Woohoo! Smoking banned in restaurants and workplaces in FL! :)

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Ok... well, tobacco smoke has been shown to be a carcinogen. Forget the customers... the business owners have a legal obligation to not subject their EMPLOYEES to that substance.

Here in Maryland, a business CAN have smoking indoors.... however, a completely seperate and isolated air handling system must be installed for the area where smoking is allowed and that area must be physically seperated (doors) from non-smoking areas. They have left it up to business owners to provide a place for smokers... IF .... the business owner wishes to do so. They haven't told them that they CANNOT smoke in their business, only that they must provide a smokeless area for those who wish it.

Joe

An employee is not a slave. They can leave, or choose to not take the job. But don't take a job in a smokey workplace, THEN complain about the smoke. I'll have no more sympathy for you than I do idiots who build houses next to an airport, then complain about the noise.

Yes, tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen, but not when diluted. No verifiable, repeatable study has shown any connection to SHS and cancer in anything but heavy, constant exposure. Although, MANY studies have shown that exposure to diesel exhaust is FAR more dangerous to us than tobacco smoke.

 

[snooker]

Originally posted by: aphexII


Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Racist in another form. Instead of blacks and whites, it smokers and non-smokers.

I live in FL and can tell you, all this law is going to do is make restaurant owners change their name to include 'bar and grill'. You see The ban does not cover bars and grills, just restaurants and the majority of work places.

Plus think about it, does having speed limits make everyone drive that speed? So you actually think a law banning smoking indoors is really going to stop all from smoking indoors? I think not.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: aphexII


Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Racist in another form. Instead of blacks and whites, it smokers and non-smokers.

I live in FL and can tell you, all this law is going to do is make restaurant owners change their name to include 'bar and grill'. You see The ban does not cover bars and grills, just restaurants and the majority of work places.

Plus think about it, does having speed limits make everyone drive that speed? So you actually think a law banning smoking indoors is really going to stop all from smoking indoors? I think not.

Um. You obviously missed a step here. You see, the the law exempts bars. STAND ALONE BARS. Not a bar and grill.

Getting licensing is enough to break the bottom line for restaraunt owners. Some of them cant afford the $400 a year it takes to get a 2COP, what makes you think they can afford to fork over $30k to the state for a 4COP?

-PAB

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: aphexII


Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Racist in another form. Instead of blacks and whites, it smokers and non-smokers.

I live in FL and can tell you, all this law is going to do is make restaurant owners change their name to include 'bar and grill'. You see The ban does not cover bars and grills, just restaurants and the majority of work places.

Plus think about it, does having speed limits make everyone drive that speed? So you actually think a law banning smoking indoors is really going to stop all from smoking indoors? I think not.

Since when did "Smoker" become a race?

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: snooker

Originally posted by: aphexII


Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Racist in another form. Instead of blacks and whites, it smokers and non-smokers.

I live in FL and can tell you, all this law is going to do is make restaurant owners change their name to include 'bar and grill'. You see The ban does not cover bars and grills, just restaurants and the majority of work places.

Plus think about it, does having speed limits make everyone drive that speed? So you actually think a law banning smoking indoors is really going to stop all from smoking indoors? I think not.

Since when did "Smoker" become a race?

Exactly. Race is a social concept invented to seperate people into categories based on physical characteristics. Actions and behavior dont have anything to do race.

-PAB

 

[bGIveNs33]

PsychoAndy-

A few questions for you...

What defines a stand alone bar?? Is it just the liscensing.. or can they just not server food?
I know I've read that you're family is a restaraunt owner, do you think it will effect your revenues?
Last question, a restaraunt can still offer smoking outside correct?

Thx,

-Billy

 

[bGIveNs33]

Oh yea, a little food for thought...

The only way to overturn this amendment is to re-amend the constitution. But, as it stands right now, there are no laws governing this amendment. So if the Florida legislature really doesn't like it, they might just make the penalty so insignificant, the amendment is essientially void. It will surely be interesting to see.

 

[Noleman]

Smoking is like farting through the mouth....

Only the person that is doing it likes the smell

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
PsychoAndy-

A few questions for you...

What defines a stand alone bar?? Is it just the liscensing.. or can they just not server food?
I know I've read that you're family is a restaraunt owner, do you think it will effect your revenues?
Last question, a restaraunt can still offer smoking outside correct?

Thx,

-Billy

Its all about licensing. If you have a bar with a freezer and microwave under the counter and microave hot wings you are considered to be a restaurant and subject to appropriate regulation.

From what I undertstand, a stand alone bar is a place where people go to get drunk and to get drunk only. Cant serve food.

Its not going to hurt us. The economy sucks right now. There is no way it can get worse than it already is.

I do believe you can have people smoke outdoors. I'll have to check the legislation again, but I dont think the State would preclude smoking outdoors

.

