don`t forget banning BBQ`s too!!! the PCAH`s as well as all that CO2

Funny how you cant rebutt the financial side iNow, but thanks for your input

Our city had a great compromise: if a property owner wants to permit smoking, they can set up a designated smoking area with an isolated ventilation system, closed off by doors so the smoke doesn't drift into the nonsmoking areas. These areas can have bars and even serve food, but the employees who work in them must do so voluntarily.

 

Needless to say, there wasn't much of an issue finding bartenders who were willing to "volunteer" to work in the smoking area.

 

Our state passed a much more restrictive ban and this approach went away

I'm pretty sure that you aren't allowed to drive a gasoline/petroleum vehicle indoors. All the forklifts I've seen, for example, are electric. Driving outdoors does cause pollution, just like smoking outdoors, but in both cases there is enough air to dilute it. Indoors, there is much less air so the effects are worse.

Funny how you cant rebutt the financial side iNow, but thanks for your input

 

The word "can't" must mean something different in your dictionary than it does in mine...

 

 

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=210

All legitimate economic impact studies on business show either no economic effect or a positive one after a smokefree law goes into effect. When the issue of smokefree air arises, the tobacco industry will work hard to create dissent and fear. Their goal is to convince business owners and residents that the sky will fall if a smokefree law passes. Since 1987, the tobacco industry and smokefree opponents have consistently claimed that smokefree laws lead to a decrease in business in restaurants, bars, bingo halls, and billiard halls, usually by 20-50%, with an accompanying decrease in employment. These claims are totally unfounded. On the contrary, the number of peer-reviewed economic studies showing that smokefree laws have either no economic effect, or a positive one, continues to mount as more communities pass and implement strong smokefree laws. Going smokefree is good for health and good for business. Period.

Be sure to actually click the link to the see the State, Local, and International level rebuttals of your argument.

 

 

Now, if the dozens of studies cited at the link above simply weren't good enough for your high standards, there are, of course, more. Here is another with numerous references cited:

 

 

http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/economic.htm

Businesses which consider adopting smoke-free policies, particularly hospitality industry businesses such as restaurants and bars, are concerned about the economic impact of such policies on their businesses. Likewise, when communities or states propose adopting smoke-free ordinances or regulations, business owners, policymakers and the public are concerned about the possible economic effects of such policies. While the tobacco industry has for years stated that smoke-free policies will reduce customer patronage of smoke-free businesses, there are no credible, scientific studies that support these claims. We have attempted, below, to compile scientifically reliable reports, and articles about such reports, which examine these issues.

 

Still not good enough? Well, let me toss one more in here just for good measure:

 

 

http://www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/tobacco_control/docs/ciaa_impact_report.pdf

One of the central arguments for opponents of clean indoor air policies is the potential adverse effect on revenues and profits of businesses directly affected by the law. Scollo et al. (2003) reported that smoke-free restaurant and bar laws had no impact or a positive impact on sales and employment in their review of all studies pertaining to the impact of clean indoor air policies on the hospitality industry. Mandel et al. (2005) concluded that smoke-free laws were associated with no change in gaming revenue from their study conducted in Delaware. Also, there is evidence that significantly more bar patrons (Tang et al., 2003) and bar owners and staff (Tang et al., 2004) now favor California’s ban on indoor smoking than did when it initially went into effect in 1998.

 

So... Let me ask you. Do you still wish to continue asserting that I "can't" rebut the ridiculous claim that smoking bans result in financial ruin? If so, please do tell so I can go rustle up a few dozen more studies which counter your claims.

Edited April 8, 200916 yr by iNow

(Annoying when a reference to studies -- made by a webpage -- has no citations of the date and title of each mentioned study)

 

iNow, your first link might be perceived as unreliable since its they're anti-smoking

 

But the other two links do seem to boost your assertion of no reduction in business. And I didn't think it'd be a problem in that regard either. However, it's not about the business, rather the issue's about people who'd like to smoke in certain restaurants/bars.

 

You haven't responded to the part about where I offered that it's perfectly fine to disallow smoking in buildings with more than one store, plus in areas where people need to go through in order to reach a destination, including malls, subways, hallways, lobbies, and bus terminals -- for example. How would people smoking only in the remaining businesses that allowed it have an effect on you, if they had to place a smoking note visibly/prominently?

 

If that couldn't affect non-smokers, then it's practically legislating morality.

