Illinois Smoking Ban

[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?

[Drolefille]

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Drolefille]

Smoking Doubles Alzheimer's Risk

SMOKERS ARE more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease as non-smokers, according to a new study.

The researchers, who report their findings in the Lancet medical journal, found that smokers who carry the Apoe 4 gene, which has been linked with Alzheimer's, were at no greater risk of developing the disease than non- smokers. However, those without the gene were at four times the risk. One explanation of why Apoe 4 might protect smokers is that smoking alters brain chemistry in a way that counters some of the effects of Alzheimer's disease. However, it is also possible that smokers with Apoe 4 die young, so do not live long enough to develop the disease, the researchers say.

So you know, it might lower your risk if you're genetically predisposed, but they don't know why and it might be because you're already dead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...BrandChannel=0

"It is not our intent to promote smoking as a protective measure against Parkinson's disease," Evan L. Thacker from Harvard School of Public Health emphasized in comments to Reuters Health. "Obviously smoking has a multitude of negative consequences. Rather, we did this study to try to encourage other scientists...to consider the possibility that neuroprotective chemicals may be present in tobacco leaves."
Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have "normal" Parkinson's disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk.
Studies to determine if, in fact, there are neuroprotective compounds in tobacco are warranted, the researchers say. "The observation that smokeless tobacco users also have a lower risk of Parkinson's disease suggests that the most likely candidates are not compounds generated by combustion, but rather constituents of the tobacco leaves.

They believe it is something in the tobacco, not smoking itself that reduces your risk of Parkinson's and no one is recommending it to prevent the disease. Claiming that somehow this negates the known negative effects of smoking is silly. As is claiming that second-hand smoke does not negatively effect the passerby but somehow might positively do so.

People's minds aren't going to change on this because no matter if smoke is truly dangerous or not it is uncomfortable, smells bad, and ruins the taste of food. So you could tell me tomorrow that second hand smoke cures the common cold and I wouldn't sit next to a smoker in a restaurant or go to a smoke-filled bar, pub, or bowling alley.