City seeks lake breeze sans smoke
August 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
A new ban on tobacco and the smoking of products like synthetic marijuana on Duluth’s Lakewalk and adjacent parks is making its way through the City Council.
Continue Reading
REALLY????? Last time I checked, the lake walk was OUTDOORS!!! What’s next, a persons own home, that THEY are paying for!!! You got all the smokers out doors now, and this is the BIGGEST, most pressing issue you can sit and spin on now, really?? This board is truly pathetic and SICK!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
96 
52
How about banning city councilors from the Lakewalk?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
107 
37
Advertise to the tourists that Duluth is smoke free. Let them know ahead of time they will pay a hefty fine if they light up within the city limits.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
28
The ban would include chewing tobacco, can’t even spit on a cup….but go ahead and bring the dog to the park to relieve itself in the grass…..makes sense.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
87 
27
Stay off the grass. No ball playing. No swimming. No running No jumping NO SMOKING.
Remember, This is YOUR park.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
94 
24
Lets ban ugly people too, they distract from the beauty of the walk. Give it a break.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
83 
25
Mark, if they’re a tourist with money ugly won’t matter.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
Those who use illegal substances do so regardless of silly laws like this one. With the lake wind blowing, who would be affected by a cigarette? This is really getting way too carried away! Find another pet project to bug people about—taking up 2 parking spaces, “raw” language, baggy pants, etc. Enough already. Let all the people enjoy our parks!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
82 
24
I love how the city councel thinks. Let’s make it illegal to use illegal substances.
Then let’s put legal tobacco smokers on double secret probation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
8
I don’t smoke. It’s a disgusting habit. But it’s LEGAL! And as long as it’s legal and being done outdoors, who are the nanny-statists on the city council to say otherwise. I’d be curious to compare the amount of “pollution” coming from one of Buehler’s trains to the amount of smoke generated by cigarette smokers along that same path.
Legal smokers are adults, and as such are wholly within their right to poison themselves with a legal product. If we as a society want to sanction smoking, start by limiting health care coverage for smokers and smoking related claims. People will stop smoking when it hits them in the pocket book, but again, as adults, that’s their choice to make, not the city couincil’s. We tried banning another product that was legal, and look what the Volstead Act produced.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
71 
16
I can see banning cigs in public buildings and such, but the government doesn’t own the air we breath…Who votes for these city counselors? Change the way you vote people!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
76 
21
Ok, don’t get me wrong, I hate the smoking nazi tactics, but REALLY?
“Smoking a cigarette in this area is a form of prayer and spiritual connection,” she said. “If it were banned, that would limit where we are able to practice our spirituality in the community. That would include laying tobacco or smoking it. Not to say people don’t abuse it, but for the most part it’s supposed to be sacred.”
Really? I would love to see the odds that someone is smoking as a form of prayer vs. feeding addiction. And even IF someone is going there to have some tobacco and pray, pretty sure there’s quite a bit of shoreline that this doesn’t cover.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
16
I’ve long said if government is going to overreach, I’d like them to overreach by restricting the behavior of stupid people, so go ahead with your no smoking and chewing laws. Meantime, forget all about trying to build a halfway decent infrastructure in this city so we can get from A to B without spazzing out.
If you don’t like your elected officials wasting their time, don’t be such a liberal, and don’t vote for radicals.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
25
Hey, I’d prefer a cigarette smoke-free world, but this is ridiculous. The government gets its fingers in too much of our lives already. Tired of the same-old thing every election? I wonder if you agree with the view expressed here:
http://www.lp.org/platform
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
19
It’s hard to find a better example of ignorant hypocrisy then can be found in the average anti-smoker. They usually can be found in homes with 2 fossil burning cars used to commute to work in. They use their cars for errands when they could walk. Use a gas lawnmower which pollutes more then a car. Use charcoal BBQ which is horrible pollutant and produces carcinogins and have at least a dozen aeresol can chemical household cleaners just under their kitchen sinks, waste electricity which here is produced by antiquated coal furnaces and use plastic bags at grocery store, get disposal everything they can, drink bottled water in plastic containers they throw away…then tell you with straight face…they’re against smoking because they care about pollution and our air quality.
There is even a perfect example in the story..~~>.”Kari Kelso of Moose Lake said she drives to Duluth to use the Lakewalk about three times a week with her border collie, Katie. She said she would support a ban on smoking on the Lakewalk for health reasons and a more pleasant atmosphere….. she said. “You just want to enjoy the ambience and you get a whiff of some kind of smoke. ……..Pollution is not the greatest thing.”
Dear Kari~ I care very much about pollution and hate to be one to break it to you, but the hole in ozone layer and our air borne particle pollution isn’t caused by second hand smoke, it’s caused by people that drive their fossil burning cars 100 miles to take their dog for a walk three times a week!! No, pollution isn’t great Kari…please stop doing it!
It’s a total illusion that we’re cleaning up anyone’s air quality with silly anti-smoking laws when we are surrounded by antiquated coal generation plants and driving cars hundreds of miles a week to go for a walk. SMH!
