Bar employees, patrons clear air on Wisconsin smoking ban
July 5, 2010 at 5:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
On Monday, Wisconsin became the 28th state in the nation to ban smoking in public bars and restaurants. Some people in Superior celebrated the change – while others expressed concerns.
Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
45 
55
Yea, Dan. It’s your right to poison other people. And when a lady is pregnant, you get two-for-one. Nice going. Stand up for your rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights both say you can smoke wherever you want. Go to it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
44 
32
Your bigotry, hatred and intolerance will poison others much more than an occasional wisp of smoke. And where did I claim a constitutional right to smoke? Try to stay on topic.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
36
Yes, they are private establishements. BUT, they welcome the public through their doors. Therefore the health and welfare of their patrons becomes their responsiblity – and when they fail to exercise such responsibility appropriately, government takes on the role of regulating in the best interest of the masses. Which they have done. Finally.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
35
And at what point does personal responsibility and accountability kick in? Are these patrons being forced against their will to spend their money in bars and restaurants that allow smoking? The government regulates conditions in bars and restaurants that customers can’t see and have no control over, like the plumbing and electrical systems and the food preparation and storage areas and nobody would argue against that. But every single customer has the right and the freedom to not patronize any business whose smoking policy they disagree with.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
24
You seem to forget that these patrons CHOOSE to go to these establishments. If you dont like smoky bars then dont go there!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
11
I have to disagree with Josiah’s comment about Bar Owners being responsible for the Health and Welfare of their patrons. Welfare, to an extent….but Health? I don’t think so. If That were the case they could/should not be in Business Selling Alcohol. As we are all aware….alcohol causes Diminished Capacity for Driving and Hazardous to Everyone’s Health just as you are claiming cigarette smoke does, hence Drunk Driving Laws…..Obnoxious Behavior causing Bar Fights, Cirrhosis of the Liver to the Indulger etc..
There is a Reason there are Laws of Permission that State a Legal Age to Participate in certain Activities. So let’s let the Adults who have reached the age of Permission to make their Own Decisions on whether they wish to Enter an Establishment that may be Hazardous to their Health do just that….make their own decisions.
Also, Establishment Owners have had the Option All Along to make their establishments Smoke Free IF they Wanted to do so. I don’t believe the government has Any Right to Control a Business’s Patronage once they Established the Age of Majority for a particular activity. JMHO
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
9
I like your argument, it is well thought out and articulate – but I’m confused by all the capitals (?)
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
38
And if you choose to enter a business that allows smoking, your right to complain about the smoke ends at the front door.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
23
@ Josiah, you still CHOOSE to walk into that establishment instead of having your milk or meal at home.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
23
Nice try, but you know that’s not why they’re regulated. It’s because you as the consumer have no control over how that food is prepared and stored. It’s not remotely similar to smoking in bars and restaurants. You just don’t want to admit that it was never really a big deal to just walk out of a place if you didn’t agree with their smoking policy or simply go somewhere else.
Like or Dislike:
20 
8
I find it hilarious how hypocritical non-smokers really are (not all of us, just those who think 2nd hand smoke is so god awful that they practically run screaming every time they spot it). You show me proof that every single non-smoker also takes EVERY precaution against endangering their lives, and I’ll believe they have a valid point. That includes driving with a seatbelt/a valid liscence/insurance, riding anytype of bike with a helmet, not driving anything period, including a pedal bike, because you might be in an accident, not eating anything besides whatever comes straight out of the ground (that means no adding butter or anything else!), and basically never going on any type of carnival ride or coaster because those could break and harm you. And believe it or not, I’m a non-smoker. Basically they better sit in a plastic bubble eating veggies from a garden, otherwise they are hypocrites. However I don’t feel my life is at risk because I breathe in a little 2nd hand smoke now and then. There are far bigger things that could and probably WILL kill me before 2nd hand smoke even has a chance.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
22
I can do you one better and it’s pretty simple. Ask any of them to name a single person who’s died from exposure to secondhand smoke. Anywhere in the world. At any time in the history of mankind. Just one. They can’t because it’s never happened.
The claims about the dangers of secondhand smoke have never been true and the anti-smoker special interest groups have always known it. But they’ve also known that the media was too lazy to do any real reporting (I dare you, Peter) and they knew the general public was too lazy to do any simple research on their own. With hundreds of millions in grant money provided by the pharmaceutical companies (the people who make nicotine gum and patches), the anti-smoker witchhunt has been a walk in the park for them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
30
Dan are you serious? no one has ever died from second hand smoke? you’re kidding right? Even on tv not so long ago there was a commercial about a waitress (real person telling her real story) about how she was at that time undergoing treatment and dying from second hand smoke. She never smoked herself, but had waited tables and had had smoke blown in her face for years. I’m sure she’s dead by now–that was a couple of years ago.
And the debate about cigarette smoking being good/bad for you is over. The jury (not me) decided it was bad. Smoking is your right. But the minute you walk into air that is being shared by the public–then your rights to do something noxious are over. Asthmatics have rights. Babies have rights. And even just people that don’t want to have smoke blown in their face have rights. Blowing smoke into someone else’s face really says: “I have more rights than you. Take a hike if you don’t want to smell it.” Now that is the ultimate in selfishness and arrogance.
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
26
So if I have this straight, you believe an anti-smoking lobbyist who was paid tens of thousands of dollars by an anti-smoking special interest group to appear in an anti-smoking television commercial trying to influence public policy? Are you serious?
Yes, asthmatics have rights. They have the right not to subject themselves to conditions they believe will harm them and then complain about it. No, babies don’t have rights. Their parents have rights. Their parents have the right to not expose their babies to conditions they believe will harm their them. And yes, other consumers have rights, too, including the right not to enter an establishment if they disagree with that establishment’s smoking policy.
And the last thing you’re wrong about is this: The ultimate selfishness and arrogrance is to demand that every other consumer and private business owner cater to and abide by your personal preferences.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
29
Here’s your own sentence: “And the last thing you’re wrong about is this: The ultimate selfishness and arrogrance is to demand that every other consumer and private business owner cater to and abide by your personal preferences.” THAT however, is really what YOU are saying. You are saying if you want to come into this establishment–but don’t want to smell smoke–TOO BAD FOR YOU–take a hike because I am in here enjoying a cigarette….
….and the person was not paid to do the tv commercial.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
23
No, that isn’t what I’m saying at all. Not even close. You’re free to misinterpret everything I write, but please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying a private business owner should have the right to set his own smoking policy. A smart business owner would base that on customer demand. If there was such an enormous outcry from consumers for smoking bans, bars and restaurants owned by smart businesspeople would’ve voluntarily gone smokefree. But they didn’t, did they?
I’m saying as a consumer you’ve always had the freedom to choose where you spend your money. What smoking bans do is remove the freedom to choose that’s an integral part of the free market. Apparently that freedom is just too much responsibility for some who’d rather have the government make those choices for them.
And yes, the woman in the commercial was a paid activist. She was paid $20,000 by Canada’s top anti-smoker special interest group to appear in that commercial. She also was paid an enormous amount of taxpayer money to travel around lobbying for smoking bans. It would help your case considerably if you’d educate yourself before presenting information that isn’t true.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
18
Dan–I think we are talking about two different commercials. Secondly, you have to realize that when you make a choice to do something–sometimes that choice can make up someone else’s mind for them–do you follow? For example if I pick the stinkiest cologne off the shelf, then I take a bath in it and proudly walk around like I am doing everyone else in the world a favor–I am more than likely just fooling myself, as in reality people will be quickly making a big exit around me the minute the junk I am wearing hits their nose. AT that point, I’ve essentially made their decision for them, as to whether or not they will even want to approach me or walk up to me and say hello. The same thing is true for smokers. When you make a choice to smoke, the message you are really saying to someone like me is “don’t walk up to me unless you want to smell this” or “you can’t come into this establishment, because I am in here now–smoking” and all of these “statements” were made without anyone saying a word. Surely you follow this?
Like or Dislike:
8 
17
No, we’re talking about the same commercial. There was only one that fits the description you made.