I voted: Yes, all smoking everywhere (except a person's house)

 

Cigarette smoking always make me feel pissed off. I'm an allergic and even had astma as a child.

So... Let me ask you. Do you still wish to continue asserting that I "can't" rebut the ridiculous claim that smoking bans result in financial ruin? If so, please do tell so I can go rustle up a few dozen more studies which counter your claims.

 

Those are for businesses...I wasnt speaking of businesses.

Im referrring the the primarily agricultural economy of Kentucky and Virginia and whatnot.

Tens of thousands would become unemployed if tobacco was outlawed. It would be ridiculous to say that we could survive the outlawing of our cash crop. KY needed to shore up their budget...so what did they do? They increased the cigarette tax by a dollar. This shows that KY is entirely dependent upon this plant.

 

Like I said before, it would cost a lot more than 100,000$ to change MOs on our farm. This is a subject most city folk are fairly ignorant in, so I understand that you didnt understand me

 

If you as a taxpayer would be willing to fund the changing of our lving because YOU wanted it to change, you would hear no argument from us.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Our city had a great compromise: if a property owner wants to permit smoking, they can set up a designated smoking area with an isolated ventilation system, closed off by doors so the smoke doesn't drift into the nonsmoking areas. These areas can have bars and even serve food, but the employees who work in them must do so voluntarily.

 

Needless to say, there wasn't much of an issue finding bartenders who were willing to "volunteer" to work in the smoking area.

 

Our state passed a much more restrictive ban and this approach went away

 

That IS a great idea...anti-smokers, what is wrong with this compromise?

I think this is stupid the way there baning smoking in places that the government dosint even own. Like comon. they built that company from the ground they should be able to decide wheter people can smoke in the building or around the premisis

iNow, your first link might be perceived as unreliable since its they're anti-smoking

I was not worried about that possible perception since the link had a references section, and citations listed for each bullet-point they listed (complete with dates, titles, and links to the actual studies when available).

 

My question in response to anyone who would suggest that the site is unreliable would be, "Out of the 21 peer-reviewed references cited in support of their arguments, which one do you think is mistaken and why?"

 

Sure, the site did the work of collecting the references for me, but the references themselves are untainted, hence any concerns about reliability and bias are unfounded.

 

 

 

But the other two links do seem to boost your assertion of no reduction in business. And I didn't think it'd be a problem in that regard either. However, it's not about the business, rather the issue's about people who'd like to smoke in certain restaurants/bars.

I was countering the claims of Lan®12.

 

 

You haven't responded to the part about where I offered that it's perfectly fine to disallow smoking in buildings with more than one store, plus in areas where people need to go through in order to reach a destination, including malls, subways, hallways, lobbies, and bus terminals -- for example. How would people smoking only in the remaining businesses that allowed it have an effect on you, if they had to place a smoking note visibly/prominently?

I thought I conceded this point already in post #11, my very first post to this thread:

 

 

I'd say unless you are in your home, outside, or in a smoking zone (heck, maybe even a smoking-based establishment like a head shop... that'd be fine)...

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Those are for businesses...I wasnt speaking of businesses.

Im referrring the the primarily agricultural economy of Kentucky and Virginia and whatnot.

Tens of thousands would become unemployed if tobacco was outlawed. It would be ridiculous to say that we could survive the outlawing of our cash crop.

Yes, but you responded directly to me, and MY argument was NEVER about total outlaw of all tobacco, so in essence, you are now arguing one big strawman.

Edited April 8, 200916 yr by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

Tens of thousands would become unemployed if tobacco was outlawed. It would be ridiculous to say that we could survive the outlawing of our cash crop. KY needed to shore up their budget...so what did they do? They increased the cigarette tax by a dollar. This shows that KY is entirely dependent upon this plant.

 

Like I said before, it would cost a lot more than 100,000$ to change MOs on our farm.

Don't really like to hinge on that argument. It's a decent point, but if the gove deided to go ahead pay for the crop switch, you'd lose the biggest component of your argument.

 

I'd keep it mainly at citizen's rights, with the problem of crop replacement as extra fluff.

 

Heck if the nuke power industry's main argument was the cost to switch to green tech, I'd quick jump and say let's pay it.

 

 

That IS a great idea...anti-smokers, what is wrong with this compromise?

I sort of thought it good also, but it's more restrictive than my idea. Why have to construct new doors and ventilation? It's also more work to regulate. With my proposal....hey, you allow smoking -- where's the posted note? Instead of having to check for ventilation, proper doors, worker notices of refusal to work smoky areas, etc.

