Smoking Ban Passes in Chicago!

[kapkomet]

I think they did the math and realized that 75-80% of their constituents do not smoke.  I don't care what their motivation was, since they did the right thing for the society which they were elected to serve.

 

 

I also worked in offices where there were policies that were immoral, unethical or that I violently disagreed with. I found new work, or I just quit. I generally am not on the side of business. BUT, private property is private property and I don't understand why it should be illegal to use legal products in private property with the consent of the owner. That I don't get.

 

That's the problem I have. Constituents or no, it's PRIVATE property, and I should be able to do what I want on that property. If I want to allow smokers smoke at my establishment, I should be allowed to do so.

 

I dislike smoke, and for me personally, wahoo... someplace else I can go smoke free. But the eroding of our property rights really bothers me about this issue.

 

This issue is difficult for me.

[Mercy!]

Yeah, I grew up in a second hand smoke cloud. My parents smoked like chimneys. It's how I spent the first 20 years of my life. I've worked in smoking offices. I haven't had a problem with it.

 

I also worked in offices where there were policies that were immoral, unethical or that I violently disagreed with. I found new work, or I just quit. I generally am not on the side of business. BUT, private property is private property and I don't understand why it should be illegal to use legal products in private property with the consent of the owner. That I don't get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if I poured a legal substance in your coffee which made you ill, and made you drink it every morning as a condition of keeping your job, or required that you swallow, oh, 10 aspirin per day, that would be okay? Of course not. That would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?

 

And one more stab at the organizing thing. I'm sorry, but in this real world people who attempt to organize for more traditional and accepted reasons, often end up being let go in a hurry.

 

And finally, do you think that government has no right to regulate the electrical wiring, or the safe storage of foods, or the disposal of wastes or any number of other things at these places? In other words, your private property trumps safety every time? Remember, these are not private residences. They are public accomodations.

[Mercy!]

... But the eroding of our property rights really bothers me about this issue.

 

This issue is difficult for me.

 

Two words: eminent domain.

 

Be very worried.

 

Couldn't resist on that one. Anyway, re "private" property, my response to Rex applies.

[Rex Kickass]

Hi apples meet oranges!

 

I'm a firm believer in organizing. And if these people cared so much about the issue, I'm sure they could make an awful big stink about why they were fired. Maybe they could inform patrons as they entered the business. There are lots of ways to make their opinion heard.

 

Faulty electrical wiring can cause a fire today. The safe storage of foods prevents food poisoning. That's not something that may or may not crop up in 30 years after you work somewhere. Ditto the disposal of wastes.

 

There's a big difference between regulating for immediate hazard and possible health risk down the road.

[Mercy!]

Hi apples meet oranges!

 

I'm a firm believer in organizing. And if these people cared so much about the issue, I'm sure they could make an awful big stink about why they were fired. Maybe they could inform patrons as they entered the business. There are lots of ways to make their opinion heard.

 

Faulty electrical wiring can cause a fire today. The safe storage of foods prevents food poisoning. That's not something that may or may not crop up in 30 years after you work somewhere. Ditto the disposal of wastes.

 

There's a big difference between regulating for immediate hazard and possible health risk down the road.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The right of the government to regulate public accommodations doesn’t depend on the severity or the immediacy of the danger. It actually doesn’t even require a danger. You just have to accept that fact.

 

"These people" don't have to organize in other industries for the right to breathe clean air. There is no reason that they should be considered second-class citizens here, either.

 

So, apparently, you do think I would be within my rights to make you ingest a legal substance of my choosing as a condition of employment? Your only recourse being to switch jobs or stage an informational picket? I'm trying to stick with your analogies here. Or apples.

[mr_genius]

Not everyone who consumes alcohol does so to excess.

EVERYONE who smokes, pollutes the surrounding airspace.

 

Unfortunately your argument is seriously flawed. All who breathe second hand smoke do not die from it.

 

BTW, don't go somewhere people smoke. Don't work somewhere people smoke. If you're alergic to peanuts don't work at the JIffy factory.

[Mercy!]

Unfortunately your argument is seriously flawed.  All who breathe second hand smoke do not die from it.

 

BTW, don't go somewhere people smoke.  Don't work somewhere people smoke.  If you're alergic to peanuts don't work at the JIffy factory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I misunderstood you. I thought you were being serious. Thanks for clearing that up.

[mr_genius]

I misunderstood you.  I thought you were being serious. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

lmfao

 

nice try

[Rex Hudler]

I think that 5 years from now, no one will give a damn about this new law. Like in CA, people will get used to it and actually appreciate it.

 

I do not smoke cigarettes, but love a good cigar on occasion. I will miss (a similar ordinance was passed in Birmingham) firing up a good stogey with some buddies but in the overall scheme of things, it's not a big deal. Sometimes what is for the greater good has to be chosen over what is good for individual rights. In this case, I have no problem with it at all.

