Illinois Smoking Ban

[AKA_Monet]

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.

In California they actually do, but they are are difficult to keep up.

You have to have several large building hepa filtered air conditioners to not discharge the exhaled smoke into the atmosphere. From what I understand, these are the same kind of air filters Navy subs use--so they are not cheap.

Secondly, you have to have medical waivers and increased disability insurance for all your workers. And another tag line for patrons so they cannot sue you for endangering their lives.

Then if there is alcohol served, you have to have security personnel to verify that everyone is a legal adult.

And if you serve food, then you are under the laws of public health inspection.

It just gets too cost ineffective to run these joints.

That's why most of them moved to Vegas, Florida and New Orleans--pre-Katrina.

These same rules do not apply for Cannabis Clubs in California--their run like wine bars...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

Monet,
This is not a personal attack but your post reminds me of PETA. Taken to the extreme and showing the worst-case-scenario.

I can either quote stats all day with you or show you the facts of medical pathology.

I am a scientist, I have studies heart disease and cancer. I have seen these things in animals and I have necropsied the huge sarcomas in mice. These are NOT a joke. This is how it happens. It takes ~20-40 years to develop. I also have had and currently have family members battling this addiction.

Moreover, it is well known that the cigarette companies adulterate their tobacco with more nicotine, etc.--like arsenic and benzene.

Now, I can go down to where there is FasL and Fas ligand signal transduction mechanism with global genomic rearrangment of your DNA or convince you that your vice should be practiced outside the city limits of your area... Period...

And I am coming from one of the people in California that started this whole ban thing in the first place 10 years ago... There is less nicotine smoking related emphesyma...

Notice how I said nicotine, because there are plenty of Californians that still smoke--other things most are illegal, but they still smoke...

[nittanyalum]

^^^Having family members lost to lung cancer I'm not going anywhere near this smoking discussion, but jmag, I just noticed your signature link and clicked in. Watching your brothers do the *shimmy clap* to "Thriller" cracked me up!

[jmagnus]

I'm glad you liked it. At least you got someting good out of this thread.

[macallan25]

Just because you don't have a bunch of deaths "proving" the deadliness of second hand smoke does not disprove the fact that second hand smoke is not in your personal health's best interest.

[nittanyalum]

^^^What in the hell are you talking about?

First of all, apples meet oranges.

And secondly, if you were actually trying to make a 'point', it was lost in the jibberish.

We get it, Tom, you smoke and like it. Keep puffing away.

[Low C Sharp]

I think everyone has to agree that this law is right on that "personal freedoms" line.

We do? That's news to me as a lawyer.

You can't run a restaurant where you let rats crawl around in the cooler. It doesn't matter whether you warn all your customers about the presence of rats; it doesn't matter whether consumers have a choice between ratty and rat-free establishments; it doesn't matter whether science has shown definitive proof that rat droppings in food causes cancer. That restaurant is a nuisance and a danger to public health, and you have to close, period.

So where's your outrage about health inspection of restaurants and the infringement of the constitutional right to sell and buy filthy food? Maybe you realize that this kind of rule is comfortably within the police power of the state. Just like the smoking ban.
________
Marijuana card

[jmagnus]

Penguin, don't even go there. If it wasn't for us FIBs, you Cheeseheads would still be trying to grow corn on rocks

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

police power of the state. Just like the smoking ban.

wow, sieg heil.

As far as Dana Reeve some articles blamed her getting lung cancer on working in nightclubs when she was younger. But if a smoker's lung cancer risk decreases this much when he quits, wouldn't it be even quicker for a nonsmoker who left a smoky environment?

I believe the IMMENSE FREAKING STRESS she was under caring for her husband for all those years is more likely what caused/aggravated the cancer, plus some people's bodies are just more susceptible. Same with Andy Kaufman (although his stress was probably more self-inflicted).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

But if a smoker's lung cancer risk decreases this much when he quits, wouldn't it be even quicker for a nonsmoker who left a smoky environment?