And I’m not making any statement when I have a cigarette. I’m simply enjoying a cigarette. Your interpretation of my actions is entirely up to you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
10
So did the waitress die or not?
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
Eventually. Everybody does.
Like or Dislike:
16 
9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4fzTdjqvt0&feature=related
Here is the commercial I was talking about–and yes, she did die.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Exactly. Just like I said. You can’t even defend your own positions and then you post a video to defend MY positions. I don’t know how to debate with you.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Dan–how does a video account of someone describing how they are DYING from second hand smoke defend your position? you’re nuts….I think you just want to argue….
Like or Dislike:
4 
9
I told you that was the commercial in question when YOU said it wasn’t. And then you post the video that defends my position. Thanks for saving me the time of having to do that, but geez…you’re a real piece of work.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Dan–I am so incredibly sick of you I could barf–would the reader please click on the link to watch the video clip of the woman’s account of how she is dying (is now dead) from cancer? How you can possibly claim that as a point for your argument is beyond belief. And really is your point that she was paid? Who cares? I hope she was paid a million dollars. But guess what? money doesn’t spend too well in a coffin–so whether she got one dollar or a million–it is pointless–she is dead either way.
I am getting off of this page now. If her death and that commercial helped to ban smoking anywhere–I say God Bless her, and may she rest in peace.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Read this very slowly and maybe it will sink in. YOU brought up the television commercial. I told you the background to that commercial, who the woman was, who paid for the commercial, how much she was paid, etc. It was YOU who then said no, you were talking about a different commercial. And then YOU go and post this video which is the very video I said it was. And now you get all bent out of shape because you can’t keep track of your own comments and misrepresentations. You can’t even follow your own line of thought in a conversation that you started. That’s your own problem. That should make you sick.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Dan–I have no documented evidence of the background of that commercial–just your hearsay. I frankly don’t care if she was paid any money or not. That is irrelevant to me and to anyone else bright enough to follow the content of the commercial. The point of the commercial is–she developed lung cancer from breathing second hand smoke. She is now dead. May she rest in peace–and I say thank you to her–for her contribution to society.
The only thing I am sick of is you. The end. Good bye.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
See, that’s the problem with people like you. You can’t refute someone else’s information with your own because you’re too lazy to do any research on your own. So all you can do is attack others. You have no facts of any kind to back up your own claims and nothing on which to base your rejection of information from other people. You just attack. People like you are content to get your information from television commercials paid for by special interest groups with a political agenda and a financial incentive to lie to you. You really ought to offer yourself as the poster child for anti-smoker special interest groups because you’re the classic example of the kind of person they’ve been targetting with their misinformation. But they’d probably reject you. You’re way too easy for them.
You keep promising to leave. One more thing you can’t back I’m. Keep trying.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
…because everything on tv is always true, and 100% accurate. Especially commercials… they have no bias whatsoever.
Wow.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
32
Wow. Got some anger management issues to work on?
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
26
It comes straight from your own words. Read them again.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
20
(Free tip to Josiah: When you’re pretending to be upset about something, make sure your claims sounds somewhat believable. If they’re not likely to get much more than a chuckle out of people, they’re probably not working. You’re bothered by the cigarette smoke coming from other cars on the road? I’ve never heard that one before, but it really needs some fine tuning.)
Like or Dislike:
16 
10
Thanks for the tip, @DanH. Yes, I really do become upset when I breathe smoke in from someone else’s vehicle.
I also get upset when I breathe in someone else’s fart. But I can at least grasp how it is a natural bodily function. And mine stink just like everyone else’s.
The other part that gets me every time is when the cigarette is flicked out the window at night and sparks on the road in front of you and you think for just a second that the car in front of you chucked a grenade at you.
Do us all a favor, keep you windows up and you butts inside. And then, please for the love of God, don’t come anywhere near me.
(@DanH How’s that for a chuckle.)
Like or Dislike:
9 
18
Works for me. Keep your bigotry and intolerance inside, too, and we’ll call it even.
Like or Dislike:
13 
11
Yes, I’m intolerant of smoke. Most human lung are. A bigot though? For advocating against smoking or having to breathe it? Come on @DanH, don’t drink the Hatorade.
Like or Dislike:
8 
15
As for bars/restaurants not doing well because of the bans…two of my distant family members own/run area establishments in the Northland here (in Mn), and they are doing just fine without the ban. One is a bar/restaurant and the other is just a bar. I have yet to see either one close a day/night early because of lack of business directly related to the bans.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
20
Dan, I am not a “hypocritical non-smoker” because I just quit this past October so here are my thoughts on the topic…can’t you just go outside? I live in a town that banned it in bars a couple years ago so I went a year having to smoke outside when I went to a bar or a restaurant. To be honest, it wasn’t that bad. I quit because I got extremely sick and my health wasn’t worth it anymore.
Regarding the proof that no one has ever died of secondhand smoke exposure…I would know, we buried my Grandmother because of it. My Grandpa smoked their entire 40 year marriage and she never touched 1 single cigarette. She was diagnosed with lung cancer and died only 7 months after her diagnosis.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
16
What you and other non-smokers don’t seem to understand is that the smoking policy of any business isn’t up to you OR me. It’s up to the business owner. He decides the location, the menu, the prices, the color of the carpeting and every other variable that we use to make our choices about where to dine out. Was that freedom to choose so difficult that it required government intervention? Really?
I don’t drink, so I don’t go to bars. But I don’t complain about all the drinking going on inside or insist that everyone drinking has to go outside if I ever do choose to enter a bar. And I won’t be marching to the state capitol demanding that they ban alcohol. I have the freedom to choose not to patronize bars because frankly I can’t stand drunks. I understand they have the right to drink and I understand the bar owner has the right to serve alcohol. And I’m okay with that since nobody’s forcing me against my will to hang out in bars.
And with all due respect, your grandmother’s death certificate doesn’t list exposure to secondhand smoke as her cause of death. If it does, alert the media because she’d be the first case in recorded history. My father died of lung cancer three years ago, a non-smoker who grew up with non-smokers and lived for nearly 50 years with another non-smoker, so using your logic his death makes even less sense than your grandmother’s. Nobody knows what causes cancer. If they did, we’d already have a cure. I sincerely hope you don’t really believe your grandfather killed your grandmother. If anyone planted that seed in your head, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
19
I’m glad I won’t have to leave my coat in my truck during the Winter when going into a restaurant in Wisconsin anymore.
If there were 100 patrons in a restaurant and 9 of them were smoking, all 100 patrons would leave there completely reeking of cigarette smoke. I find it strange that many smokers side with those 9 people and their right to inflict that disgustingness onto everybody.
It’s as if all 9 of you are peeing in a pool all 100 of us are swimming in.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
Nobody is “inflicting” anything on you when you’re in a restaurant that you voluntarily enter. What part of that don’t you get?
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
24
It isn’t smokers OR non-smokers who should get to decide. You don’t get this part either, do you? It should be up to the business owner. If his smoking policy doesn’t reflect the will of his customers, he won’t be in business long.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
12
Wow Jack! Didn’t think I’d ever agree with you on anything but I finally do on this one.
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
21
Okay, I’ll play along. Do you ever drive home after having an alcoholic beverage with or without a meal? That’s an easy “yes” or “no” question because I don’t want to make assumptions.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
18
It’s gonna get hard to find that bar or restaurant that allows smoking pretty soon Dan. Approximately half the states have passed smoking bans and there will be more all the time. Sunshine is the best source there is for natural vitamin B. What vitamin do you get from smoking Dan? Since you don’t want any regulation on private businesses I assume you don’t like gas stations being forced to put in monitoring systems on fuel tanks to prevent groundwater contamination. How about limiting the amount of time truck drivers drive for private trucking companies? Should we allow drivers to drive 20 hours or more til they can’t stay awake with no regulation? I guess you’re against the FDA taking unsafe medications off the market too. After all the drug companies are privately owned. Well get used to it. There are health and safety regulations on a myriad of private enterprises and it is going to be no different on banning smoking in areas that though privately owned are open to the public. That same bar can’t refuse to serve me if they don’t like my religion or the color of my skin. Why? After all as you said they are privately owned. Because not all regulation is bad when we all have to live together and regulate some things for the greater good of the people that’s why.
