quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Tell that to Casino Windsor, they've seen a 33% DROP in visitors since the ban.

Pardon the pun, but maybe Windsor just sucks.

quote Originally posted by SCCA FIERO: Who cares if second hand smoke causes cancer? That's not really the point.

A lot of people care, and it is part of the point of why its being banned in public areas.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: You've spouted this nonsense in previous threads. All the evidence that's needed is out there for anyone who really wishes to know. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

I refuse to acknowledge that someone's cigarette smoking in a bar is going to directly cause you any permanent harm. They have yet to prove cigarette smoking will cause cancer.......and they never will show a direct link. The exhaust from a car gives off more toxins than a person smoking next to you or better yet......In a smoking section of a bar or restaurant.

If a restaurant or bar want to ban smoking in their establishment....fine. That's their choice. It shouldn't be up to a government trying to do it in the name of health for the patrons. Not until they can prove that the 30 minute to an hour a few times a week is clear cut going to harm the patron.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Pardon the pun, but maybe Windsor just sucks.

Windsor does suck, but when it's a city where the major industry (after the collapse of the auto industry) is tourism, you have to wonder why the government would shoot themselves in the foot like this. Oh wait...it's because they're not shooting themselves, they'll just raise taxes like good little Fiberals.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: A lot of people care, and it is part of the point of why its being banned in public areas.

No, it's the scare tactic people like Patrick that don't like the smell of secondhand smoke use to get the bans in place.

Which one would be acted on?

a) "Secondhand smoke stinks. We need to ban smoking from bars and restaurants."
or
b) "Secondhand smoke causes health problems. We need to ban smoking from bars and restaurants."

We all know that me smoking around you for 5 minutes WILL NOT kill you. The real reson these bans are going into effect are whiners like Patrick.

quote Originally posted by aceman: They have yet to prove cigarette smoking will cause cancer.......and they never will show a direct link.

Rarely am I speechless, but wow...

I have smoke for 28 years and still do but the smoking ban law has help me to Reduce some ... Now to where I work am still aloud to smoke cause its a building to my choice , I got to stay there all day to keep things running ,but am having more complain from the truckers coming in to load ,am saying to them pls don,t come in if you don,t like it ! stay in your truck ,it only take 5 minute to load you ,Why bother coming in and smell the smoke am in and complain about it , when you have a choice to do so ,its not easy to guit if am not ready but the day will come I be ready and cladly I did ..

But there place here there gone nuts ,The Have Banning law smoking in a Welding machine shop ,and the to Hospital no more on the hospital ground means on by the hyway if you want to smoke ...Nicer to die to be hit by a truck I guess lol

Good.....Stay that way Patrick.

If there is a direct link between cigarettes and cancer than 100% of cigarette smokers would contract cancer.

I think we should ban liberals. They are vile and angry people who are determental to peoples health and a menace to society. The stress they put on people by being such a compulsive asshoe and wagging their righteous finger of high morality to the rest of us causes serious health problems. BAN THEM!

Take away liberty, take away guns, take away anything that people don't like or may be offended by.

Should we ban speech, since people get offended by it or don't find it desirable?

quote Originally posted by aceman: Good.....Stay that way Patrick. If there is a direct link between cigarettes and cancer than 100% of cigarette smokers would contract cancer.

So everyone has the same DNA, Genes, Metabolism and etc??? Everyones different and their body reacts differently. My previous post showed many direct links, I invite you to actually research it and form an actual educated opinion.

What the hell am I doing, this is my day off....I'll save it for Monday when I'm working with a 45 year old who can't breath or walk 10 steps without almost passing out since he's got the lungs of an 80 year old. I've sat through autopsies and you should see the junk collected in a smokers lungs compared to a healthy set of air bags.

Dan

quote Originally posted by Gokart Mozart: Windsor, Ont does. The tourist business has dropped signifigantly.

Yeah, when I used to live in Michigan, we regularly went to Ontario to smoke.

quote Originally posted by DanFiero: So everyone has the same DNA, Genes, Metabolism and etc??? Everyones different and their body reacts differently. My previous post showed many direct links, I invite you to actually research it and form an actual educated opinion. What the hell am I doing, this is my day off....I'll save it for Monday when I'm working with a 45 year old who can't breath or walk 10 steps without almost passing out since he's got the lungs of an 80 year old. I've sat through autopsies and you should see the junk collected in a smokers lungs compared to a healthy set of air bags. Dan

Have you seen what alcohol does to a persons liver? That will destory your body faster than tobacco.

Look! I don't really smoke, but maybe a cigar or I might bum a few if drinking with buddies. I occassionally have some beers once a month, but I never go overboard and everything in moderation right?