Then again, idiocy has clearly reached critical mass in this country.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
63 
24
Kind of ironic that you would rail against the waste of electricity, eh?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
You nipping at my heels gives me great opportunity to say…WB…and to say also that noticed you and at least three other folks that post here every day were all missing over the same week and a half and all showed back up on same day…I just thought how nice it must have been that you could all vacation together…and again, welcome back.
Oh, I got it 1978 and switched then from fossil fuel to renewable energy that figured then was enough savings to power a car for three of my lifetimes. I stopped commuting in car almost 25 years ago and my business which is consulting to energy conservation industry essentially, would have a completely nonexistant carbon footprint if we weren’t using coal to generate electricity here. Most of my shopping am able to do by walking and only averaged about 3,000 miles a year on car for over 15 years. A computer uses less energy then a light bulb Hugh…and my electric bill only about 20 a month because rarely have a light on…but how nice to have you back nipping at my heels and please give my best to the gang for me…
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
14
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but your post sounds rather self serving and self righteous. As in, “look at me! my carbon footprint is smaller than yours!”.
Like or Dislike:
16 
9
Actually it wasn’t self serving as much as making you look yet again foolish for your little ankle biting comments. The true irony is that while I have been addressing my carbon footprint and pollution for over 35 years everyone else is patting themselves on back for banning smoking in bars they drive their big SUV’s too while thinking they’ve cleaned up our air quality.
To your following nonsense~~> I see you get the intent of Plato’s quote…now if only you could grasp the concept, it’s painfully obvious you don’t. Your pills roll off the table again today?
A laptop uses less then 45 watts which of course includes monitor, and are rated at 15-45 watts hence my comment and mine hibernates if not in use for 5 minutes and is completely shut off whenever step away from desk…but of course….you just had to say something….to nip at my heals…
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something” Plato
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
“A computer uses less energy then a light bulb ” Pardon me, but you are guilty of using your own fabricated factoids again. When will you stop stretching the truth? At a minimum, computers use 65watts, more likely is that it’s closer to the 250-350 watt range if you have a more powerful machine. And your monitor, if it is a new energy star compliant version comes in between 35 and 80 watts, so your minimum energy use would be at least 100 watts and most likely over 300watts. That’s a pretty intense lightbulb for one as energy conscious as yourself. This leaves us with two options, A: you’re bad at math (bringing into question any of your “numbers), or, B: you struggle with the truth, bringing into question all of your claims. And to think that all of this came about by your own hand. The conservative movement doesn’t need me to advocate for them. They just need to listen to you support liberal causes.
It has been said that a wise man is willing to appear a fool while remaining silent, but the fool opens his mouth and dispels all doubt. Thanks for clearing things up for the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
“A wise man is willing to appear a fool while remaining silent, but the fool opens his mouth and dispels all doubt.”
The more I hear that quote, the more I question it’s value. How does the wise man know he is wise if he’s never forced to defend his beliefs? Living in silence for fear of looking like a fool is no way to go through life, son.
If you believe something that’s wrong, you’re never going to learn that it’s wrong if you refuse to talk about it.
Then again, some people hate being proven wrong. And in a real world conversation, you’ll never have to argue against information from hundreds of scientific studies by the most prestigious research institutions in the world.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
I believe that you’ve missed the point. The point isn’t about wise men remaining silent so much as it’s about fools demonstrating to the world that they’re fools by their inability to shut up. Joe Biden is a fine example of this description.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
Nothing you’ve said addresses anything I said. All you did was give me the simplest, most obvious interpretation of the quote.
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
If smokers took into account the possible medical sensitivities of others, and if the non-smoking nannies got off their high horses, there wouldn’t be a need for council action. Too many people feel it is their life’s calling to police the actions of others. If it’s legal, and isn’t hurting others, leave well enough alone. We’ve got bigger issues to solve without looking for fights over outdoor smoking. If the council is really bothered by smoking debris, let them start enforcing the litter laws. How many times have you seen some doorknob flip his/her cigarette butt out the car window? One would think that a car costing $20k would have an ashtray in it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
3
I’ve seen it as often as I’ve seen anybody else littering. And maybe if the city put some butt cans out so smokers had somewhere to put their cigarettes, since it was the city who demanded that they smoke outdoors, the “problem” (which I question) might not be so bad. For that matter, put more trash cans out so the other people who litter have somewhere to put their trash, too. If litter’s the issue, the solution is simple.
Like or Dislike:
21 
8
More trash cans means more government employees to empty said trash cans. Nobody is going to think that’s a worthy expense if the goal is simply to make life easier for smokers.
Also, it wouldn’t be effective. Take a look at any trash can or ash tray around the city, and you’ll see dozens of cigarette butts lying on the ground. There are so many smokers that can’t be bothered to use an ash tray even when they’re standing right next to one.
Banning smoking, on the other hand, brings in money. If we do it right, it’ll bring in TONS of cash from unsuspecting tourists who don’t know any better. With the facial recognition software on all of those cameras around town, we might even be able to automate the whole process. Cameras catch em in the act, run the picture through Facebook, and email them a ticket. What’re they gonna do? Pay a small (large?) fine, or take the day off work to fight it? And who’s gonna win their case when there’s video evidence of their guilt?