Like or Dislike:
7 
16
Great. Now get all your drinking buddies to do the same thing. You people scare me.
And you can suck on your own adult pacifier (alcohol) until your liver shrivels up for all I care. See? Two can play the bigotry game. That’s the first and last time I’ll do it, but it’s all I hear from self-righteous anti-smokers whenever they inevitably run out of hysterical rhetoric and empty claims in a debate like this one.
Like or Dislike:
12 
11
It’s got nothing to do with self-righteousness. The majority is sick of breathing the carcinogens exhaled by the minority. I’m betting your lungs turn black before my liver shrivels up. Oh here we go with the bigotry accusation again. You must feel so persecuted.
Like or Dislike:
7 
14
Oh yeah Dan you never did answer if you have a problem with alcohol. A lot of the teetotalers I’ve known are recovering alcohols. If that’s your problem I take back my statement that you should have a drink and relax. I wouldn’t want to cause a relapse. Maybe you should have a smoke to get your fix after all. Just not in the bar, lol.
Like or Dislike:
5 
13
Assuming you’ve never been forced against your will to enter a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking, you weren’t breathing anything you didn’t volunteer to breathe. And since you’re so worried about carcinogens, do you go outside in the daylight and subject yourself to sunlight, a Class A carcinogen? Or are you only worried about some carcinogens?
And no, I don’t have a problem with alcohol. Never have. I just don’t drink. It’s really not that hard to do. Maybe you should take up smoking and relax with a cigarette now and then.
Like or Dislike:
17 
8
I mistakenly wrote that sunshine is a good source of vitamin B when I meant to say vitamin D which is necessary for our bodies to absorb calcium. Tobacco on the other hand has nothing good in it. Tobacco not only increases your chances of various cancers but of having a stroke and various heart problems. Smoking restricts your arteries and increases your blood pressure. I have a friend who had hypertension and had to take medication. As soon as he kicked the smoking habit he was able to discontinue his blood pressure medication. So I’m not only okay with this particular government regulation banning smoking in areas that the public occupies. I’m cheering for it. For years and years bar owners not only were afraid of losing their smoking customers with a ban but they were betting that most non-smokers would tolerate the smoke and for the most part they were right. Well non-smokers are fed up with it and rebelling. Heck I remember when you could smoke at McDonalds and almost everywhere else for that matter. All the kiddies in Playland had to breath that smoke. Maybe that’s why so many of them thought smoking was the cool thing to do when they grew up. Well the majority of people now realize smoking isn’t cool. It’s a dirty, disgusting, extremely addicting habit. It affects your health, gives you bad breath and makes your hair and clothing reek.
Like or Dislike:
7 
15
So you’re saying that even a known carcinogen like sunlight is okay in moderation? Stop me if you figure out where I’m going with this because I’m pretty sure you don’t want to hear it.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
Right on @Jack. I too am happy that I won’t have to leave me coat in the car anymore, or wash my sheets the next morning after having been to a Wiconsin establishment.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
If you don’t go to bars what are you complaining about DanH? Let the smokers who actually go to bars do the griping.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
Um, Wes? I said I don’t go to bars and would never demand that the government ban alcohol sales just because I don’t drink. What part of that sounded like a complaint? I’m saying I’m a big boy and don’t need the government’s assistance in making the tough decision not to go into a bar.
Like or Dislike:
19 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
18
And neither is your smoking argument.
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
Maybe you should just quit smoking and be done with the habit. You know it’s killing you, right?
Like or Dislike:
8 
16
Unless you’re planning on becoming immortal, what you’re doing is killing you, too. Nobody gets out of this alive, Jack. I’ll mind my business if you mind yours and in the end, we’ll both be dead anyway.
Like or Dislike:
17 
12
I watched my grandpa die from lung cancer from smoking that spread throughout his body.
No, what I’m doing is staying healthy until I die. You’re going to most likely suffer a prolonged and painful death that could have been avoided.
I smoked for over 10 years, Dan, and I argued as you do about how smoking was my right. Turns out I was wrong.
Like or Dislike:
10 
17
I’ll mind my business and won’t tip your table of food and drinks over as long as you agree you won’t blow your nasty smoke in the direction of my family, and we can’t smell you.
Like or Dislike:
9 
16
If I didn’t patronize a particular type business I wouldn’t care how it was regulated. I do occasionally go to a bar. Not to get blasted but more often to eat and maybe have a cold one or two. It’s called a bar or a saloon for a reason Dan. They serve drinks there. Smoking is not the reason they are there. I just don’t get why it’s a big deal for you since you don’t go there anyway. If I didn’t go to the bar I wouldn’t give a rip.
Like or Dislike:
9 
16
It’s a big deal to me, Wes, and should be for you because we’re talking about the government stepping in and trampling on the rights of private business owners and removing one small chunk of consumers’ freedom of choice. It’s a big deal to me because I have no idea where special interest groups are aiming next or where they’ll stop. Smoking bans were easy. They played you people for fools and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Where will you draw the line?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
14
You worry too much Dan. It might not hurt you to go for happy hour and relax for awhile. Course you’ll have to go outside for your coffin nail. I’ll be inside enjoying my meal and a beer without having to choke on your smoke.
Like or Dislike:
7 
16
“we’re talking about the government stepping in and trampling on the rights of private business owners and removing one small chunk of consumers’ freedom of choice.”
Cry me a river. When I am in a bar, and I have to pee, I get up off of the barstool, and go into the bathroom. It’s common sense – no need to share my urine with the other patrons/employees. It’s the same thing with smokers. Just step outside. I don’t have the right to pee anywhere/anytime I want, and smokers no longer have the right to smoke anywhere/anytime. Big deal. Get used to it. Get over it. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
9 
18
That’s cool, Wes. You sit inside and be the town drunk. You’re probably like the guy who killed my cousin’s six-year-old daughter. He was “just enjoying a beer,” too, before he got in his truck and headed home. I’ll be outside not having to watch out for you on the road after you tie one on.
Like or Dislike:
15 
13
So the rights of private property owners and your own freedom of choice just isn’t a big deal to you anymore? Wow. And again with the peeing references…why do you anti-smokers always bring up pee?
Like or Dislike:
12 
14
Now who’s making assumptions Dan? I said nothing about getting drunk. I’m sorry to hear that about your cousins daughter though. But now I’m wondering if you are an alcoholic since you assume that people can’t just go for one drink? I know a guy who was alcoholic and went to AA to stop while he was in his 20′s but smoked all his life. Now he’s been fighting lung cancer. Sorry to disappoint you but no I’m not the town drunk, haha. I bet plenty of people have avoided you because of your smoking though. Lots of medical research shows that one drink a day is good for your heart. No research has shown that smoking is good for you.
Like or Dislike:
8 
16
Sure you can go for one drink. And that one drink will affect your reflexes whether you want to admit it or not. You’re exactly the kind of drinker I want to stay very far away from when you get in your car after “just enjoying a beer or two” with your meal. The kind who thinks it won’t affect them.
And as I’ve said already, anyone who’s smoked a cigarette since the early 1960s is very well aware that it isn’t the best habit to take up. And again, since I guess I have to repeat myself, smoking bans are not a referendum on the merits of smoking although that’s exactly how the anti-smoker special interest groups wanted you to treat it. And you fell for it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
My comment got out of order. I answered your question about my driving [or not driving] above Dan. By the way did you know that smoking in your car can also affect your driving. People distracted while reaching for their cigarettes. People routinely drop cigarettes and are frantically reaching trying to pick up their smoldering cigarette. I couldn’t tell you how many cigarette burns I’ve seen on car upholstery. Face it Dan. You’re on the wrong side of history. Smoking in bars and restaurants is about over.
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
Doesn’t matter a bit to me personally, Wes. I don’t smoke in restaurants, never have, and I don’t go to bars. So smoking bans aren’t a personal thing with me. Gloat if that helps you.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
@wesh is exactly right. There are more smoking/texting/phone grabbing related accidents everyday than there are alcohol related ones.