Look! Alcohol does more damage to a persons body, plus lets not forget the effects it has on destorying families, drunk driving, physical and mental abuse, loss of work and etc. But we let that stuff flow freely. But Cigarettes are out?

I understand the public places and at work. I also think that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in cars or while pregnant or around children and unwilling adults. But ban them?

The ban isn't so much against the smoke. It's against the tobacco companies, because their considered rich and evil and side with Republicans. It's all political. Most alcohol production is made in European countries or wine country in the USA, which is overwhelmingly liberal. Nancy Polesi owns whineries, I bet you will not see prohibition come from them, will you? Even though their product does much more damage than tobacco.

If you ever have cancer they will find a way to turn it into a statistic. My father died from cancer of the esophagus, he had acid reflux almost all his life. Practicaly lived on Tums. Ya, now they have pills available for this. He picked up smoking during WW2, but quit in the early 1960's. When he died in 1996, after 30+ smoke free years, was his cancer attributed to GIRD?
I'm sorry, silly question.
Guess we will just have to wait till guns are outlawed, in the intrest of public health.
When they came for the _____, it didn't bother me, I was not a _______. When they came for the........................
When they came for ME.........

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke, unlike owner

quote Originally posted by DtheC: If you ever have cancer they will find a way to turn it into a statistic. My father died from cancer of the esophagus, he had acid reflux almost all his life. Practicaly lived on Tums. Ya, now they have pills available for this. He picked up smoking during WW2, but quit in the early 1960's. When he died in 1996, after 30+ smoke free years, was his cancer attributed to GIRD? I'm sorry, silly question. Guess we will just have to wait till guns are outlawed, in the intrest of public health. When they came for the _____, it didn't bother me, I was not a _______. When they came for the........................ When they came for ME.........

I had an uncle that died of lung cancer. Never smokes. His was contributed to paint. He was a painter all his life and never used a mask!

Wear mask people!

quote Originally posted by aceman: Good.....Stay that way Patrick.

Yeah, don't you wish.

quote Originally posted by aceman: If there is a direct link between cigarettes and cancer than 100% of cigarette smokers would contract cancer.

In your case, there's obviously a direct link between smoking and brain cell deaths.

quote Originally posted by aceman: ...it's the scare tactic people like Patrick that don't like the smell of secondhand smoke use to get the bans in place.

I don't like the smell of your posts either, but I continue to read them.

It's a lot more than just the smell of cigarette smoke I don't like. I've posted about this before. Aceman has read it before. However, if official documents have no effect on his beliefs, I shouldn't be fazed that nothing I can say will have any effect on him either.

From This thread:

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I’m sure many people believe that my criticisms of smokers are much too harsh, but after being forced to put up with other people’s disgusting habits for most of my life, I’m just so damn glad that the tide is finally turning. All through my childhood, I suffered from terrible asthma which kept me home from elementary school for many weeks every year. When afflicted, I’d be in a steam tent in my bedroom gasping and struggling for every breath. Meanwhile my father would be in another room twenty feet away happily smoking his cigarettes. This went on for years. All of a sudden, my health improved. What happened? Could it be the fact that my father quit smoking (for his own health concerns) when I was about 13 years old? No, that’s not possible. Second-hand smoke hasn’t been proven to impair anyone’s health. Yeah, right... Because of my extensive history with asthma, I know what’s it like not to be able to breathe properly. It’s a horrible way to live (or die!). I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone. I’ll never be able to understand why smokers willingly damage their lungs (among other organs). The least I can do is to try and ensure that they can’t damage anyone else’s. So sure, if I’m such a b*st*rd for believing what I do, keep those negatives a coming.

I'm on my soapbox for a damn good reason.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I had an uncle that died of lung cancer. Never smokes. His was contributed to paint. He was a painter all his life and never used a mask!

But but but........ , wasn't he exposed to second hand smoke?
Gotcha, another one for statistics.

My father-in-law died from lung cancer. Smoked 2 packs a day for 35 years. That wasn't the cause of the cancer......Asbestos and Agent Orange were the culprits.

And Patrick, I will slam dunk you like I did in that thread if you say that cigarette smoke CAUSES asthma. It may have triggered an attack and didn't help when you have/had an attack, but it DOES NOT cause asthma.

No one has the same genetic makeup. Many have similarities that may put them at risk for contracting cancer. But, if smoking and second hand smoke causes cancer, then EVERYONE exposed to cigarette smoke would contract cancer. But, there are many people that never were exposed to secondhand smoke that get lung cancer. There are many smokers (A majority) that NEVER contract lung cancer.

