Illinois Smoking Ban

[jmagnus]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

This might sound stupid, but they should have bars apply for a smoking license in the same way you apply for a liquor license or topless dancing permit. just limit them so you have a few bars that allow smoking(which the cigar, cigarette, hookah smokers can patron) while the rest can be smoke free.

That's a good idea, but it won't happen. The way it is now, if you get 80% of your sales from tobacco products, smoking is allowed. So hookah and cigar bars are fine, as long as they don't serve alcohol.


KSig,
I've been working in the beer industry for a while now. There is no reason we should be as slow as we are right now. From the same time last year we are doing roughly 50% less buisness now...what other reason can you come up with for this? I would love to hear it.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

KSig,
I've been working in the beer industry for a while now. There is no reason we should be as slow as we are right now. From the same time last year we are doing roughly 50% less buisness now...what other reason can you come up with for this? I would love to hear it.

For starters, the economy isn't doing so hot right now which means people aren't spending on entertainment type activities.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

For starters, the economy isn't doing so hot right now which means people aren't spending on entertainment type activities.

And on top of that, gas prices are upwards of $3.20 for just the cheap stuff.

Most people's "fun budgets" are being put to other uses.

[JonoBN41]

This second-hand smoke business is hysterical, and I mean that. People assume now that it's genuinely harmful.

In 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General called a press conference and practically pounded on the podium in order to impress upon us all that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

There are safe levels of all kinds of nasties, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, biphenyls, PCBs, - you name it. But not smoke.

He said that second-hand smoke could account for as many as 3,600 deaths per year in the U.S. Notice the words "could" and "as many as".

The account of this press conference was reported by ABC News, which concluded with the statistic, apparently meant to add drama to the story, that each year 245 million Americans are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Okay, let's do the math. Dividing 3,600 by 245 million, we get .0000146 or .00146%. That's not even two thousandths of one percent.

As any statistician will tell you, that number is not only statistically insignificant, it pretty much proves the safety of second-hand smoke.

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Smoking bans are an agenda, and are not based in scientific fact.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Not really - the connection between smoking and lung cancer came in two separate but related prongs, one dealing with actual laboratory studies using live tissue (see: "tar-painting" studies on mice) and one dealing with epidemiological evidence (such as the NCI's Monograph series, found here.

Now, you're trying to say that epidemiological evidence should have been clouded or subverted completely if second-hand smoke also causes cancer. However, this is likely false, if you consider that active smoking is considerably more dangerous than passive (or second-hand) smoking - this increase in scale would likely be sufficient to find the smoking/cancer link on its own. This is not a sufficient condition to claim that passive smoking is not dangerous - after all, there are other kinds of lung cancer as well. Just because we can separate smoking from, say, asbestos exposure, this doesn't mean that asbestos no longer is a 'cause' of lung cancers (mesothelioma, to be precise, but the point remains).

It's not enough to get cute with a statement like "If second-hand smoke had an effect similar to smoking . . ." because that's not the issue. In fact, if passive smoking is even 1/100th as dangerous as active smoking, it becomes a public health hazard. The science isn't perfect, but to deny the effects of inhaling smoke for second-hand users is as laughable as denying the effects of the same action on active smokers.

[LeslieAGD]

I love the smoking bans. I hope Michigan adopts one soon.

[Tom Earp]

Oh, lest we forget, Radon causes cancer.

Now, how will the Government tax it?

Well first, the drug companies will bottle it, sell it after it gets approved by the FDA and some one will start making money from it.

If you feed lab mice enough water, how will that affect them?

[jmagnus]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

This second-hand smoke business is hysterical, and I mean that. People assume now that it's genuinely harmful.

In 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General called a press conference and practically pounded on the podium in order to impress upon us all that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

There are safe levels of all kinds of nasties, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, biphenyls, PCBs, - you name it. But not smoke.

He said that second-hand smoke could account for as many as 3,600 deaths per year in the U.S. Notice the words "could" and "as many as".

The account of this press conference was reported by ABC News, which concluded with the statistic, apparently meant to add drama to the story, that each year 245 million Americans are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Okay, let's do the math. Dividing 3,600 by 245 million, we get .0000146 or .00146%. That's not even two thousandths of one percent.

As any statistician will tell you, that number is not only statistically insignificant, it pretty much proves the safety of second-hand smoke.

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Smoking bans are an agenda, and are not based in scientific fact.

While, according to the SG, "There is no safe level of SHS exposure"...OSHA has classified safe levels for every chemical in cigarettes.

Smoke and SHS are WAY under all of OSHA's levels. For example, while there is formaldehyde in cigarettes, cooking dinner on a gas stove puts 400x more into the air than smoking a cigarette.

There is also arsenic in cigarettes, but it would take 375,000 cigarettes smoked per hour in an unventilated 40x20 foot room to reach unsafe OSHA levels.

As I'm sure you know, smoke dissipates in the air. In a "smokey" bar, SHS equals 1/1000th of a cigarette per hour. That would equal, for a average 40 hour work week, about 6 cigarettes per year for a bartender.

Not to mention that the president of the New York Cancer Society was quoted as saying "The Surgeon General's report is false and full of junk science".

Think on this:

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” –John F. Kennedy

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

While, according to the SG, "There is no safe level of SHS exposure"...OSHA has classified safe levels for every chemical in cigarettes.