It’s just that smoking and driving isn’t against the law like it should be.
(@DanH before you twist my comments into a knot, I’m not advocating that drinking and driving is good or somehow better than the others.)
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
Well, again and as non-smokers always do, you’re putting words in my mouth. Not once have I claimed smoking as a right. I’ve said consistently that the right to smoke or not smoke in a bar or restaurant should be entirely up to the business owner since he’s the one putting his livelihood on the line, paying taxes, providing goods and services and creating jobs. Assuming you didn’t contribute anything to that, where do you assume the right to dictate what his business decisions are?
I watched my father die from lung cancer and he never smoked, didn’t grow up around smokers and lived with my mother, a non-smoker, for nearly 50 years. You don’t know what caused your grandfather’s cancer any more than I know what caused my father’s.
So far, the only arguments you’ve put forward in favor of smoking bans is you don’t like the smell of cigarettes and your personal preferences should trump everyone else’s, including those of private business owners.
Like or Dislike:
16 
11
From your previous comments, I’m not the least bit surprised at your response.
Well a large team of doctors said his lung cancer was caused by 60 years of smoking, so yes I do know what caused it.
And yes, why should I have to smell like your toxic (yes it is toxic) cigarette smoke? Business owners are obligated to provide a safe and healthy work environment for their employees and smoking indoors does not promote a healthy work environment, and there aren’t any arguments you can use to refute that, Dan.
And in the end, guess what? You still can’t smoke in bars or restaurants, so I’ll be going there and giving them my money and there won’t be any smokers there. It’s a win-win situation.
Like or Dislike:
8 
16
And that’s really all it boils down to for you, isn’t it? That “I win and you lose” attitude. I have vague memories of that kind of thing from grade school.
Cigarette smoke is toxic? For years and years you’ve eaten out at restaurants and had drinks in bars that allowed smoking. Yet somehow you managed to survive. How in the world did that happen? Water is toxic, too, if you get too much of it. So is oxygen. Even sunlight is classified as a Class A carcinogen. Should we ban all windows and outdoor activity, too? Exactly how much government regulation are you willing to accept?
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
Ok, wait. So you’re arguing cigarette smoke ISN’T toxic?
That isn’t even up for debate anymore, dan.
Like or Dislike:
6 
13
Of course it’s up for debate. It always has been. You just don’t want to hear it. Do you have even the slightest idea how much cigarette smoke you’d have to be exposed to before it reached a level even remotely considered toxic? I’m still wondering how you managed to survive all these years of eating in restaurants and drinking in bars that allowed smoking, too.
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
Private business owners that open their place of business to the public are required to follow health and safety rules. Proper dishwashing, food handling, etc. Clean food preparation areas, clean bathrooms, food free of e-coli, and now, clean air for the patrons and employees. Good government at work.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
Customers have no control over the food preparation and storage areas. That’s why regulation is required. On the other hand, you know immediately upon entering whether or not a bar or restaurant allows smoking and you have every right to walk out the door. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Jack: exactly how much government regulation are you willing to accept?
Like or Dislike:
13 
11
How much government regulation? Now what? The “slippery slope” concept. Clean air – what a great concept! You’re fighting a losing battle, Dan. You’re just a shill for the tobacco companies, whether you admit it or not. 42 posts on this topic, and you have 18. Nice job. But you know what? It’s not working. People see the light. Smokers and their misguided Libertarian brethren continue to rehash the same tired arguments and slogans, hoping against hope that somehow, some way, our society will regress back to the “good old days”, when smokers could smoke wherever, whenever. Not gonna happen. Just step outside, you’ll get used to it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
14
I’m a shill for tobacco companies now? I’m no fan of tobacco companies. They’ve screwed their customers every which way. They’re almost as corrupt as the anti-smoker special interest groups. So no, I’m no shill. Just a guy with a functioning brain who doesn’t believe everything he’s told by extremists and activists with a political agenda and a lot of money to make.
Now do you care to answer the question? How much government regulation will you tolerate? How far will you let the special interest groups and trial lawyers go? Which segment of society should be next? Fat people? That one’s already started. Any other groups?
Like or Dislike:
12 
10
So your argument against smoking bans is based on what “might” happen to fat people or others in our society? That is ridiculous, but it’s yet another smoke-screen that smokers constantly bring up. Fat people don’t poison the air in places that are open to the public. Give it up, Dan. It’s clear that your tired old arguments are not working. Welcome to the 21st Century, Wisconsin!
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
Yes, Bob, that’s one of my arguments. And it’s only ridiculous to people like you who think special interest groups who stand to make millions of dollars lobbying for more government regulation would never target a specific group of consumers or a specific kind of product to go after next like they’ve done with smokers and the tobacco industry. You can’t possibly be that naive.
And you still haven’t answered the questions.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
14
Because the food prep area is regulated as it should be.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
@DanH, I’m glad you think that the food prep area should be regulated but the quality of the air we breathe shouldn’t be. You’re self-contradicting your argument about gov’t staying out of your business.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
Try paying attention, Josiah. The food preparation and storage areas are regulated because you as a consumer have no access or control to those areas. You do, however, know immediately upon entering whether an establishment allows smoking. That’s the difference. I realize that’s way too simple, but the truth usually is.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
15
I understand you’ve clearly made absolutely no effort to educate yourself about the many issues surrounding this whole anti-smoker witchhunt, but I’ll keep trying to help you. I realize you don’t want to admit that maybe you’ve been lied to and deceived by special interest groups and that there might really be two sides to the issue. But it’s true.
I suppose it would shock you to learn that the air quality on commercial airliners is worse now than it was when airlines allowed smoking. The reason is they don’t filter the air as often anymore because it saves money. When they banned smoking, they started just recirculating all the nasty air from you squeaky clean non-smokers so we all have to breathe it. So yes, I’d love it if airlines allowed smoking again. You should, too.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
What we need here is some cold, hard facts with citations to legitimate sources (NIH, CDC, WebMD, Canadian Health Service, NYTimes, and the Surgeon General)!
The NYTimes interviewed doctors who did a study which showed that the smoking bans in bars and restaurants prevented many heart attacks… http://nyti.ms/3TZljn
Secondhand smoke causes asthma and allergies and SIDS in children…. http://bit.ly/8ZsNrS http://bit.ly/dfVOLx
According to President George W Bush’s Surgeon General, “secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 202,300 asthma episodes and 790,000 doctor appointments for U.S. children with ear infections annually.” http://bit.ly/cjvCgh http://bit.ly/7qVKWw and http://bit.ly/aU8txF
According to the CDC, “secondhand smoke contains at least 250 known toxic chemicals, including more than 50 that can cause cancer. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and a number of health conditions, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and respiratory infections, in children.
More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke”…. http://bit.ly/dxIm1X
Secondhand smoke disrupts hormones and can contribute to mental disorders. “According to researchers at University College London, people exposed to large amounts of secondhand smoke — which is already linked to asthma, Sudden Infant Death Sydrome, and other conditions — are far more likely to develop psychiatric problems than those who live relatively smoke-free.” http://bit.ly/dq66j6
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
Do you really want me to post pages and pages of information refuting every one of those claims? They’ve all been debunked long ago.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
@DanH Yes I would really like you to post pages that debunk those claims, because the only ones you’ll find are The Onion and the National Enquirer.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
WTG Wisconsin! Looking forward to the day when the other 22 states do the same thing!
Like or Dislike:
10 
16
Just saw your reply Dan and “with all due respect” whoever bore you, “ought to be ashamed of themselves.”
Like or Dislike:
7 
15
I guess if you have nothing of substance to offer, a personal attack on my parents always works. Wow.
Like or Dislike:
13 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
15
If you dont like bars with smoking then dont go there
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
17
So what kept you going back time after time, year after year, before the smoking ban? Was the smoke still evil and malicious then or wasn’t it a big deal until anti-smoker special interest groups told you it was?
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
DanH. Please do cite pages and pages of reputable research to back your claims. You say you can cite some, so cite something please.