 

My posted note is simple, brief, visible and writable by marker: "Smoking"

Yes,your idea is better BearKey, and more cost feasible, but there is no way the anti-smokers would go that far. wed have to give up more than that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, but you responded directly to me, and MY argument was NEVER about total outlaw of all tobacco, so in essence, you are now arguing one big strawman.

 

 

I thought it was? i get off track so easily...now I have to find the poster who said that...sorry about the mix-up INow.

But the point is valid is it not?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

"I'd keep it mainly at citizen's rights, with the problem of crop replacement as extra fluff."

 

 

I agree, somehow I got off track.

I really dont see how they can have a problem with cigarettes, but then still use electricity from coal plants, cars and every other thing that is spewing out gases.

 

The non smoker has every right to not go into a store, whereas this ban would inhibit the smoker from going into stores.

 

It seems as if because it doesnt affect them, they are ok with banning it.

 

PS--I dont smoke lol.

Edited April 8, 200916 yr by Lan(r)12
Consecutive posts merged.

Inow, you know it's hypocritical. I don't think you are wrong, I think ultimately we should work towards that goal.

 

Just like cars where we are trying to eliminate CO emission, we should as too try to find a way to minimize the harm of smoking.

 

I jsut think an all out ban isn't going to be very helpful or realistic. If you've smoked you know the addictive aspects of it. I quit too, I know...and because if that I am more accepting of it. I personally rather have some person smoking while I pass by than have a society full of craving extremely irratible people around....

 

I think in that case...epecially since I nearly wanted to kill everyone when I quit smoking, it would be actually safer to my health...

 

Who would even follow it anyway? all you will do is waste police time enforcing it...

The non smoker has every right to not go into a store, whereas this ban would inhibit the smoker from going into stores.

No, it would not. It would simply disallow them from keeping a lit cigarette while within the store.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I jsut think an all out ban isn't going to be very helpful or realistic.

I find your comment very strange. It's worked in my city, and seemingly also in Bascule's, as well as in the huge number of cities described and listed by my references above. This type of ban consistently turns out to be a VERY good thing once we get past all of the dumb arguments people make trying to prevent it from happening and prevent it from being implemented.

Edited April 8, 200916 yr by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

But a ban would lower the medical insurance.

PS--I dont smoke lol.

Neither do I

 

Don't smoke weed either.

 

But for a lot of the same reason I fight against weed banning, I'm setting my foot down here. The compromise I offered is more than sufficient, and it's practical to others' health in that no smoke intrusion occurs. If we back down from that, the anti-crowd wants more.

 

Except weed's fight is different -- it's a natural plant in unfair fight against 4 industries who are threatened, and whose greed helped fuel the drug crises. But....it's a matter for another thread.

 

Widespread cigarette smoke bans is government nannying and overreaction in the manner of sweeping withdrawal (no pun) of zoned areas rather than practical compromise especially with something affecting free citizens.

 

Now, I have a major beef with tabacco companies also. No questionable ingredients should ever be added to cigarettes. If the law banned that, good enough for me. But if people still light up afterwards, nothing we can do -- or shouldn't (by force at least).

No questionable ingredients should ever be added to cigarettes. If the law banned that, good enough for me.

 

Amen Brother!

Now, I have a major beef with tabacco companies also. No questionable ingredients should ever be added to cigarettes. If the law banned that, good enough for me. But if people still light up afterwards, nothing we can do -- or shouldn't (by force at least).

 

This is something I have a problem with as well. Ive worked and lived on a tobacco farm all my life, and worked in the warehouses where they process it (which I highly doubt anyone here can say they have as well) and NEVER have I seen them add any ingredient other than some preservatives like is added in food.

 

It is ridiculous to think that they go around pouring ammonia and whatnot in cigarettes to make it deadly and addictive...why would you want to kill your clientele quicker?

All those things like formaldehyde and cyanide are present in ANY organic plant you are STUPID enough to dry out, roll up and smoke. We dont go around adding rat poison. Such ignorance is founded by anti-smoking propaganda...

 

Anyways...just wanted to rant about something that has absolutely nothing to do with a smoking ban

 

 

Somewhat off-topic edit:

BTW, I wasnted to ask the (bio)chemists here something. If I were to put nicotine in solution and have it permeate my skin, wouldnt it make me addicted to it--If its true when they say that 1mg is enough to get you addicted?