Yeah cigarettes are bad. Ban smoking in public places if you must. Here's something I find even more disturbing:

I read today that the government is going to allow the use of DDT -- that's right DDT -- again after more than 30 years as a pesticide on our food! WTF! That crap WILL KILL you DEAD!

Our government: Stop smoking, it's dangerous! But please, eat lots of food treated with DDT.

I give up.

quote Originally posted by aceman: My father-in-law died from lung cancer. Smoked 2 packs a day for 35 years. That wasn't the cause of the cancer......Asbestos and Agent Orange were the culprits. And Patrick, I will slam dunk you like I did in that thread if you say that cigarette smoke CAUSES asthma. It may have triggered an attack and didn't help when you have/had an attack, but it DOES NOT cause asthma. No one has the same genetic makeup. Many have similarities that may put them at risk for contracting cancer. But, if smoking and second hand smoke causes cancer, then EVERYONE exposed to cigarette smoke would contract cancer. But, there are many people that never were exposed to secondhand smoke that get lung cancer. There are many smokers (A majority) that NEVER contract lung cancer.

I'm not disputing the fact that not every smoker contract cancer, but to say they haven't proven a direct link between smoking and cancer is a naive outlook. It has been proven many times over, there are millions that have contracted cancer because of smoking and they may have been fine today if they hadn't ever picked up a lung rocket. Secondhand smoke has also been proven to cause cancer, maybe not in everyone, but it does cause cancer.

So since I don't smoke and someone else does that means they are making a decision for me that I don't care to have made. And yes I have a choice not to go to establishments that have smoking sections, but then why should I be stuck at home to avoid a habit I chose not to take up. So yes IMHO...go outside to light up.

Dan

quote Originally posted by aceman: And Patrick, I will slam dunk you like I did in that thread...

At the time, you didn't even address the post I quoted from that thread.

Aceman, you couldn't "slam dunk" me if the hoop was at your knees.

quote Originally posted by aceman: ... if you say that cigarette smoke CAUSES asthma. It may have triggered an attack and didn't help when you have/had an attack, but it DOES NOT cause asthma.

When you're gasping for every breath for a week or two at a time, you don't concern yourself with whether cigarette smoke caused or just triggered your asthma. Either way, it's friggen awful.

So Ohio is joining the smoking ban, huh? Dark-smoked-filled rooms have never been a guys/gals best friend when the clock ticks 2am while looking for a date. Now that the smoke is cleared, maybe people will become "selective."

quote Originally posted by tutnkmn: Yeah cigarettes are bad. Ban smoking in public places if you must. Here's something I find even more disturbing: I read today that the government is going to allow the use of DDT -- that's right DDT -- again after more than 30 years as a pesticide on our food! WTF! That crap WILL KILL you DEAD! Our government: Stop smoking, it's dangerous! But please, eat lots of food treated with DDT. I give up.

DDT isn't as bad as it was made out to be. It was largely banned from the emotional enviromental movement that sprang up after the book "Silent Spring". Which large amounts of her conclusion on the enviromental effects on DDT were nothing more than fabrications. Some of it however is true.

DDT had some effect, but not nearly as it was protrayed, which got it banned. Not because of the actual science, but the emotional outbrust of the liberal left. Like many things they do. Not logical, but emotional.

Since they had the UN ban DDT in 3rd world countries, millions upon millions of people died from Malaria and other insect bourne diseases and super crop devistation by locuses and and the like. All which could have been prevented if DDT were used.

The reason why the United States and other countries are reversing their ban is because it's good policy to allow the use of DDT again. It's effective, cheap, and has minimal impact on the enviroment. Science wins again.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Good.....Stay that way Patrick. If there is a direct link between cigarettes and cancer than 100% of cigarette smokers would contract cancer.

There is never a 100% link for anything. There are always people immune to something.

As a side note, every long term smoker i know personally eventually did get cancer in some form or another. And most 'non smoking spouses' actually got it worse. The non smoking familes i know are still 'healthy'. But tahts just my experience.

Smoking pretty much anywhere indoors has been banned for a loooooooooooong time in California. I do happen to live about 15 minutes from the ONLY legal bar and "smoking parlour" in the state. My friend's girlfriend's parents own it. I don't smoke, but they hook us up with free drinks, so we stop by occasionally.

I think there is a solution, smoking clubs like they did for cigars. Join and smoke to your hearts content and your lungs demise.

It is a vice... and like most vices I could care less what your doing, just don't get any on me unless I asked.