Yes sir, the future’s lookin mighty bright. I’m gonna go outside & have a cigarette while I still can.
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
29
My guess is that smokers also “can be found in homes with 2 fossil burning cars used to commute to work in. They use their cars for errands when they could walk. Use a gas lawnmower which pollutes more then a car. Use charcoal BBQ which is horrible pollutant and produces carcinogins and have at least a dozen aeresol can chemical household cleaners just under their kitchen sinks, waste electricity which here is produced by antiquated coal furnaces and use plastic bags at grocery store, get disposal everything they can, drink bottled water in plastic containers they throw away…”
I don’t think the real issue is “smokers vs. non-smokers.” Smokers have a right to smoke. Non-smokers have a right not to have to breathe in some else’s smoke. Its sad when the city council feels it has to legislate common decency among people. Apparently they think that such laws will make sure smokers keep their smoke to themselves. Too bad they have to step on the rights of one group (smokers) to support the rights of another group (people who don’t like to breathe other people’s smoke). But then again, maybe they’re right that humans are unable to monitor their own behavior and be respectful to others around them?
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
12
If smoking on the Lakewalk is important to you, let the City Council know. I’m a smoker, and I’m gonna sit this one out. I’m already banned from smoking in the bar and in my own home. What’s one more place?
I don’t know anyone who wants to go back to the days where every bar in town is filled with a haze of cigarette smoke after 10:00. Maybe people will appreciate a smoking ban on the Lakewalk just as much once it’s here.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
29
And when was the last time you found yourself in “a haze of cigarette smoke” while using the Lakewalk? Please.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
27
Vune, I think what you’re saying about letting the city council know how you feel is correct. I do think the council will pass it no matter what though. They(coucil) have to keep the only people they care about(tourists) to keep coming here. Anybody that smokes can use the lakewalk in the winter when it’s -20 and the tourists are gone. Remember, you just pay for Duluth but can’t use it.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Indoor smoking is a public health issue, outdoor smoking is an annoyance. People can move around to avoid exposure and the smoke quickly disperses in the open air.
The Council is demonizing a segment of the population who are doing nothing illegal and who pay taxes that maintain the parks. The self-righteous, overreaching, social engineering nanny Council members are more dangerous to our heath than the smokers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
15
That may be true, but it’s missing a point.
This isn’t about demonizing smokers. It’s about making life better for non-smokers. A lot of non-smokers HATE us. They hate our smell, they hate seeing our litter everywhere, and they’re willing to pass any kind of legislation to keep us away from them & their kids.
This is important to a lot of people. If it’s important to you, go to a City Council meeting and make yourself heard.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
14
Stauber tried this two years ago because he wanted to set a good example…wait for it…”for the children.” If he wants to open that box again, I can think of about 101 things that go on in public that are bad examples for children and he can start writing ordinances until his fingers fall off.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
7
I see no reason for the City Council to waste their time on this.
I loathe smoking, and I hate being exposed to it. But I have never walked down the lakewalk wishing people wouldn’t smoke on it.
Likely the motivation behind this is to limit the cigarette butts lying around on the ground. If that is the case, increase the fine for littering and enforce it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
4
I get that this is about the customers from LPOE that are smoking stuff no one likes but, as hard as Duluth is trying to make itself into a tourist destination, making public, open air spaces into non-smoking areas is probably not the right choice.
The smells from NewPage, WLSSD and city buses are a lot more obnoxious and longer lasting than a cigarette on the lakewalk.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
6
Do we then start shutting down our favorite ethnic restaurants because of the effect they have of air quality, 4 hours lapsed? Or maybe the council could mandate beano be served with every meal? Our Constitution guarantees us rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not anything about a right NOT to be offended by something/someone. Imagine if people started detailing to us every aspect of our individual lives that offends them. This is what is starting to happen in our culture. We’ve become a nation of whiners and cry babies. Maybe it’s time we got over ourselves and started thinking of others, first.
Like or Dislike:
12 
10
That’s a great point. If something doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, then it shouldn’t be illegal or restricted.
A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, and it’s worth repeating whenever it’s relevant.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
You took the words out my mouth, on this one. It is the duty, or obligation of the city councilors to delegate the issues of the city as a whole, ie. public safety, safe roads, infrastructure, etc. ,not to control the taxpaying citizens of this city and impose resrtrictions on one group to please their group of “good people” per say. You can impose your personal convictions on you own personal property, but public is just that, public… for everyone.
Like or Dislike:
17 
3
I’m actually agreeing with you on this one.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Personally, I hate walking down there and catching a whiff of someone’s cigarette…I was a smoker for 9 years and I may just be a bit more aware of how much of a nuisance it is to non-smokers…but your rights as a smoker infringe on the rights of non-smokers to breathe clean air at the tip of their nose.
That being said, its probably better off to stricly enforce littering ordinances to keep the walk clean, but we all know this is aimed at curtailing the smoking of synthetic pot down there.
What really caught me in this article was the women who speaks of her Anishinabe heritage and the sacred tobacco. Rolling tobacco up in paper and using it on a daily basis disrespects the sacred plant. She is obviously using that as a ploy to cover up her addiction.