 

Because Ive had what is called "nicotine poisoning" several times. This happens whenever you work in tobacco in the rain, and you absorb enough nicotine to make you violently ill...think of it as a super-flu...it is INCREDIBLY unpleasant.

If nicotine was as addictive as they say it is, wouldnt my absorbing enough to make my really sick also get me addicted to it? Yet Im not?

I know this is anectdotal, but I just wanted to know why I am immune to nicotine.

Thanks

a single "hit" (the 1mg you mentioned) isn`t enough to get you hooked, you`de need a low regular amount over a reasonable period of time to get hooked.

even a single Large dose won`t do it, I know weekend and only when drinking smokers and they don`t get the withdrawl symptoms that a long term smoker gets.

 

although it`s said to be More addictive than herion for instance, it`s based on reoccurance rather then the Hook.

Crack is the Single-dose-you- hooked sort of junk that can do it though.

This is something I have a problem with as well. Ive worked and lived on a tobacco farm all my life, and worked in the warehouses where they process it (which I highly doubt anyone here can say they have as well) and NEVER have I seen them add any ingredient other than some preservatives like is added in food.

 

It is ridiculous to think that they go around pouring ammonia and whatnot in cigarettes to make it deadly and addictive...why would you want to kill your clientele quicker?

All those things like formaldehyde and cyanide are present in ANY organic plant you are STUPID enough to dry out, roll up and smoke. We dont go around adding rat poison. Such ignorance is founded by anti-smoking propaganda...

I'd be willing to volunteer up to a week of labor at the farms and warehouses to verify that for myself. As it could be propoganda by anti-smokers, or not, but I couldn' find anything on an online search that's ultimately convincing of either. I should've phrased that better, as: *if* tabacco companies did that, I'd have a major beef with them and would support a ban on the practice.

The problem isn't so much the "addition" of questionable ingredients as side effects of the manufacturing process.

 

Tobacco is grown in soil fertilized with calcium phosphate. Calcium phosphate fertilizer often contains typically harmless "uranium progeny" (namely lead-210 and polonium-210) which emit alpha radiation. The presence of these compounds is not typically a problem as they are too heavy to be absorbed into plants through their roots and thus they do not enter the food supply.

 

However, these radioactive compounds can be blown around by the wind, and tobacco has a relatively sticky surface, causing the radioactive dust to stick to the leaves, where some of it remains throughout the manufacturing process. Minute amounts of it are present in cigarette smoke, and at least two independent studies (although the second cites the first) have determined it poses a health risk:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/80/5/1285.abstract

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2005.06.004

 

In addition to radioactive compounds, nitrosamines, another carcinogenic compound, are formed on tobacco leaves through curing them over an open flame. Beer makers had the same problem with curing barley, but discovered it and corrected it in the early '80s by switching to clean air curing through a heat exchanger. Some tobacco growers have made similar moves but at this point it has not been mandated by the government.

 

Many other carcinogens in cigarettes (e.g. benzopyrenes) can be eliminated by using cigarette vaporization technology, in which tobacco is heated rather than burned. Cigarette vaporizers deliver nicotine and provide the oral fixation smokers need, in the form of tobacco vapor without the harshness or "tar" of cigarette smoke.

 

In addition, vaporizers exist for pure nicotine:

 

http://www.crown7.com/

 

I don't know what studies have been done, but I would suspect this approach could actually protect a smoker from developing lung cancer as nicotine is not a carcinogen.

Bascule,

 

Most "burley tobacco" farmers cure on open air...it wouldne make sense to cure over a flame...Flue-cured tobacco is smoked, but it isnt flamed in any way...

 

To cure tobacco, we hang it in an open air barn starting around late september and ending near late november/early december.

 

The tobacco is then cured, but also needs to "come in case" and that is done with warm air, and moisture (45-60 degrees and raining, or fog). Holding it over an open flame would ruin the tobacco...

 

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I just wanted you to know a little about the curing process

 

And Bear's Key, Id gladly take you up on your offer All you will see is your own sweat lol

Now, when we set it, we do add some insecticide, but its gone by July, so i cant see how it would remain their for a year.

 

We dont usually use calcium phosphate...just some urea, maybe some nitrate...depends on the location and type of soil.

yeah tobacco likes plenty Nitrogen (I grow my own also).

you grow your own tobacco? that's pretty bad ass.

yup, grow/cure and smoke my own, I`v got this years seedlings on the windowsill right now