My citations (above) are from up-to-date science that are supported by the most reputable sources (CDC, NIH, ACS, NCI, JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, etc.).
According to the science journal Nature (arguable the most prestigious science journal in the world), smokers have a “20× greater risk of developing lung cancer than non-smokers.” http://bit.ly/bI2zC1 I consider this a good source of information, and it is from a 2010 article.
Dan, where are your citations? Please give us a link to some credible sources of information.
Like or Dislike:
8 
11
Since everybody, including you, faces a lifetime risk of about 1% of contracting lung cancer, a 20% increase would jack that all the way up to 1.2% for smokers. That means smokers have a 98.8% risk of not contracting lung cancer. Considering the many, many things in this world that could kill me, I like those odds.
Like or Dislike:
12 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
17
I’m disabled. I can’t run.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
In actuality the risk of heart disease or stroke from smoking are much higher than 20%. Heart disease is even a higher risk than cancer it turns out. Also lung cancer is not the only cancer that smoking can cause. I’m glad you’re happy with those odds Dan. Personally it doesn’t make much sense to me to increase the risk of stroke,heart disease or cancer. You must have plenty of money to burn also. My brother in law spends at least $2000 and possibly $3000 a year on his smoking habit. Man I’ve got a lot better things to spend my money on. Brother in law coughs and wheezes from all the smoking. Yeah that’s my idea of fun :{ Then just being a social pariah isn’t all that great either. So all you smokers give me all the “thumbs down” you want. That’s not going to hurt me. But smoking is going to hurt you whether you want to live in a state of denial or not.
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
You’re almost getting it, Wes, but I’ll get you closer to crossing the line so we don’t have to go around and around all day long:
Tobacco products are a legal commodity for adults to purchase and consume. If I choose to be a consumer of tobacco products, that’s my choice. Same goes for alcohol. I choose not to consume alcohol, but I wouldn’t presume to tell others that they can’t.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
Tobacco products are legal to consume EXCEPT in places where the law prohibits smoking. Here’s a thought Dan. Why not quit and be a humanitarian by donating the money you are current wasting by giving it to a worthwhile charity?
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
I will if you quit drinking and donate all the money you waste on alcohol by giving it to victims of drunk drivers.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
That’s a deal Dan but I don’t spend very much on alcohol. Still we can do ourselves good and those who are less fortunate good.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
@DanH I’m starting to think the attack on your parents may have been warranted.
At first I thought it was inappropriate.
But now I’m not so sure.
Like or Dislike:
6 
13
DanH. It is NOT a 20% increase in lung cancer risk, but a 20x (20 TIMES) increase. That is a 2000% increase. So if nonsmokers had a 1% risk, smokers wold have a 20% risk of lung cancer.
Moreover, a smoker is much more likely to die from emphysema/COPD, heart disease/stroke, or some other form of cancer as a result of smoking than lung cancer.
At work, smokers are absent from work 6.5 more days per year than non-smokers. Approximately 8 percent of a smoker’s working hours are spent on smoking rituals. Smoking can cost employers over $10,000 annually per smoker due to: Higher absenteeism, Lost productivity, Higher medical care costs, and Harmful effect of secondary smoke on non-smoking workers. http://bit.ly/cDyQwt
The NYTimes reports a 2008 JAMA study that says “Our findings indicate that 64 percent of deaths in current smokers and 28 percent of deaths in past smokers are attributable to smoking,†Stacey A. Kenfield of the Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues wrote in the report. http://nyti.ms/9jFBzT
Smokers die an average of 15 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the ACS. http://bit.ly/KfSwi
And tobacco use costs the global economy $500 billion a year in direct medical expenses, lost productivity and environmental harm, according to the ACS. http://bit.ly/KfSwi
I don’t like those odds at all.
I’d rather live 15 years longer, be sick a lot less throughout life, and not be such a financial burden on my workplace and society.
Plus, I’d hate to cause child SIDS deaths, child ear infections, child colds, child pneumonia, child bronchitis, child asthma, AND slow growth of child lungs (according to Bush’s 2006 Surgeon General’s Report on secondhand smoke and child health http://bit.ly/NPbZq )
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
Thanks for those statistics Sam. I had been reading up on it a bit but you really helped to make it clear.
Like or Dislike:
5 
13
No, Sam, the original report you’re getting that from said an increased RISK of 20%. That puts the lifetime risk at 1.2% for smokers, like it or not.
I notice you didn’t mention the World Health Organization’s landmark study, at the time the largest ever done to date, that concluded that children of smokers faced a 20% LOWER risk of contracting lung cancer in adulthood than children of non-smokers. Any particular reason you excluded that one?
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
No, DanH, the Nature journal article says (and I quote) “With 20x greater risk of developing lung cancer than non-smokers and increased risk of many other tumour types, a smoker’s lifestyle choice represents the most significant carcinogenic exposure confronting health services today. ” That is 20 TIMES, not 20%. (It is in the 2nd sentence of the article after the abstract… http://bit.ly/bI2zC1 )
And the children and people who live with smokers have DOUBLE the risk of cancer and lung caner, according to studies from the Yale University School of Medicine and others. http://bit.ly/a3xJeR and http://nyti.ms/cgspDm
You misread the World Health Organization (WHO) study, which shows a huge INCREASE in lung cancer rates of exposed children. See the “2009 WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic” here…. http://bit.ly/bUpgCi
Please give a LINK to the study you mention. But it looks like the actual WHO says just the opposite of what you said.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Now you’re just arguing semantics. Describe the increased risk as “20 times” or “20 percent,” it’s the same thing. If they’re really saying the risk is 2000% greater, they’re the only organization on the planet to ever make that claim.
The WHO report you cite is only a summary of their global anti-smoker crusade (oops…sorry, now it’s an “epidemic.”) It isn’t a study. The original WHO study on secondhand smoke was done over seven years in seven countries, but unfortunately for them it yielded unexpected results. In fact, the only statistically significant finding was that children raised in homes where at least one parent was a smoker faced a 22% lower risk of lung cancer. So the WHO quickly buried the study and they’ve been trying to explain it away ever since. If the British media hadn’t uncovered it, you’d never know about it.
We could go around and around with this stuff until our fingers fall off. For every study or claim you find, I can find one that directly contradicts it. It gets into things like the shortcomings of epidemiology and other things that nobody else wants to hear about if you really want to drag this out.
Let me ask you something. Would you even consider the possibility that any of the claims made about secondhand smoke might be just a little bit exaggerated?
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
DanH,
It is NOT just semantics. 20% is NOT mathematically the same as 20x (20 times).
20 times 100 (20×100) = 2000.
20% times 100 (0.2×100) = 20
A 20% increase from 100 is 120.
A 20x increase (from 100%) is 2000%
So, according to the journal Nature, smoking leads to a 20 times (2000%) increased risk for lung cancer. http://bit.ly/bI2zC1
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
My buddy Leo once reminded me to never argue with a fool or a drunk.
@Sam, this guy likely falls into the former as he seems to be spelling and typing sufficiently, despite the fact that he’s not making any sense.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
You know, Josiah, I appreciate what Sam’s doing even if I might not agree with his conclusions. But he’s making an effort to be informed and educated before he comments. On the other hand, when it comes to smoking ban debates, people like you are a dime a dozen, as is abundantly evident in this thread.
I appreciate what Sam’s doing and encourage anyone else to at least look around and look at the other side of the debate rather than just the one the media has reported. There really are two sides to everything you think you know about it.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
@DanH, I appreciate what @Sam is doing too. I was referencing you to him in my comments, not the other way around.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
Plus, according to Dr. Kristan Augustin, cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 80% of lung cancers, and secondhand smoke is responsible for 25% of lung cancers in nonsmokers.
And she adds that a smoker has a 15-20x (1500-2000%) increased risk of lung cancer versus nonsmokers. http://bit.ly/bLLLAH
And PLEASE LINK to your WHO study. I’d love to see it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
I’ll save you some time and post the entire summary (written by them, not me):
ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96).
The odds rato for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93–1.44). No clear dose–response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The odds ratio for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94–1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure.
No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for
squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure.
