more taxes than anyone else, person to person, and yet have the least amount of actual representation in any level of government?
Yes, Big Tobacco has lobbyists, but that is the extent of it, once you get down to the brass tax of the issue.
But I suppose it's perfectly acceptable to charge an excise, incise, federal, state and local tax on a product, then decry the use of that same product.
I guarantee you that were you and I to own the exact identical house, thus same property taxes, as well as any vehicles, had the same rate of pay and worked the same number of hours, you would have more liquid funds than I would.
Why?
Taxes on cigarettes. 75-80% of the price of a single pack of smokes is pure taxes. And they are raised more frequently, and by greater amounts, than any other tax in the history of this country. But when we try to lobby to get the taxes lowered, politicians are threatened with removal from office, via the voters on election days. Perhaps we should rebel for a month, or so, buy only from Indian reservations, and watch state economies go from having minor funding issues to having major ones instead.
22% of this state, roughly, pays over 1/5 of the taxes. But I suppose you find this perfectly acceptable, since it's just smokers.