Any government that has the power to ban smoking in a privately owned building has too much power. Short term exposure to cigarette smoke is merely an annoyance, not a signifigant health risk. I like country & western dancing. The only remaining local honky tonk is so thick with smoke it's intolerable. I complained to management. They did nothing. I won't go back. That is the proper action to take-not to use the government to enforce your will on someone else when your presence there is voluntary. I personally think a resturantaur is foolish if he permits smoking in his dining room simply because there are more nonsmokers than smokers. These small incursions into personal freedom are baby steps to tyranny. Personally I don't want to live in tyranny. The issue is MUCH bigger than smoking.

Ahh...America, the land of the free.
I am free to open a strip club. I am free to publish pron magazines. I am free to open a Christian bookstore. The choice is mine. Freedom of choice is a good thing.
Since when did freedom of choice become limited to what choices the goverment allows? Smoking is a legal activity. That a business owner can not make a choice to cater to the smoking public is wrong. A non-smoking person has a choice not to support a business which does. Now, it is illegal for a smoker to choose to support a business that would cater to their desires.
It angers me and saddens me that the government is even involved. Why is it even necessary for them to be involved ? Gee...from what some of the posters here would have us believe, it is not necessary. Business is more profitable with a smoking ban in place. What these same posters have not made us understand is why these businesses need a smoking ban.
Ahh....America, the land of the free.

quote Originally posted by Brian Lamberts: Yeah, when I used to live in Michigan, we regularly went to Ontario to smoke.

we actually did.. but not ciggarettes

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I'm on my soapbox for a damn good reason.

That may be, Patrick, but it's a selfish one. Second hand smoke doesn't bother everyone the way you do and a society can't be ordered to make things comfortable for a few that are the most harshly affected.

Now I would HOPE that if it was bothering you and you asked someone to quit around you, they would be more than happy to accomodate you out of respect for your health and comfort. We both know that's not going to happen, though, so here we are with the question of what to do.

I am personally allergic to onions. I have been since childhood. (seriously) It's nearly impossible for me to eat at a restaurant with any assurance that I'm not getting food that I'm allergic to. The symptoms of my allergies are headach, proceeding to migraine (sometimes requiring a shot of Sumatriptan to alleviate) with it's accompanying nausea. If I go out to eat to a new restaurant where I don't know how the foods are prepared I will typically take 4 Tylenols beforehand. Even when I tell the wait staff of my allergy, most of the times I'm served something with onions.

It would make my life much easier and healthier if onions were NEVER allowed to be cooked with in a public restaurant. They should be served on the side and those that wish to eat them have that option.

Of course, this isn't going to happen because we can't order a society to fit the needs of a hypersensitive minority in that society. It's not practical and simply shouldn't be done.

I don't like second hand smoke either. I also don't have a problem with them banning smoking in PUBLIC buildings. The definition of PUBLIC meaning one owned and/or operated by a government entity. The PRIVATE business owner (restaurants, bars, even grocery stores) should post their smoking policy at the door of entrance and then enforce it. If THEY want to ban or limit smoking to certain areas, that's certainly their choice, but it should not be something that is mandated with a substance that is legal to sell and use.

Several of our local public buildings that have had a ban in place regarding smoking in the building have extended that ban to anywhere on the property, even OUTSIDE. There are no more outside smoking areas in several buildings, as of Jan 1, 2007. I recognize the right for them to do that, but it's still stupid. Smoking outdoors is no more a health hazard to anyone other than the smoker than harsh language is. If we want to ban smoking, the for crying out loud make the sale and use of tobacco illegal. Period. That settles the problem. Oh, but we can't do that, we'd rather continue collecting the tax revenue and being hypocrites by passing ludicrous laws.

Where will it stop, for our own good? Are they going to begin banning all alcohol in ALL restaurants and bars? How about too large portions, or limiting the number of trips through the buffet (after all, that cholestorol is a killer, not to mention obesity). I'm not talking about the restaurant saying "limit one trip through the buffet", I'm talking about the federal, state, or local government coming in and saying "you may not serve or consume a portion larger than 700 calories".

You think that's way out there? Think again.

John Stricker

The last few months I have not posted much as I have become increasingly unhappy with the way people react to one another.
The simplest things and some of you have made finding an obscure argument into an art form. Completely disregard another's point of view and replace it with often ridiculous assumptions that really have nothing to do with the facts.

I mean there are several you ass-hats on here that actually believe that some peoples rights are more valid than another's. How freaking simple is it to understand that everyone has a right in our country not to be put out by another person. So are we now saying that it is our right to do what ever we want to anyone simply because it is what you want? No it isn't any more complicated than that and still you people find a hundred different angles to spew your bull **** and petty selfish immaturity.