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
Well, okay, but you’re not going to like it: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/19/1440.pdf
And so far you’re only linking to news reports about studies. Please link to the actual studies themselves.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Dan,
You keep on asking for others to post links to articles on information related to the scientific conclusion that smoking causes cancer, however, you have yet to post any scientific article from a reputable source expounding the fact that smoking does not cause cancer. Others have posted many reputabe sources illustrating the fact that smoking can cause cancer. Other than the WHO article, where are your reputable sources. Also, to ask others to post the original studies is just not worth someone’s time or money. Many of these journals require subscriptions or a person to purchase the journal article. The reason that newspapers and organizations are good first hand references is the fact that they have the money and time to go over all of the research and come to a conclusion. However, a good article, which is free from the annals of oncology can be found here (it’s related to the EU) http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/7/973.long. It lists many other citations which support it’s claims.
I think your best argument so far is the fact that businesses should have the right to choose whether to be smoking or non-smoking. Obviously the state felt that they did not have this right.
My personal opinion is that smokers are a burden on society as are all people who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles. The fact is that health insurance companies, in order to make any money, spread the risk of these unhealthy individuals over their entire insurance subscribers. In which, the healthy individuals are paying for the poor choices of the few. It’s this egotistical idea that my actions and decisions only effect me is something that we as a society need to get over. If you live in a society, your actions, whether good or bad will have an effect on the whole. Why should I pay for your poor choices?
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Barry, I’ve never made the claim that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. I acknowledge that it does carry increased risk to the health of those who choose to smoke. That’s never been an issue with me.
You got my position correct in your second paragraph about whose choice it should be when considering smoking bans in privately owned businesses.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Dan–all of the studies in the world cannot replace the real life experiences of people who just at the end of the day do not want to have this crud blown into their face or the faces of their loved ones. The end.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
So you’re one of those people who don’t like facts to get in the way. That kind of sums up the problem in a nutshell even if you don’t understand why.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
14
Name a single fact that I’ve made up. And you’re saying the government should ban things based on whether you like the smell or not? Just when I thought your reasoning couldn’t get any more childish, you set the bar even lower.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
I can’t think of anything more childish than an adult pacifier called a cigarette. I can’t think of anything more childish or selfish than a full grown adult demanding to light up in a public setting so that others in poor health or watching children have to quickly exit the area so that you can exercise your rights to to poison yourself and the air around you…(which you do not own by the way).
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
I’ve never witnessed someone demanding to light a cigarette where it wasn’t allowed. I’ve never done it myself. And I haven’t seen anyone on this forum make that demand. You sure come up with some loony ideas.
And I’m still waiting for you to name a single fact that I’ve made up. Or have the guts to take back your ridiculous claim. But you won’t do either.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
so you’ve never lit up at a parade, or outside of the entrance to a place of business or other public building….I doubt it. What about in a restaurant? …and what ‘ridiculous claim’ do I have to take back? any scientific fact you think you have relayed here was probably made up by scientists hired by the cigarette industry when they were being roasted on an open pit bar-b-cue in court a few years back….psst, they lost.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
No, I’ve never lit a cigarette at a parade. No, I don’t stand outside the entrance to a business smoking. And no, I’ve never smoked in a restaurant. I suppose in your world it’s inconceivable that someone who chooses to smoke might also be courteous toward other people. That doesn’t happen in my world, but then I don’t judge people based on which legal products they choose to enjoy. I do judge them on the idiotic comments they make.
And your ridiculous claim was that I’ve made up facts. So name one. Pssst…you can’t.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Dan, well, if you have never lit up at a parade, etc. thank you. Very few smokers that I know are able to refrain from smoking outdoors in crowds….or from persecuting non-smokers in doorways.
As to your other insulting remarks–Dan I am trying to get off of this page but you keep coming up with something else just to try to engage (me or whoever) in a fight. I know smoking is wrong. I know smoking is bad for you and that it can kill you. That is not even up for debate. Science has already proven this, in court and otherwise. There is nothing I can add to their scientific research, other than you can spend your time reading the zillions of pages available on this topic if you like. I am satisfied with their conclusions, and I am satisfied with hearing of the unfortunate and tragic accounts of people dying in hospital beds from lung cancer–to help me conclude that it can kill you. I have known some of these people personally, and it was just nothing short of a waste of a gift of otherwise good health.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
I’m trying to conclude this particular discussion that YOU brought up, accusing me of using “made up facts.” You have yet to name a single one. So either name one or stop whining about being held accountable for your own words.
And it’s crystal clear to me that not only do you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, but you don’t even know what the rest of us are talking about. Who said smoking didn’t present a health risk to smokers? I agree with that 100%. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SMOKING BANS, not the merits of smoking. I’d ask you to stay on topic, but first you have to GET on topic.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Because there are no merits to smoking–smoking should be banned–everywhere–and you sir are exhibit A for the argument–look at the hostility and hassle it has cost you to be the only poster on this entire page standing up for the rights to do something that the rest of the thinking world (finally) wants banned. It’s one thing to stand up for something that is true, good and correct–it is another thing entirely to stand up for something that is wrong and harmful….
it is time wasted…. and any of the “facts” you relayed which would give the reader the illusion that smoking is not harmful to humans is bogus–pick and choose ANY of your erroneous statements here–which would be all of them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
I’ve never argued for the “right” to smoke. Tobacco products are legal for adults to purchase and consume if they so choose. No rights necessary and none asked for. I’ve also never said smoking wasn’t harmful. It does carry an increased health risk, something we’ve known since the early 1960s. But again, and I realize this is clearly far beyond your comprehension, we’re not even talking about that. Why not comment on the merits of needlepoint next? It would be just as relevant.
Do you make a habit of pretending someone said something just so you can argue against it? Are you that hard up for conversation?
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
I certainly wouldn’t argue for the banning of smoking.
NB – are you saying it should be criminalized (banned everywhere) or just banned in indoor office buildings and restaurants?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Okay, this is going to make me dizzy but I’m giving Jack a thumbs up for that one.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Oh, and Jack, it might interest you to know that the North Dakota state legislature tried several years ago to ban the sale and consumption of tobacco products statewide. Guess who fought against it? The anti-smoker groups. Why? Because there’s big money at stake and without any smokers, they’d be out of a job. People actually make a career out of this stuff. The anti-tobacco industry is big and just as corrupt as the tobacco industry ever was.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Despite seemingly polar viewpoints on this, Dan, I’ve given you probably a half dozen thumbs-up in this conversation when I felt you made your point tactfully.
I respect and support your right to smoke, and to be fair, I want the right to smoke if I choose to, even though I won’t anymore. I think we should all be the ones to make that decision for ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
But there you go again. This isn’t about anybody’s “right” to smoke. Tobacco products are legal for adults to purchase and consume. It’s not a constitutional issue.
This is about the rights of a property owner to set his or her own smoking policy in their privately owned business. Since it’s their money on the line and their livelihood at stake, and considering they’re providing jobs and providing goods and services and paying a bunch of taxes, I say let them make their own decision. If the market doesn’t support their decision, they’ll change or go out of business. Just like it always was until the anti-smokers came along.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Yes, I understand that. I was more commenting further on NB’s assertion that it should be illegal everywhere.
Why indeed did business owners not go non-smoking by their own accord? I don’t have an answer for you that you’ll accept. That much I I’ll wager, but I’ll try anyway.
They weren’t forced to, because non-smokers weren’t willing to stop patronizing establishments that allowed it, in order to flex their consumer muscle.
Smokers ARE willing to not spend their money at places that have a forced smoking ban now, because (generalization coming) smokers can’t handle NOT smoking for very long, typically.
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
So you are admitting that this was never really that big a deal to non-smoking consumers after all?