Ritual would involve burning tobacco as incense or smoking it through a peace pipe passed around a fire, in a place a little less tourist-y. Not lighting up a cigarette of mass produced & altered tobacco while going for a stroll down the lakewalk. She disrespects her people’s traditions.
Like or Dislike:
19 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
24
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
21
The problem, Sam (and I know you’ll disregard this because it’s true), is that when you start blaming every disease known to man on secondhand smoke, people stop looking for the real causes and working toward a cure for those diseases. And since you’re going to cite an endless list of “studies” done by anti-smoking organizations that show, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, that secondhand smoke is evil incarnate, throw in a study or two that shows that people using an outdoor area as large as the Lakewalk will be subject to health risks simply because someone else on the Lakewalk is having a cigarette.
Do I believe in science? Yes. Do I believe studies paid for and/or conducted by groups that have a vested financial or political stake in the results? Absolutely not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
20
We can do this all day, Sam, but I won’t waste my time. For every study you cite claiming any kind of health risk from secondhand smoke, I can cite one that debunks it. So I submit the following only as examples (the first one from a staunch anti-smoker):
“New Surgeon General’s Report Blows FDA Tobacco Act Out of the Water; Shows that Anti-Smoking Groups Were Untruthful in Their Public Statements”
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-surgeon-generals-report-blows-fda.html
“A Pack of Lies: The surgeon general hypes the hazards of secondhand smoke”
http://www.data-yard.net/10l2/sullum.htm
Like or Dislike:
13 
6
DanH,
You have cited two blogs with a political agenda. One is published by “reason online,” which is a front organization for business interests. Blogs are not real sources of scientific information. They are full of the fake, “para-science” you mentioned before.
On the other hand, I cited hundreds of the most prestigious scientific journals that are used by top scientists at Harvard, Stanford, etc. Those journals are real sources of scientific information.
Like or Dislike:
9 
15
Sam, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. What passes for science now a days is usually only para-science, ie, an agenda wrapped in psuedo-sciece pretending to be of actual scientific merit. It would seem that everybody with an agenda is practicing “science” in an attempt to sway opinions.
Now, having said that, it is generally agreed upon that fast foods, and a lack of exercise lead to obesity and thus to chronic and severe health problems. This is generally undisputed science. So, if your kids are obese, does the state have the right to interfere in how you raise and feed them? Should you as a parent be subject to sanctions because not-so-little Johnny is a lazy couch potato porker? Our constitution is unique in that it is about what the State cannot do to it’s citizens, as opposed to what it will allow you to do. No where in the Constitution do I read anything remotely suggestive of a nanny state where the State is responsible for the 24 hour babysitting of people too dumb to take care of themselves. It’s hard to see how any Darwinist could condone such State interference into our daily lives, but they do. If you believe in natural selection, you’ve got to allow people to do stupid things and let nature sort out the losers. On the other hand, if you believe a Supreme Creator (God) has mandated certain rules of personal behavior, you then must allow Him to sort them out. Either way, how much of your behavior is another man responsible for? Answer, NONE. We are all personally responsible for what we do. Think how much more pleasant life would be if we didn’t have to deal with one party always blaming the other for what ails them. If you behave with reckless disregard for yourself , too bad. You made your bed, you sleep in it , and don’t ask for a bailout from the state. Disregard for others? well that’s why we have a code of civil conduct and penalties for those who violate it. Again, the individual is responsible for his actions……..UNLESS he’s a politician, a term synonymous with irresponsibility.
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
DanH, You said “What passes for science now a days is usually only para-science, ie, an agenda wrapped in psuedo-sciece pretending to be of actual scientific merit.” And that is true if you are talking about what passes as science on CNN or Fox News. But the para-science is NOT published in all the prestigious scientific journals that I linked. That is 100% science in real science journals.
The para-science is not published in these prestigious scientific journals, and is not agreed on by millions of scientists and physicians. Millions of scientists and physicians agree on how secondhand smoke causes diseases and death in children. All the prestigious science research journals agree. The scientific consensus is there. It is this scientific consensus that you reject.
Read chapter 6 of the World Health Organization study that says of this scientific consensus:
“The industry has refused to accept the now overwhelming consensus regarding the harm caused by second-hand smoke – instead it has denied and obfuscated, and sought to influence debate by buying up scientists on a spectacular scale.”
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
Thanks a lot. Now I’m afraid of getting germs from a doorknob. I’m staying home in my germ free plastic bubble and never going out again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
16
No, I’m scared I might “catch” something. I’m staying in my germ free bubble. If I go outside I’ll DIE!