Don't mis understand me. I'm not preaching or lifting my own stature here. I'm faulty to be sure but when this many people around you get this ignorant it just seems to make me suddenly a freaking genius.


No one has more rights to enjoy a public place than any other person with equal rights. Infringing on another's rights to enjoy a public place puts that person in the wrong.
It doesn't detract from the wrong doers rights at all. Rights don't change when you're wrong they just don't take precedence and they shouldn't take a higher standing than anyone Else's

------------------
Agent 99: Oh, Max, how terrible.
Maxwell Smart: He desereved it, 99. He was a Kaos killer.
Agent 99: Sometimes I wonder if we're any better, Max.
Maxwell Smart: What are you talking about, 99? We have to shoot and kill and destroy. We represent everything that's wholesome and good in the world.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Now I would HOPE that if it was bothering you and you asked someone to quit around you, they would be more than happy to accomodate you out of respect for your health and comfort. We both know that's not going to happen, though, so here we are with the question of what to do.

John, I believe that a smoker can be just as considerate as any other. I have asked others around me if it might bother them before lighting up.
....not to argue....
Of course, it is rather embarrassing to ask a whole room of people to do so for just you. Which is why these type of people are voting with their wallet with our elected officials instead of business owners.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I mean there are several you ass-hats on here that actually believe that some peoples rights are more valid than another's. How freaking simple is it to understand that everyone has a right in our country not to be put out by another person. So are we now saying that it is our right to do what ever we want to anyone simply because it is what you want? No it isn't any more complicated than that and still you people find a hundred different angles to spew your bull **** and petty selfish immaturity.

They don't wish to understand. Ignorance is bliss.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: They don't wish to understand. Ignorance is bliss.

Careful, Patrick...........Perhaps pokey's statement was aimed right at you, too.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: The last few months I have not posted much as I have become increasingly unhappy with the way people react to one another. The simplest things and some of you have made finding an obscure argument into an art form. Completely disregard another's point of view and replace it with often ridiculous assumptions that really have nothing to do with the facts.

I've felt the same way in general about all internet forums. The petty bickering is just lame.

quote I mean there are several you ass-hats on here that actually believe that some peoples rights are more valid than another's. How freaking simple is it to understand that everyone has a right in our country not to be put out by another person. So are we now saying that it is our right to do what ever we want to anyone simply because it is what you want? No it isn't any more complicated than that and still you people find a hundred different angles to spew your bull **** and petty selfish immaturity. ... No one has more rights to enjoy a public place than any other person with equal rights. Infringing on another's rights to enjoy a public place puts that person in the wrong. It doesn't detract from the wrong doers rights at all. Rights don't change when you're wrong they just don't take precedence and they shouldn't take a higher standing than anyone Else's

First off, a private establishment is NOT a public place. If I choose to open a bar or restaurant, I should be able to choose who I wish to serve, whether it be smokers or non-smokers or any other group for that matter. If I don't want to serve people with red shirts, I shouldn't have to, it is my private business it is MY choice. If the government wants to legislate that you can't smoke in a government building or office so be it, they operate the office they make the rules, beyond that...

Now...this being said...I've said it before and I'll say it again...it is VERY nice to be able to go out for an evening and not have to treat the clothes like a biohazard because of the stench. Personally, the smoking ban in Ontario has neither increased or decreased the frequency of my visits to various pubs/bars/clubs. I will say though that there is still a haze in almost every bar I enter, because the smoking had become such a part of the atmosphere, many bars have replaced the smokers with smoke machines to make sure the ambiance isn't lost.

I guess my eventual point is that if someone wants to smoke they should be able to, in their own home, in their own establishment or anywhere else where the property owner agrees that the establishment will not disallow smoking.

Just like any other group, if we are going to advocate equal rights, let's make sure that they are equal and not just tipping the balance the other way.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: I guess my eventual point is that if someone wants to smoke they should be able to, in their own home, in their own establishment or anywhere else where the property owner agrees that the establishment will not disallow smoking. Just like any other group, if we are going to advocate equal rights, let's make sure that they are equal and not just tipping the balance the other way.

I agree with you but I think the issue here at least between us is that a public place is defined by law.
By law a bar or restaurant is a public place. Refusing ones admittance to said places has consequences also as defined by law. Not that they can't but there needs to be reason that a judge would agree with and the interpretation of the law is another matter entirely.

Still basic rights apply and I covered that in the previous post.

quote Originally posted by aceman: Careful, Patrick...........Perhaps pokey's statement was aimed right at you, too.

Read it again. I don't think so.