I'm not sure those statistics are accurate - I mean, it's a sales web site, and there's no citation whatsoever . . . the SG warning that said "Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health" wasn't because the risk of lung cancer would actually go down, IIRC, it was more because it wouldn't continue to increase (as it would continuously if the individual continued to smoke).

[33girl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm not sure those statistics are accurate - I mean, it's a sales web site, and there's no citation whatsoever . . . the SG warning that said "Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health" wasn't because the risk of lung cancer would actually go down, IIRC, it was more because it wouldn't continue to increase (as it would continuously if the individual continued to smoke).

I've seen those statistics before, on non-sales sites, that just happened to be the first place I found a link.

This thread is starting to remind me of the OMG LEAD IN LIPSTICK email that circulates once a year or so.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

You can't run a restaurant where you let rats crawl around in the cooler. It doesn't matter whether you warn all your customers about the presence of rats; it doesn't matter whether consumers have a choice between ratty and rat-free establishments; it doesn't matter whether science has shown definitive proof that rat droppings in food causes cancer. That restaurant is a nuisance and a danger to public health, and you have to close, period.

So where's your outrage about health inspection of restaurants and the infringement of the constitutional right to sell and buy filthy food? Maybe you realize that this kind of rule is comfortably within the police power of the state. Just like the smoking ban.

Well, if you like to have hantavirus, and bubonic plaque in your food, hey, more power to you... Good luck with that. Within 2 weeks, everyone will be on respirators...

[AKA_Monet]

Seriously folks, the physiology is simple, you inhale an agent containing nicotine, formaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, etc., the tar interacts with your airways through the bronchi, etc. where there are helicobacter, bacillus and a few other interesting microorganisms, like candida, their processing of smoke is much more rapid that your alveolar cells, which some are epithelial in nature.

What these microbes put out is bizarre chiral compounds that are not biodegradable.

So when this crap is exhaled to a non-smoker, with unadulterated CTFR and a quite a few other signal transduction pathway gene products did not know to respond, what you all think happens to their microbes?

They die unless they mutate. For some people, it is not a very good thing.

That is why we physicians, scientists and public health officials try to stop it directly.

[nittanyalum]

Here's more details of some of the crap in cigarette smoke: http://www.whudafxup.com/?ref=truthsite

Listen, you guys can keep finding/making all the rationalizations you want or need to keep doing whatever you want to do. To YOURSELF. I don't want to breathe it, step on the discarded butts, smell it or smell like YOU. So keep it to yourself. I've seen what smoking can do to someone's health up close and personal and I'm telling you, it's not pretty. You can take that to heart or not, it's up to you. But remember, too, that it's not only "just" lung cancer that could be the beginning of the end for you, it's just your compromised lungs in and of themselves that could be the problem. I have yet another relative in ICU as we speak, heavy smoker, doesn't have cancer, but needed to have surgery for something heart-related and his lungs didn't recover well from the anesthesia. That started off a chain of reactions and all of a sudden all kinds of things are rearing their ugly heads. The drs. say that's common, the body can often "mask" hidden dangers while you're "healthy", but once given the chance to thrive when your body is weakened for whatever reason, then things start to go south.

So based on my experience, I believe that there is no "safe" level of exposure to smoke, first or second-hand. And I have the right to protect MY health since I choose not to smoke. I don't want to suck your gross smokey leftovers into MY clean lungs. How is that not a reasonable desire on a nonsmoker's part?

Plus they're so damn expensive these days. How does anyone even afford that habit?


ETA: sorry, I thought the link would go right to the "facts" page I was on; you have to select it from the menu on the left

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

wow, sieg heil.

As far as Dana Reeve some articles blamed her getting lung cancer on working in nightclubs when she was younger. But if a smoker's lung cancer risk decreases this much when he quits, wouldn't it be even quicker for a nonsmoker who left a smoky environment?

I believe the IMMENSE FREAKING STRESS she was under caring for her husband for all those years is more likely what caused/aggravated the cancer, plus some people's bodies are just more susceptible. Same with Andy Kaufman (although his stress was probably more self-inflicted).

Though your facts are in fact correct, you've just Godwin'd the thread and thus you lose. Sorry but those are the rules of the internet.