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
Then reason would have it that low levels of exposure to 2nd hand smoke should sensitize the individual to smoke and thereby build up an immunity to it. I’m not advocating for smokers, I’m just making light of your flawed logic.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
There is no evidence that children “build up an immunity” after repeated secondhand smoke exposure. That is fake science.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Really, Sam? That’s not what the World Health Organization said in its landmark study on children and secondhand smoke. You know, the study that they tried to bury because it didn’t come up with the results they wanted. Unfortunately for them, the British press got ahold of it before they could hide it. That study, the largest ever done at that point, showed that children who grew up in a home with a parent who smoked had a 22% lower incidence of lung cancer in adulthood. Why? Because their immune systems had done exactly what immune systems are supposed to do: they built up an immunity to it by being exposed to it. But that didn’t fit the WHO’s political agenda, so they’d prefer that nobody talks about it.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
Sam- In general, because something is published in scientific journal that DOES NOT necessarily mean it is to be taken as gospel. There’s usually a money trail there also. You don’t think Stanford gets grant money to perform a specific study with preset outcome? Scientific journals often publish studies done that were sponsored by someone or group with an agenda. PHD’s for graduation requirement need to publish and like those sponsoring a research project they knew first what hypothesis they wanted to prove before they ever started the study and their thesis’s need to be published and so often are in scientific journals. Forgawdsakes, we based a whole argument for spending trillions on a war based on a PHD’s thesis that was false but published.
The American Lung Association even gets a million a year to publish studies on second hand smoke as harmful from the same source that is the lobby money behind all the smoking ban laws. It’s from the largest shareholder who owns majority stock in one of our largest companies that just happens to sell the nicotene patch and smoking cessation products like the gum etc. SC Johnson.
Laws are being railroaded based on biased studies, supported by tainted money with an agenda and because like marijuana and some other things, no Politician dares speak out and on record of being against it and everyone as already posted is lulled into some bogus delusion they’re actually doing something about harmful pollution.
The very cornerstone and mother of the whole second hand smoke craze was the EPA published study in 1993. Starting in 1990 the EPA was rank with scandal that included falsifying data, cover ups, bogus studies, fraud and even mismanagement and embellzement of the SuperFund. They were the very epitome of a new government agency given blank check and out of control and we ended up replacing the Director of EPA several times over following two years. It was so bad that by 1992 there was groundswell to just totally disband the EPA and late 1992 the EPA put together this study on second hand smoke they released in the beginning of 1993 and all of sudden the EPA went from being the most screwed up government agency on verge of being shut down to being akin to Moses coming down from the Mount with engraved tablets.
BUT….the EPA never did technically any scientific study!! It was a META study which means they mined data from 30 other scientific studies to support their study. This is what you do when you want to prove the results you knew wanted before started. Yet that study despite all the backstory, despite the EPA already embroiled in fraudulent studies and coverups…people point to it and say …well the EPA did a scientific study that proves second hand smoke is harmful…so there.
I’m not saying cigarette smoking is good for you, I’m not advocating that second smoke is completely harmless but I’m advocating for folks to THINK about it, especially when are advocating making laws against others!!
There’s far too many variables in even those that get lung cancer from smoking. Yes, in majority smoking was leading cause but wasn’t only thing, genetics plays key role and one can verify beyond dispute the person was smoker. Second hand smoke is impossible to measure, impossible to isolate from other variables, impossible to do true scientific studies over period of time with blind study group etc. How is it even possible to have an indisuptable scientific study on something almost impossible to measure or to isolate from other variables? Radon is second leading cause of Lung Cancer and 1/3 of Minnesota homes have radon! Diesel fumes are another cause of lung cancer as well as other air borne pollutants….mercury is in our air and water here from coal generation plants which causes cancer…but seriously, someone smoking 50 feet ahead of you on Lakewalk is a health risk?
Non smokers are offended by the smell…am OK with that but that’s the real bottom line …so equal rights…Let’s ban dogs from Lakewalk too…let’s face it not all the owners pick up after their dogs and I shouldn’t have to smell it and be offended by their dogs poop…then next we can institute a dress code, surely I can’t be only one offended by how most in this town dress when in public…it hurts my eyes…
“There’s something wrong with a society that if in public restaurant and put a pack of cigarettes on table, that people will scorn and chastise you over it, but lay a gun on table and will get compliments on what a nice gun”….Robin Williams
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
I just gave you a thumbs up. When did you become rational?
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
When he agreed with you, of course!
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
I’m a nonsmoker who uses the Lakewalk from 1-3 times/week and I’ve never had an issue with someone smoking there. If it was someone right by the Museum doors it’d be a different matter.
It’d be annoying if I had smoke blowing into my face while watching the boats go by but it seems like people are pretty respectful.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
Most people are respecful of others. Unfortunately there are still a lot of idiots in the world, and always will be, because it’s illegal to clean them out.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Ah, c’mon. The council members shouldn’t be taken too seriously; they’re really just trying to blow smoke up your asses. (Ha, ha, ha–get it?) Like with that “spiritual cigarette” thing, too. Yeah, just more smoke up your asses.
You guys just took the bait.
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
Sam….this is how you always end up shooting youself in the foot in the smoking debate.
You start off with claims that pretty much everyone accepts…to some extent. I don’t think there’s anyone, anywhere that actually believes smoking is good for you.
But, then you get all wound up and start posting stuff like
“In 2010, the surgeon general said that “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack,”
and that “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.”