-PAB

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Noleman
Smoking is like farting through the mouth....

Only the person that is doing it likes the smell

plus farts generally don't cause cancer..

or do they? :Q

 

[FrozenYak]

If im repeating someone here please forgive me and ignore this as i only had time to scim through it all

Car exhaust is far worse compared to smoking? really? o by all means then smoke all you want after its the exhaust thats gonna kill us in the end anyway, hey from now on, im just gonna sit in the smoking section - not like its gonna matter huh?

Alls I have to say about this amendment is that im for it, not because of how it affects me when I go to a restaurant, but because I hope that it will keep some smokers from smoking so much*. I went treeplanting last summer and it becomes all too obvious of how addicted they are - we had to make a stop every 45 minutes when driving to a site just because people werent allowed to smoke on the bus, and our bus driver and various other people couldnt go for an hour and a half without a smoke.


*of course, it could turn out to have an opposite effect where someone goes into hiding when they arent allowed to smoke and they end up starting a forest fire causing over $32,000 in damage because they were trying to ditch a smoke as they saw someone who could get them in trouble for smoking.

 

[JupiterJones]

Bans smoking in restaurants and virtually all workplaces.

"Land of the free....?"

The concept of Liberty includes the right of a business owner to make this decision for himself. Just as his patrons have the right to take their business elsewhere. The concept of Liberty is becoming more and more an alien concept.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FrozenYak
If im repeating someone here please forgive me and ignore this as i only had time to scim through it all

Car exhaust is far worse compared to smoking? really? o by all means then smoke all you want after its the exhaust thats gonna kill us in the end anyway, hey from now on, im just gonna sit in the smoking section - not like its gonna matter huh?

Look up ANY study on the effects of diesel exhaust on the human lungs. There are far more verifiable cases of diesel exhaust related cancer than there are of verifiable SHS related cancer. Pollution causes FAR more serious illnesses and deaths each year than SHS. In fact, the only repeatable and verifiable studies on SHS show a relation only between heavily concentrated, daily exposure of second hand smoke and cancer or emphysema. EVERY study suggesting a relation between occasional exposure and illness has NOT been verifiable, or repeatable.

And I wont even go into the trillions of tons of pollution spewed by oil and coal fired utilities every year.

The fear of occasional exposure to SHS is HYPE. It's the same kind of hype spread by fanatics that caused the spurious uproar over silicone breast implants and bankrupted Dow Chemical... only to later find out the initial 'studies' were massively flawed and not repeatable.

Of all the carcinogens you expose yourself to on a daily basis, the occasional whiff of second hand tobacco smoke is the LEAST of your worries.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FrozenYak
If im repeating someone here please forgive me and ignore this as i only had time to scim through it all

Car exhaust is far worse compared to smoking? really? o by all means then smoke all you want after its the exhaust thats gonna kill us in the end anyway, hey from now on, im just gonna sit in the smoking section - not like its gonna matter huh?

Look up ANY study on the effects of diesel exhaust on the human lungs. There are far more verifiable cases of diesel exhaust related cancer than there are of verifiable SHS related cancer. Pollution causes FAR more serious illnesses and deaths each year than SHS. In fact, the only repeatable and verifiable studies on SHS show a relation only between heavily concentrated, daily exposure of second hand smoke and cancer or emphysema. EVERY study suggesting a relation between occasional exposure and illness has NOT been verifiable, or repeatable.

And I wont even go into the trillions of tons of pollution spewed by oil and coal fired utilities every year.

The fear of occasional exposure to SHS is HYPE. It's the same kind of hype spread by fanatics that caused the spurious uproar over silicone breast implants and bankrupted Dow Chemical... only to later find out the initial 'studies' were massively flawed and not repeatable.

Of all the carcinogens you expose yourself to on a daily basis, the occasional whiff of second hand tobacco smoke is the LEAST of your worries.

Somehow I don't see very many people sucking on an exhaust pipe. In fact I don't see that many diesels on the road, except for the convoy of trucks after midnight.

My wife burns dinner in the oven all the time. I'm going to die of cancer but my chain-smoking mom will outlive me.




okay above statements are just sarcastic.

 

[Amused]

From the American Lung Association:

WHY IS DIESEL EXHAUST AN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM?

Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.

For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.

WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS?

Diesel exhaust has been linked in numerous scientific studies to cancer, the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory diseases. A draft report released by the US EPA in February 1998 indicated that exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust is likely to pose a risk of lung cancer and respiratory impairment. And in August 1998, the State of California decided that there was enough evidence to list the particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant - a probable carcinogen requiring action to reduce public exposure and risk.

Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.