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
can’t you two get the heck off of this page? it is getting too hard to even read this thing or find the right reply button…
Jack–the fish aren’t biting today–they are out burning expensive lingerie…(insert rolling eyes)
but just for the record I do think smoking should be banned in EVERY indoor space that the public could potentially be exposed to. I also think it should be banned in vehicles transporting children under the age of 18. Smokers can smoke inside their own house–and at the edge of a cliff somewhere (as long as they don’t distainfully flick their cigarette butt off the edge of the cliff and litter.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10
Then give us your definition of the word “public.” It was already banned in places like government buildings and other places owned by the government. Those are public places. And since the public is compelled from time to time to conduct business in those places, I had no problem at all with banning smoking there. I realize you won’t be able to grasp this, but that’s the difference here. The public is not compelled to eat out or go to a bar. That’s a choice they make. They always had options.
I suppose you’re implying that smoking in a car with children is child abuse, right? That’s the usual next step in the conversation for people like you. So just to carry this forward and avoid days and days of irrelevant posts by you, let me ask you this: what should be done to parents who bring their families to restaurants that allow smoking? Is that child abuse, too? Did your parents ever bring you to a restaurant that allowed smoking? Would that make your parents child abusers? How about you? Have you ever brought your children to a restaurant that allowed smoking? If so, are you guilty of child abuse?
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
DanH,
1. You said your WHO study showed a 20% DECREASE in lung cancer rates. That is not supported by the WHO study you link. They cite no such decrease.
2. The study you linked simply says that if someone is temporarily exposed to ETS at a young age and then not exposed to ETS for a long time, there is no increase in lung caner risk. This is exactly what we should expect. Studies also show that actual smokers who quit and are not exposed to smoke for a long time get to near a nonsmoker’s risk of lung cancer. The body heals itself over time. But there are OTHER medical problems that occur with short-term exposure, and longer-term exposure can DOUBLE the risk to children for developing lung cancer.
The study I cited on lung cancer looks at longer-term childhood exposure cases than your study. The other study I cited on shorter-term childhood exposure did not cite a lung cancer increase, but did find increases in other health problems for the children. That study found that “children of smokers had decreased lung ability when tested against children of nonsmokers…. Up to this point, children of smokers have been shown to have a higher risk of sudden infant death, more severe asthma, and more pneumonia and episodes of bronchitis, but there have been no studies looking at the lung function of these children.” http://bit.ly/a3xJeR
The other study, by Yale physician Dr. Luis R. Varela, on longer-term childhood exposure “found that the risk of lung cancer was about double the usual one for nonsmokers…. The estimate from the study suggests that 1,700 cases of lung cancer each year result from childhood exposure to secondhand smoke, according to figures from the E.P.A. The agency said that of the 150,000 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed each year, about 25,000 involve people who are not currently smokers and about 10,000 who never smoked. The researchers found that [long-term] household exposure of 25 or more smoker years during childhood and adolescence DOUBLED the risk of lung cancer.” http://nyti.ms/cgspDm
So it is apples and oranges. The study I cited was about heavier, longer-term secondhand smoke exposure than yours, and mine showed a DOUBLING of the risk of lung cancer for exposed children.
I am perfectly happy with your study, which doesn’t contradict anything I have said, linked, or cited.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Again, you’re citing media reports of other people’s analysis of studies. I’d like to see the actual studies.
You’re correct in that the WHO study I cited doesn’t demonstrate a 20% decrease in the risk of lung cancer in children raised in homes of smokers. The decrease is actually 22%. If you really want to get into it, it goes like this:
The relative risk for those children was 0.78 with a confidence interval of .64 to .96. A confidence interval of 1.0 is when no effect is measured. In any legitimate scientific setting, a confidence interval of less than 2.0 is considered statistically insignificant. A confidence level of 3.0 or more is preferred before a claim of an effect is made. So, since a confidence interval of 1.0 is sort of the “zero point” if you will, the point at which no effect is shown, anything less than that shows a DECREASE in the relative risk. And the WHO study showed exactly that, a 22% decrease. I’m not making the numbers up. Read them again. And it was the ONLY statistically significant finding in the entire study.
Read some about children and their immune systems, too, and how immune systems develop normally. Read about what happens to children when you raise them in an artificially sterile environment.
And before you cite anything from the EPA regarding secondhand smoke from the early 90s, understand that their own landmark “study” was uniformly rejected because the agency published its results BEFORE they’d actually conducted the study. How’s that for a sound, legitimate, unbiased piece of work? It didn’t stop anti-smoker special interest groups from quoting it like the Bible, but they didn’t do that for long.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
Is there a decrease in lung capacity and performance from smoking?
I know smoking destroys runners because they can’t breathe as well as non-smokers can.
That doesn’t bother you? It sure bothers me. During my 10 years of smoking, I couldn’t breathe as well as I can now that I’ve quit for almost 3 years. Or is it 4. I really can’t remember anymore.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11
If someone chooses to smoke and accepts the increased health risks, no, that doesn’t bother me. It’s none of my business. If they choose to take up running as a pasttime and continue smoking, I’m not sure they’re working with a full deck.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
No, I’m asking if YOU don’t mind having diminished lung capacity and a chronic cough.
Like or Dislike:
2 
11
DanH,
1. You misunderstand what a Confidence Interval (CI) is. You say “A confidence interval of 1.0 is when no effect is measured. In any legitimate scientific setting, a confidence interval of less than 2.0 is considered statistically insignificant.” But a CI can be a range of just about any numbers. A 95% CI interval is just the range/interval of numbers that you are 95% confident captures the truth via the statistical method. So, for example, I might be 95% confident that there are between 80-120 people in a room given a statistical analysis. The CI would then be 80-120.
2. You seem to be implying that citing the secondary literature in the New York Times, the EPA, WebMD, the Surgeon General, the Mayo Clinic, NIH, NCI, CDC, etc., is bad form for this forum. Above, I cite a mixture of primary and secondary literature, and the secondary literature gives the citation for the primary research so anyone can look it up in their local library. This is a fine way to cite information for public debate.
3. It is true that children need to be exposed to various bacteria, fungi, and viruses to develop a healthy immune system. It is not therefore true, as you suggest, that they need to be exposed to secondhand smoke to develop a healthy immune system.
4. The research you cite for a “22% reduction in lung cancer risk” is a survey. Those filling out the survey are trying to remember how much secondhand smoke they are exposed to as a child and report it. I’m not sure I could do that to any level of precision, and the authors note this limitation. Also, the authors note (near the end of the article) a number of other limitations with their study, including that the survey was not consistent across countries and used different language in different countries. The authors do not argue that secondhand smoke has a protective effect, since their methods do not support this claim. Also, even smokers who quit eventually go to a near zero increase for lung cancer risk. So we would not expect to see a higher lung cancer risk for someone who was long-ago exposed to secondhand smoke. Your study is unsurprising.
5. Lung cancer rates is not the best measure of the harm of secondhand smoke to children. Other problems are far more common in exposed children, such as increased rate of cold and flu, ear infections, allergies, asthma, decreased lung development, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). See the Surgeon General’s site… http://bit.ly/aebzKr
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Carmona was already a diehard rabid anti-smoker activist before his political appointment to be Surgeon General, which didn’t last long, and he wanted the job to use as a bully pulpit. People give a little too much credence to the divine pronouncements from that office. Remember Clinton’s Surgeon General who wanted to mandate that grade school children be taught masturbation? That’s just an extreme example, of course, but you get my point. It’s a golden opportunity for nutjobs like Carmona to play god for a little while.
I’m not going to keep nitpicking the WHO report because I (and most who’ve seen it) disagree with your conclusions. We both believe we’re right. Now I hope you’ll keep reading and look at information that doesn’t agree with everything you’ve been told by anti-smoker special interest groups. I’m not trying to change your mind and I’m not trying to say “nya nya, I’m right and you’re wrong” unlike some people here.
In all seriousness, would you accept the possibility that the anti-smoker special interest groups and extremists might have exaggerated the claims they made even a little bit? There’s no question they had a political agenda and no question that they’ve been fed untold millions to lobby for things like smoking bans. So their alterior motives are clear. Do you think it’s even possible it might’ve skewed the debate to one side? Or do you believe everything you’ve been told and believe those groups would never intentionally deceive you?