Even if some scientist was able to make his data appear to prove it, no rational person is really going to believe a statement like, “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA”
And of course, whenever anyone REALLY wants to make their point and convince someone else they are right, it’s always the “think about the children” thing.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Katydid,
You say “no rational person is really going to believe a statement like, ‘inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA.’” I disagree.
First, I didn’t make up that quote. The quote comes from a 2010 Surgeon Generals report on the scientific consensus on smoking and secondhand smoke. It is a WORD FOR WORD quote form the top physician in the US, Surgeon General Regina M. Benjamin. She is talking about the mature, consensus science. You can find the quote here: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/12/20101209a.html
Most scientists and physicians agree with the surgeon general’s statement, and they are rational persons. I think what you mean is that otherwise rational people who have limited understanding of science won’t believe it, but I’m not sure that is even true. Most people I know don’t understand science but they believe it.
It is mainly people of a certain political bent that also lack an understanding of science that refuse to believe the WORD FOR WORD quote from the surgeon general. I think it is a combination of a lack of scientific knowledge and a political bias that leads people to reject the scientific consensus on secondhand smoke.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
I think you’d better back up your statement about a people of a certain political bent lacking an understanding of science. Any idiot can make accusations. Demographically, the less educated you are, the more likely you are to receive aid from the gov’t and the more likely you are to vote Democratic. Is this what you meant to say?
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Sam said:
“Katydid,
It is mainly people of a certain political bent that also lack an understanding of science that refuse to believe the WORD FOR WORD quote from the surgeon general. I think it is a combination of a lack of scientific knowledge and a political bias that leads people to reject the scientific consensus on secondhand smoke.”
I’d be REALLY curious to know exactly which political bent you believe is responsible for not believing this ‘science’.
In case you haven’t noticed, people that are normally polar opposites on any political subject are actually in agreement on this one. The same people that are in agreement vary vastly in education also.
See, the thing is, I’m old. I’ve lived long enough to have seen many, many of these ‘irrefutable’ scientific studies debunked after a while.
I know I probably won’t with this particular subject because, there’s much more money being thrown at one side than the other. Of course, that may change if the government ever decides to make smoking illegal.
Speaking of, are you saying that you believe that the government has totally abdicated their role in protecting the public by allowing a product this dangerous to be sold in the US?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Sam, again I’m not defending smokers, BUT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON SECOND HAND SMOKE!
Have you included yourself when you say “Most people I know don’t understand science but they believe it. “?
The surgeon general isn’t an authority on anything, especially contested scientific theories. He’s just a political appointee. Joe Biden holds a higher office than the surgeon general. Do you believe everything he says?
Do you know what a parrot is? A parrot repeats what he’s heard/read without the benefit of understanding the context of it. If you know why you believe what you believe, and can explain it without talking points or citations, I can live with that. But to blindly parrot stuff without the knowledge to actually interpret and understand what you’re reading is contemptible. This applies to all sides of arguments. For every Sarah Palin, you’ve got a Debra Wasserman-Schultz. For every Glenn Beck, you’ve got a Chris Mathews. Get the point?
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
HughJ,
Your personal opinion on the scientific consensus contradicts statements by the Surgeon Generals under BOTH George W Bush AND Barack Obama. I quoted Obama’s surgeon general above.
But Bush’s Surgeon General Richard Carmona said (AND I QUOTE):
“The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard.”
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Talking about surgeon generals–surgeon generals can be cool. My favorite was Clinton’s Joycelyn Elders, you know the one who lasted only a year when she got fired for wanting to have masturbation taught in the schools. She also advocated legalizing all drugs; maybe that was because her son got ten years in the slammer for selling cocaine.
Anyway, I’m sure Ms. Joycelyn would have no problem with those good folk puffing away on cigarettes, fake weed or what-have-you down there on the lake walk.
Some of the other surgeon generals have been just too uptight.
And, by the way, smoking isn’t all that bad if done only on occasion. A hubbly-bubbly of shisha can be nice after a good plate of kupsa.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
An example of irresistable force meets immovable object. Hugh vs. Sam.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Yes, except I cite respected scientists and physicians. Hugh cites political blogs.
If the scientists are right, I am right.
If the political blogs that disagree with science are right, Hugh is right.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
He blinded me with science.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
I’m old, fat, and set in my ways. I must be the the immovable object, eh?. When I was young and naive like Sam, I thought I was irresistible. After all, what woman could resist my charms? Sadly, almost every one of them. Sigh!
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Sam, you’re being dishonest when you say I cite political blogs. Show me on citation in this thread where I’ve done so. And for the record, pronouncements are just hot air. Pronouncements don’t settle a thing, Facts do, and you are lacking any facts. All you have are pronouncements from people you believe, and a good number of them aren’t even what you call SCIENTISTS!