The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources. Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence. Truck and traffic intensity and exhaust measured in schools were significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

Cleaner alternatives to diesel engines are readily available. Alternatives include electric, liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) buses and trucks. Although initial purchase prices may be higher for alternative fuel buses and trucks, federal, state, and local funds are available to offset these higher costs. These funds are specifically earmarked for clean technologies and would not otherwise be available for these purchases.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information on diesel emissions and air pollution, as well as on federal regulatory initiatives, visit the US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources website at www.epa.gov/oms.

 

[Amused]

Junk Science and Second Hand Smoke

Double Standard:
Diesel Exhaust vs. Secondhand Smoke

Rajiv Bahia, Peggy Lopipero and Allan H. Smith
Epidemiology 1998;9:84-91
Debra T. Silverman
Epidemiology 1998;9:4-5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1993, EPA labeled secondhand smoke a "known human carcinogen." This was based on its analysis of about 30 epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. But 80 percent of the studies did not support EPA's decision. So how did EPA justify its conclusion?

EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent.

But this result was criticized because for a number of reasons, including:

Epidemiologic studies are not generally capable of reliably identifying small relative risks (i.e., less than 2.0).
None of the 30 studies used quantitative exposure data. All the studies used "guesstimated" exposure data.
The relative risk of 1.19 was not statistically significant at the conventional 95 percent level.
EPA underadjusted for the effect of smoking misclassification (i.e., the tendency for smokers to claim they are nonsmokers).
EPA (and the rest of the junk science world) chose to ignore these criticisms.

Now, consider a new study just published in the journal Epidemiology on diesel exhaust and lung cancer.

Researchers from the University of California (San Francisco) and the University of California (Berkeley) did a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies of diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Note: 7 other diesel exhaust/lung cancer studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, 6 of which did not support the researcher's ultimate conclusion).

The researchers reported a relative risk of 1.33 (95 percent confidence interval 1.24. - 1.44).

But in an accompanying editorial, the National Cancer Institute's Debra T. Silverman wrote:

Skepticism regarding the carcinogenicity to the lung of diesel exhaust in humans arises from three main concerns about the epidemiologic evidence. First, and probably most important, the magnitude of the effect observed in most studies is low, with relative risks (RRs) typically under 1.5. Second, of the 30 studies conducted on the relation between diesel exhaust and lung cancer, only four have obtained either quantitative data on current exposure or semiquantitative data on historical exposure. None has obtained quantitative data on historical exposure, the measure most relevant to the development of lung cancer...Third, the effect of cigarette smoking has been controlled in only about one-half the studies...
[The authors] conclude that the data support a causal association between diesel exhaust and lung cancer in humans. Has science proven causality beyond any reasonable doubt? Probably not. The repeated finding of small effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation.

How would Mr. Rogers would put it? "Can you say 'double-standard'?"

-------------------------------

The hype over second hand smoke is exactly like the hype over silicone breast implants. We all lose our freedoms while a few fanatics fill our minds with bullsh!t.

 

[nuonce]

Originally posted by: aphexII
Amendment 6 -- Passed


Bans smoking in restaurants and virtually all workplaces.



Finally, an amendment i actually AGREE with!

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
good thing i don't live in FL

 

[Oakenfold]

I smoke and I think it's a good law.
I have no right to inflict harm on others, they have no right to inflict harm on me.

 

boooo

 

[Mill]

Amused only one problem with your arguments so far. Most people don't build next the airport. The airport gets built next to them and expands. They always try to block it but never can.

Can you say home value plummets? Unless the government buys the home people get screwed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Millennium
Amused only one problem with your arguments so far. Most people don't build next the airport. The airport gets built next to them and expands. They always try to block it but never can.

Can you say home value plummets? Unless the government buys the home people get screwed.

Actually, I've seen more cases of people building next to airports as a part of urban sprawl these days, than the other way around. There aren't really all that many new airposts going up, but there are a hell of a lot more subdivisions going up.

In fact, there was a big to-do about it just a few years ago in both Atlanta and Charlotte. And a battle is brewing right here in Champaign, IL over what times airplanes can take off and land because of subdivisions built long after the airport was there.

But, a better example is people building next to freeways, then demanding the government pay for sound barriors. (This happened throughout the San Fernando Valley where I grew up.) Does that work for ya?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Millennium
Amused only one problem with your arguments so far. Most people don't build next the airport. The airport gets built next to them and expands. They always try to block it but never can.

Can you say home value plummets? Unless the government buys the home people get screwed.

Actually, I've seen more cases of people building next to airports as a part of urban sprawl these days, than the other way around. There aren't really all that many new airposts going up, but there are a hell of a lot more subdivisions going up.

In fact, there was a big to-do about it just a few years ago in both Atlanta and Charlotte.

But, a better example is people building next to freeways, then demanding the government pay for sound barriors. (This happened troughout the San Fernando Valley where I grew up.) Does that work for ya?