And I gave you a thumbs up because I appreciate the effort you’re making to at least defend your position with facts rather than snide remarks and hysterical claims.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
And we can continue this later if you’d like, but right now I’m going to go ride my motorcycle on this gorgeous day even though that activity includes some risk to my health. I might even stop along the way for a late lunch and a cigarette.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
15
Excuse me Dan for being interested. I’m trying to put all this together. You say you are disabled? You say you were a Marine. Is your disability service connected? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. I just find it interesting that a disabled person has no problem going out for a motorcyle ride. That’s all.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
Hey DanH! I like to motorcycle too! We’ve found our common ground. Let’s quit while we’re ahead.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
I too have a motorcycle, and it is great. Some risks are worth the benefits. Enjoy!
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Since everyone can agree that smoking is a nasty habit…does that apply to weed too?
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Rieka, Yes, the Wisconsin restaurant smoking ban also applies to pot.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
So, I take it they won’t be putting in a Cannabis Cafe anytime soon.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
146 comments, and I haven’t seen anything about how the smoking ban will affect the establishments, expecially the smaller “mom and pop” places.
In the first year MN’s smoking ban was in effect, quite a few of the smaller, (and some of the larger) bars went under. Coffeehouses suffered, as well.
Some of the ‘old bar crowd’ went as far as to build BYOB bars in basements and garages, rather than pay $3 to $4 for a beer that they have to ‘enjoy’ in a snowbank while being harassed by non-smokers.
Don’t forget, smokers are the only group that are politically correct to put down…
Like or Dislike:
9 
13
Being that smoking is not illegal it seems logical that some establishments ought to be able to allow smoking only if they choose and non-smokers can stay away. It is no different than stopping drinking in all eating places because it is not healthy and they might hit somebody on the road. Unless smoking is totally illegal there should be places where people can eat, drink and smoke if they choose and nobody else has to walk through the door or work there if they feel it will harm them.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
11
More than 400, Jack. Do you really want a list? You won’t read it, but here’s one:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
And I see ClearWay, formerly known as MPAAT (Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco) and Minnesota’s largest anti-smoking group–they changed their name because the MPAAT name carried too much scandal and corruption with it–is back pedaling an old study that says there hasn’t been any financial impact on bars in Minnesota since the statewide smoking ban took effect. What they don’t mention is the study was done BEFORE THE BAN EVEN TOOK EFFECT. This is the kind of deception some of you just don’t want to admit you’ve been subjected to. They lie to you right in the face and you still take it as the gospel truth.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
I haven’t been subjected to any deception. You keep claiming that I have been, but that is just you lying again and again and again about you knowing who thinks what and why.
You don’t.
I decided all on my own how disgusting cigarettes and smoking are. Nobody had to fight to convince me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
Voters in state after state are making their wishes known. People are fed up with having to breath second hand smoke and are voting accordingly. Look for more states all the time to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. So the smokers can complain about it to their hearts content. The majority rules and in most cases the majority has ruled against having to suffer the ill effects of second hand smoke.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Well said–wes–I was going to rebut Dan’s further insulting remarks to me–but instead will just enjoy your well written statement instead…and go and enjoy my afternoon…have a good day wes…
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
So, wes, tell me again what kept you going back time after time, year after year, to bars and restaurants whose atmosphere you believed was killing you? Why would you even go inside a place like that? And maybe more importantly, how did you manage to survive? I guess the only conclusion anyone could reach is that you were just too weak to stop yourself from putting your own life at risk and that’s why you needed government intervention to save you from your own poor decisions. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
That’s right. That’s why we have President Obama.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
13
Wrong. Again. Studies consistently show that smoking bans have a huge financial impact on bars and restaurants, especially the smaller mom-and-pop places.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Such as? Why don’t you cite one of these “studies”.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Okay. Here’s one from the Tavern League of Wisconsin since we’re discussing Wisconsin’s new smoking ban.
http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/Economic_Impacts.pdf
And yes, you’ll find studies that show just the opposite by anti-smoking groups. You won’t believe anything I post, but you asked for it and you got it. Do what you want with it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
well, technically individual voters had nothing to do with it, it was government legislators that voted, not the people. There were no referendums that I know of where the people cast their ballot regarding the specific issue.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Buzz B I said I wasn’t going to comment again but a smoking ban is on South Dakota’s ballot for this november. Governor Rounds had already signed a statewide smoking ban but the smoker’s rights people managed to get the law thrown out. I have every expectation the voters will favor the smoking ban.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Actually when I go to a bar I most often go to eat. I more often have a Dr.Pepper when I go there than a drink. I like going to the bars in Minnesota a lot more now that they have gone smoke free. I didn’t go to those bars much when they allowed smoking.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
And yet you’ve survived all these years of eating and/or drinking in bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. You haven’t explained why you kept going back into what you believed was a toxic environment. Just trying to understand the logic in that.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
I’m pretty much done with commenting on this article too Dan. I can see nothing will convince you and you are entitled to your opinion. Regardless change is coming and I guess you are just going to have to adapt.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
I’m already convinced, Wes. I know you’ve been lied to and deliberately deceived by special interest groups who made an enormous amount of money doing it. It takes very little effort to find the truth. I would think people who so strongly defend something would want as much information as possible before making up their minds, but the vast majority of comments here defending smoking bans only demonstrate exactly the opposite.
And there’s zero for me to adapt to. Again, I don’t smoke in restaurants and I don’t go to bars, so smoking bans have no effect on me whatsoever. It’s never been about that for me.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
On the Iron Range in Minnesota the smoking ban was a very hotly contested issue, just as it evidently is for Wisconsin. My casual observations are that Range bars are as crowded now as they were before the smoking ban. I’m not a rabid anti-smoking fanatic, and I used to enjoy going out even with the second-hand smoke. I just happen to like it a lot more now without it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Good thing your “observations” are casual, gopher. The range bars took it in the neck until the nonsmokers began to show up, didn’t they?
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Yes, big tobacco (RJR, Phillip Morris, etc.) has been one of the most well-funded, successful special interests in American history. Tobacco avoided significant regulation for decades, and was less regulated than food or drugs in the U.S. Tobacco companies could even keep their ingredients a secret from consumers (something food companies could not do). Big tobacco spent far more money on lobbying efforts than their opponents, and more than most any other special interests over the last hundred years.
History of Big Tobacco Lobbying from CNN: http://bit.ly/187ywv
Recent Big Tobacco Lobbying Spending: http://bit.ly/7VY2Jq and http://bit.ly/bXBOzb
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Sam, I found some interesting information. Reading the links you cite, they say the tobacco industry spent roughly $92 million in 2007 for lobbying efforts. Meanwhile, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation alone spent $87.4 million in grants to anti-smoking groups for lobbying efforts. That’s just one foundation. That number doesn’t even take into account proceeds from the $246 billion multistate settlement of a lawsuit against the tobacco industry, money that’s funneled to anti-smoking groups every year. Add in donations from private donors and corporations and every other source of income that the anti-smoker industry has and we’re talking a massive amount of money.
So no, it would appear it’s the anti-tobacco industry who’s spending far more on lobbying than the tobacco industry.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Thanks again, Sam, for bringing information to the table. I don’t have to agree with it to appreciate the effort.
Now to balance your comments so nobody accuses you of bias, let’s see a breakdown of the funding for the anti-tobacco industry. You could start with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They’re the pharmaceutical giants who make nicotine gum, nicotine patches and that sort of thing. You know, the stuff they’d rather have people buying than cigarettes. RWJF is responsible for the vast majority of funding for the anti-tobacco industry. (But in some bad news for anti-smoker freaks, RWJF says they’re about done funding anti-smoking stuff and will now be throwing their money at fat people. Yes they did. And don’t say you weren’t warned.) There’s also billions from lawsuits against the tobacco industry. That money is going toward lobbying. So let’s be fair and show the funding on both sides.
Let’s also see the numbers for how much money is generated in taxes every year by those purchasing tobacco products. Since some of you want tobacco banned altogether, this is the amount of money YOU’D have to come up with to replace all the things that smokers are paying for that you currently enjoy for free.
You know, this is stuff the media could have and should have been doing all along, but they were just too lazy to do the work. It’s a shame that their readers have to do their work for them.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4