It is clear from your posts that you have little or no training in the sciences, so what make you such an authority to declare one group of real scientists’ data true, and another, invalid? Tell us, oh enlightened one, one what basis to you make your pronouncement? If I have better scientific credentials than you, and I probably do, are you a unicorn, or a simian just because I say so? Certainly not. You (and the rest of us) would be well served if you added a little more education to your background before declaring white to be black.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Hugh, You clearly cited a politically oriented blog when you posted this link above http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-surgeon-generals-report-blows-fda.html
That is a blog with a political bias that is paid for by the tobacco lobby. The blog is full of nonsense, with no legitimate scientific citations or real scientists working in this area of research.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Never been there, never read it.Does that make you a liar, or just ill informed. Has it ever occurred to you that some folks actually are intelligent enough to connect the dots on their own, without having to parrot everything? When you grow up, you’ll understand, but until that time, stay in school.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Nevermind. I got you confused with someone else who cited a blog.
You cited NOTHING AT ALL. I cited respected physicians, scientists, and over 700 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Hmmmmmm
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
700 per reviewed articles! WOW! that’s a lot of reading for a 14 year old! The more you post, the more you expose your ignorance. Please, for the sake of all involved, get educated! You remind me of my late sister in law, the only time she opened her mouth was to change her feet.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Sam said:
“Nevermind. I got you confused with someone else who cited a blog.”
FYI….an apology is generally considered the proper response to an error like your’s, not an ‘nevermind’.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
It was DanH who said that, not Hugh. Since you’ve now made a mistake, I’m afraid that, logically, everything you’ve ever said is rendered invalid.
Sorry bud. I don’t make the rules.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
I think DanH and HughJ are basically the same kind of crazy.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Then I think you’re underestimating at least one of them.
Dan made a pretty convincing argument when he mentioned that suppressed WHO study. I was hoping you had a good response to that.
Of course, if I really cared, I would research it myself, and I know how dangerous it is to believe everything you read (especially in an online comments section!). It’s not your job to educate any of us. But why drop out of the conversation right when it’s getting good?
Fastone’s reply seems to warrant a response as well.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Most smokers have tried to quit many times but can’t for lack of will power and they hate themselves for this. Honest ones will admit it.
Smokers may be losers, but they do make up a good 20% or so of the general population and pay taxes, so have every right to indulge their legal habit in public parks where they won’t cause physical harm to anyone else.
City councilors won’t ban smoking on the lake walk. They are just, like I said, blowing smoke…
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Mr. Gerber, I hope you are correct about the ban. I firmly believe the vendetta the city has against the LPOE will make the council see otherwise. They(council) are so fed up with the complaints that I think they will try anything.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
It would be interesting if alcohol was taxed at the same rate as tobacco products. Can you imagine the outcry?
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Dan~ “It would be interesting if alcohol was taxed at the same rate as tobacco products. Can you imagine the outcry?”
Great point but for true comparison after taxing it to death then you’d have to ban it everywhere, close all bars, stop restaurants from serving it, stop ballparks etc. from serving it, make it illegal everywhere, including public parks and beaches, then do a whole media campaign to portray those that drink as social dredges and losers.
It wouldn’t be hard to do, there’s just as much solid and not bogus contrived scientific research directly linking alcohol consumption with various medical maladies. Thought prompted me to look up and found this out…that is responsible for 100,000 deaths a year! How can alcohol be blamed for 100,000 deaths each year?
5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
Now…here’s the real key IMHO that the anti-smokers don’t get…. I DON’T drink and so exactly how easy is it for me to condemn those that choose to and advocate for laws taking away their rights to do what they want? and I have all the same arguments…..and it’s not infringing on my right of choice…it would be me supporting laws taking away others rights that DOESN’T impact me…
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Citizens seek ban against city clowncil.
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
Just think what the government will control (Republican or Democrat) once they control your healthcare. Be careful what you ask for.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
This is link to report by World Health Organization that states they’ve determined that second hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer and that all the claims regarding second hand smoke have been exaggerated. There is also a ton of other links and info at this site. As had posted on this topic it would be impossible to seperate any second hand smoke from other enviormental influences which was not only the WHO conclusion but also the very conclusion of OSHA. Of course those reports are being suppressed because SC Johnson is giving away too much money to support smoking bans…Link~
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/03/who-report-passive-smoking-doesnt-cause.html
It also of some interest that all the information available was put together by a fellow Minnesotan who’s a non-smoker but who was upset by the lies and manipulation.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
fastone,
The partisan blog you cite is merely repeating a rumor perpetuated by Rush Limbaugh. The WHO has replied to it, and pointed out that it is not true…
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
The WHO rebuttal ends by pointing out the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on secondhand smoke.
“A major meta-analysis of passive smoking and lung cancer was also published in the British Medical Journal in 1997. From these and other previous reviews of the scientific evidence emerges **a clear global scientific consensus** — passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases.”
Who are you going to believe?
(A) Two Surgeon Generals, Stanford University Scientists, the NIH, the WHO, and just about every physician and scientist on earth (see my links above),
OR (B) Rush Limbaugh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Here is a video of Rush Limbaugh perpetuating this rumor. There is no truth to it, and no legitimate news site gives the Limbaugh rumor any support. Only random blogs support Limbaugh’s conspiracy theory about the “suppressed World Health Organization” study.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/11/29/limbaugh-secondhand-smoke-is-harmless/173826
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Blogs are not legitimate sources of information. I can link a blog that says that it has proof that the moon landing never happened (“apollomoonhoax” blog is one). Above I linked…
1. two different administrations’ Surgeon Generals’ (one Democrat, one Republican) statements from federal government websites (both said that the scientific consensus is that secondhand smoke is harmful to children),
2. 720 peer reviewed scientific articles, and
http://1.usa.gov/sidspubmed_smoking
3.And Stanford University scientists.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-smoke-050907.html
The science is clear, no matter what the blogs say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Sam~ quote from your link, from that article, from WHO on second hand smoke regarding impact on non smoking spouses and exposure at work…”However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.” Yup, that’s rock solid..LOL.