Smoke and SHS are WAY under all of OSHA's levels. For example, while there is formaldehyde in cigarettes, cooking dinner on a gas stove puts 400x more into the air than smoking a cigarette.

This is specious without cite - a quick search shows the NIH references nine studies that list side-stream smoke as containing 3x the OSHA standard for formaldehyde, for instance.

Additionally, you're making a fundamentally flawed assumption, which coincides with the problem with this point:

Originally Posted by jmagnus

As I'm sure you know, smoke dissipates in the air. In a "smokey" bar, SHS equals 1/1000th of a cigarette per hour. That would equal, for a average 40 hour work week, about 6 cigarettes per year for a bartender.

This dissipation is not an instantaneous process (or even nearly), like it would be with the individual chemicals released into the air in gas phase - in fact, the particulate smoke makes them much more likely to be inhaled since there is not homogeneity in a smoky atmosphere. It's concentrated, and can't be considered "dissipated" like you say, can it?

Again, you'll need cites, or this sounds like specious reasoning.

[jmagnus]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is specious without cite - a quick search shows the NIH references nine studies that list side-stream smoke as containing 3x the OSHA standard for formaldehyde, for instance.

Additionally, you're making a fundamentally flawed assumption, which coincides with the problem with this point:



This dissipation is not an instantaneous process (or even nearly), like it would be with the individual chemicals released into the air in gas phase - in fact, the particulate smoke makes them much more likely to be inhaled since there is not homogeneity in a smoky atmosphere. It's concentrated, and can't be considered "dissipated" like you say, can it?

Again, you'll need cites, or this sounds like specious reasoning.

Sorry buddy, I honestly would if I could. I did some research for my speech class last year and I C&Ped it out of my paper. Apparently I lost the works cited page. You don't have to believe it, but they did come from legitimate sources. I have no reason to lie because it's not like anyone on here will actually change their opinion from what others say anyways.

Monet,
I have to admit that your science talk confuses the hell out of me. You are uber-smart...I get it. If you wouldn't mind though, I would appreciate it if you could "dumb it down" a little. I'm sure you make good points but if I have to google every 3rd word...It's just not worth it. Also, we all know smoking isn't good for you. Thats not the argument...at least for me. I just think it's not as bad as everyone wants us to think. In fact, smoking is related to lowered risks of alzheimers and parkensens. Don't quote me on that but the info is out there if you want to look it up yourself.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

That's a good idea, but it won't happen. The way it is now, if you get 80% of your sales from tobacco products, smoking is allowed. So hookah and cigar bars are fine, as long as they don't serve alcohol.

That may very well depend on the jurisdiction that you're in. I've been to hookah bars here in NYC, where the public smoking ban has been around for a while, that serve liquor AND food. I doubt that the hookah would account for 80% of the total sales of a place like that.

[Tom Earp]

Okay fine. Lets outlaw tobacco altogether.

The Federal and State Governments profess a smoking ban and higher taxes on tobacco.

This will cure everything!

The only people who will have to pay the higher taxes will be smokers and the non smokers will not have to worry about a thing!

So, let us progress into the future!

No tobacco sales. Farms closed, manufactures, closed, wholesalers, closed, and last retailers closed.

Oh, lest we forget all of the people who work for them whether drivers or clerks.

So none of the Billions in taxes collected from the sinful smokers.

So, now, where is that money going to come from? You guessed it! You! The non smoker or chewers!

Where will that money come from? Relastate, alchahol, gasoline, food, sales tax, and god knows where else that will effect your pocket.

If you do not want to go where smokers go, do not go. Smokers do not go where they are not wanted. I will not spend my money there!

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Okay fine. Lets outlaw tobacco altogether.

The Federal and State Governments profess a smoking ban and higher taxes on tobacco.

This will cure everything!

The only people who will have to pay the higher taxes will be smokers and the non smokers will not have to worry about a thing!

So, let us progress into the future!

No tobacco sales. Farms closed, manufactures, closed, wholesalers, closed, and last retailers closed.

Oh, lest we forget all of the people who work for them whether drivers or clerks.

So none of the Billions in taxes collected from the sinful smokers.

So, now, where is that money going to come from? You guessed it! You! The non smoker or chewers!

Where will that money come from? Relastate, alchahol, gasoline, food, sales tax, and god knows where else that will effect your pocket.

If you do not want to go where smokers go, do not go. Smokers do not go where they are not wanted. I will not spend my money there!

I'm not sure what relastate is, but it seems like you need a glass of scotch and a xanax.

Calm down crazy man.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

KSig,
I've been working in the beer industry for a while now. There is no reason we should be as slow as we are right now. From the same time last year we are doing roughly 50% less buisness now...what other reason can you come up with for this? I would love to hear it.

That's interesting, but the ban didn't go into effect this time last year, did it?

A smoking ban might be one piece, but people can drink in their homes as well - I'm not sure why this would result in a 50% drop for a distributor, and it doesn't pass the smell test. However, a flatlining economy may very well result in a severe shortage of entertainment dollars, not to mention the market share Miller and A/B are losing to craft brews and other alcoholic beverages . . .

It's likely much more complex than a smoking ban.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

not to mention the market share Miller and A/B are losing to craft brews and other alcoholic beverages . . .

And how AlphaFrog is glad of this...