Sure does and you can never underestimate the mooching and stupidity of people. FWIW not many people want to live in the neighborhoods around Hartsfield in Atlanta. If you ever get a chance to leave Hartsfield check out the area surrounding it. Charlotte may be a better example because I haven't seen much new housing around Hartsfield.

The Bham Airport expanded and hurt a lot of homeowner's in the area surrounding it. Of course they didn't take the money offered(double to triple what their homes were worth). They bitched and moaned and then the offer got pulled once they started trucking in all the civil rights people.

Shows what you get when you won't take the money!

 

[FrozenYak]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FrozenYak
If im repeating someone here please forgive me and ignore this as i only had time to scim through it all

Car exhaust is far worse compared to smoking? really? o by all means then smoke all you want after its the exhaust thats gonna kill us in the end anyway, hey from now on, im just gonna sit in the smoking section - not like its gonna matter huh?

Look up ANY study on the effects of diesel exhaust on the human lungs. There are far more verifiable cases of diesel exhaust related cancer than there are of verifiable SHS related cancer. Pollution causes FAR more serious illnesses and deaths each year than SHS. In fact, the only repeatable and verifiable studies on SHS show a relation only between heavily concentrated, daily exposure of second hand smoke and cancer or emphysema. EVERY study suggesting a relation between occasional exposure and illness has NOT been verifiable, or repeatable.

And I wont even go into the trillions of tons of pollution spewed by oil and coal fired utilities every year.

The fear of occasional exposure to SHS is HYPE. It's the same kind of hype spread by fanatics that caused the spurious uproar over silicone breast implants and bankrupted Dow Chemical... only to later find out the initial 'studies' were massively flawed and not repeatable.

Of all the carcinogens you expose yourself to on a daily basis, the occasional whiff of second hand tobacco smoke is the LEAST of your worries.

What I was saying amused is that even if smoking isnt as bad as car exhaust etc, its still bad for you. Just because one type of junk food is far more unhealthy for me than a chocolate bar doesnt mean I can just eat as many chocolate bars as I want because the other junk food I eat on the occasion is far more unhealthy. Whether you eat too much junk food or smoke too much its going to have serious effects on you body.

And one thought- you know how they always have those 'this is a smokers lungs - this is a non-smokers lungs' are you telling me that one person just was around car exhaust more often? It was all just a coincidence he had more messed up lungs?

 

[SagaLore]

Hey, does "nicotine" itself taste like anything, or is it just the tar in cigarettes that taste bad?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FrozenYak

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FrozenYak
If im repeating someone here please forgive me and ignore this as i only had time to scim through it all

Car exhaust is far worse compared to smoking? really? o by all means then smoke all you want after its the exhaust thats gonna kill us in the end anyway, hey from now on, im just gonna sit in the smoking section - not like its gonna matter huh?

Look up ANY study on the effects of diesel exhaust on the human lungs. There are far more verifiable cases of diesel exhaust related cancer than there are of verifiable SHS related cancer. Pollution causes FAR more serious illnesses and deaths each year than SHS. In fact, the only repeatable and verifiable studies on SHS show a relation only between heavily concentrated, daily exposure of second hand smoke and cancer or emphysema. EVERY study suggesting a relation between occasional exposure and illness has NOT been verifiable, or repeatable.

And I wont even go into the trillions of tons of pollution spewed by oil and coal fired utilities every year.

The fear of occasional exposure to SHS is HYPE. It's the same kind of hype spread by fanatics that caused the spurious uproar over silicone breast implants and bankrupted Dow Chemical... only to later find out the initial 'studies' were massively flawed and not repeatable.

Of all the carcinogens you expose yourself to on a daily basis, the occasional whiff of second hand tobacco smoke is the LEAST of your worries.

What I was saying amused is that even if smoking isnt as bad as car exhaust etc, its still bad for you. Just because one type of junk food is far more unhealthy for me than a chocolate bar doesnt mean I can just eat as many chocolate bars as I want because the other junk food I eat on the occasion is far more unhealthy. Whether you eat too much junk food or smoke too much its going to have serious effects on you body.

And one thought- you know how they always have those 'this is a smokers lungs - this is a non-smokers lungs' are you telling me that one person just was around car exhaust more often? It was all just a coincidence he had more messed up lungs?

I'm not saying smoking does not increase a person's chances of getting cancer. Nor am I saying that it doesn't cause damage to the lungs. I'm saying that the claims of damage and cancer from occasional exposure to second hand smoke are spurious.

Note when they show you the nasty lungs, they are not the lungs of Joe Blow nonsmoker who caught a whiff of smoke every time he ate at Mel's Diner. They're the lungs of a pack-a-day+ smoker who smoked for years.

Just like the abortion pictures, they're created by activists to elicit a strong reaction. What they don't show you it the cancer riddled lungs of someone who never smoked, but worked on the tarmac of an airport for 40 years. The lungs aren't black, they're pink with white tumors throughout.