The study points towards? Thats akin to saying it’s wishful thinking that it might decrease, hopefully, maybe sorta. Something still fishy, there STILL is no report they allude to, I searched the WHO site and couldn’t find it and more important in that article there’s no link. Wouldn’t the easy thing to squash a rumor that they’re suppressing a report be…here it is folks, here’s the report! Don’t you find that odd? Also odd is they don’t even say squat about the report either, they just say their study confirms other studies done by blah, blah, blah and blah, blah, blah and we’d like to thank our scientists who worked on this that we won’t name nor share their report with so there. See…we’re not suppressing anything.
You trashed the blog I gave, but did you read any of his stuff? You got me with Rush though, if he says something it’s probably not true but that’s the most solid proof have so far and already covered, research papers from universities are often no more credible then blogger for same reasons, there’s an agenda and there’s could be grant money to do the research.
It’s all word gymnastics, smoke and mirrors and vetted statistics is what saying on the whole second hand smoke issue starting with the EPA report that everyone points to.
Here’s something that indisputabel though for the anti-smokers who think second hand smoke is the REAL problem.
2010 Lung cancer cases:226,160
1950 Lung cancer cases: 20,000
Now the population has doubled over that time but since 1960 we’ve reduced the number of smokers by 50% which negates the doubling of population. I don’t think smoking is good for you, I’m ok with addressing second hand smoke after we’ve eliminated other pollutants and causes but the anti-smokers all think falsely that if eliminate second hand smoke we’ve eliminated all the causes and you’re being duped and are naive which is my POV. How do you explain a ten fold increase in lung cancer at same time smokers have been reduced by half? Hopefully somebody will go…yeah, wait a minute!
So I still don’t buy the second hand smoke thing. I actually scanned over 20 resports from WHO when trying to fing their study and like above from WHO they seem to talk in circles and is all word gymnastics, which not a good sign IMHO.
Now common sense, no links necessary…. A smoker is not just smoking directly but unlike any other scenario for non-smokers, is also breathing in second hand smoke 24-7 and in far closer proximity then person passing thru room or sitting at end of bar. So now think, you have person who smokes 2 packs a day AND is breathing second hand smoke constantly and for sake of argument, he get’s lung cancer but it takes 35 years. Yet all the hype around second hand smoke touts that the person with a brief exposure for few hours sitting bar as example is suffering huge health risks? How can that be? and why have we reduced the smokers but lung cancer increases 10 fold?
Sam, well that’s my take on this nonsense. Now if have in hip pocket a study that shows the ill effects of second hand smoke from someone walking past you when are out in the fresh air and the health effects from that…it would be great and would be on point supporting a ban because it’s a health risk which is the POV and a true beacon shining light on how utterly absurd and insane the anti-smoking zealots have become. I meanwhile am pretty confident that lung cancer hasn’t increased 10 fold because someone outdoors get’s a wiff of a cigarette from 10 feet away…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The point of the WHO article was:
1. Rush Limbaugh is wrong.
2. The small sample size of the study that Rush Limbaugh cited is too small to make the over-dramatic conclusions that Rush Limbaugh makes.
There are a million OTHER studies that have larger sample sizes and are conclusive. Just because there is one small, inconclusive study doesn’t mean that smoking around kids is ok.
Your post is an attempt to sound like science without any real science. You claim it is common sense, but isn’t it common sense to believe what most every scientist and physician says is true? You say “Now common sense, no links necessary….”, but isn’t this just another way of saying “I am making this stuff up.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I guess you can deny absolute facts, Sam, but that says more about you than anything else. This is the first and last time I’m going to say anything about the WHO study. You and Fastone can have a battle of wits, but I and most other rational people already know the truth. (And Rush Limbaugh didn’t conduct the study, he just commented on it.)
First of all, the study was finally published after a great deal of pressure in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Here’s a link to it: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/19/1440.pdf Read it if you’d like, ignore it as I know you will. But the study’s own conclusion states: “Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.” In fact, the only statistically significant result from the entire study was that children exposed to secondhand smoke at home faced a 22% LOWER risk of lung cancer in adulthood.
The WHO’s pathetic attempt to dismiss its own study by claiming that the sample size was too small was contradicted by its own scientists who conducted the study. They said in part, “An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision…” The WHO not only couldn’t get away with ignoring its own study, but it couldn’t even lie about the study’s methods and get away with it.
And as a final retort, not that it’s really worth my time, but there have certainly not been a million other studies conducted. There aren’t as many as people might think. And there are just as many, if not more, studies and reports and analyses that debunk those studies, usually quite easily.
And now, flame on…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0