[Mplssoxfan]

As someone who has worked in the restaurant business my whole life and who has been working under a smoking ban since April 1, my .02:

 

1. It's really nice to go home and not feel like you have to take a shower before you jump into bed.

 

2. I'm sure my lungs appreciate the lack of smoke.

 

3. I think, except when I have a cold, my sniffer detects odors a little better.

 

4. Of course, I have a couple of Zippos at home which are sadly going to rust from disuse. Those damn things paid for themselves the first week I purchased them.

 

5. There really is no question that my place of employ has lost sales. We're not going to have to close the doors or anything, but fewer sales means fewer hours

 

6. I may not be able to venture South for any part of our miserable winter, but, hey, times are tough all over.

 

Having said all this, I think a ban will work better in Chicago than here in Minneapolis, where every juristiction has its own version of the ban. Seriously, are you really going to go to Schaumburg to drink? I think not.

[Mercy!]

I think that 5 years from now, no one will give a damn about this new law.  Like in CA, people will get used to it and actually appreciate it. 

 

I do not smoke cigarettes, but love a good cigar on occasion.  I will miss (a similar ordinance was passed in Birmingham) firing up a good stogey with some buddies but in the overall scheme of things, it's not  a big deal.  Sometimes what is for the greater good has to be chosen over what is good for individual rights.  In this case, I have no problem with it at all.

During at least part of the 22 years I was smoking 3 packs a day, I would have disagreed with you. I was one selfish cookie. Hospital rooms. Elevators. No problem. Hey, I had no problem with it.

 

Appropos of your first sentence, who would dream of smoking in hospital rooms today?

 

Anyway, I find it so hard to believe that anyone likes the taste of cigars. Now pipe tobacco is altogether different - I still love to smell that smoke.

[Mplssoxfan]

During at least part of the 22 years I was smoking 3 packs a day, I would have disagreed with you.  I was one selfish cookie.  Hospital rooms.  Elevators.  No problem.  Hey, I had no problem with it. 

 

Appropos of your first sentence, who would dream of smoking in hospital rooms today?

 

Anyway, I find it so hard to believe that anyone likes the taste of cigars.  Now pipe tobacco is altogether different - I still love to smell that smoke.

 

You haven't been around any truly good cigars, methinks.

[GoodAsGould]

Is it just in Chicago or is it the suburbs around Chicago too?

[YASNY]

The Link

 

 

The Who Study

 

The World Health Organization's study is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results

 

 

 

Fact: The World Health Organization conducted a study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in Europe.

 

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

 

Fact: This was a case control study using a large sample size.

 

Fact: The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer.

 

Fact: The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years.

 

Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.

 

Fact: Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers.

 

Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

 

Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

 

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

 

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.

• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

 

 

• The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

 

 

 

Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant.

 

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.)

 

Fact: The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure. See Epidemiology 102 for more information.

 

Fact: The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.

 

Fact: The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.

 

Fact: The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.

 

The WHO quickly buried the report. The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks.

 

Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."

 

Finally, the WHO issued a press release. Although their study showed no statistically significant risk from ETS, their press release had the misleading headline "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You." (I say "misleading" because it would be impolite to call it an outright lie.)

 

Fact: In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.)

 

Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.

 

Fact: The WHO tried to blame the results on a small sample size. However, the in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision..." It should also be noted that a larger sample size wouldn't have changed the numbers significantly, just narrowed the CI a bit.

[CanOfCorn]

Alrighty then, I think, to protect the health of the smokers that have to go outside (the best that can be done), every bar or restaurant needs to designate a smoking spot outside their places of businesses. Maybe one a block, like a bus stop. On days like you are having today, it's unfair to make someone who personally chooses to do something to force them into a hazardous situation.

 

Smoking - choice.

Forced outside in snow/cold - not a choice.

[Balance]

Alrighty then, I think, to protect the health of the smokers that have to go outside (the best that can be done), every bar or restaurant needs to designate a smoking spot outside their places of businesses.  Maybe one a block, like a bus stop.  On days like you are having today, it's unfair to make someone who personally chooses to do something to force them into a hazardous situation. 

 

Smoking - choice.

Forced outside in snow/cold - not a choice.

Wait a minute.

 

You've said yourself that smoking is a choice. How, then, are smokers being forced to do anything?

 

Choose not to smoke, and you no longer have to go outside and be subjected to what you call "hazardous situation."

[GoodAsGould]

Is it just in Chicago or is it the suburbs around Chicago too?

 

^^^^^

[Molto]

What a concept -- personal choice of where to work and where to frequent...or better yet the owner of the establishment choosing to have it be smoking or not getting steamrolled in the name of a "We know better than you" uber-nanny.

 

For f***'s sake, sometimes fun costs you.  I don't smoke but I'm not anti-smokers.

 

same here. in fact, I hate smoke, but I don't think this is right. leave it up to the owners. if the customers or employees have a problem, leave.

[LosMediasBlancas]

I'm a non smoker and I like going to bars and shows. I won't miss the stink on my clothes or how my contact lenses feel like razor blades when I'm around smoke.

[The Critic]

I'm a non smoker and I like going to bars and shows.  I won't miss the stink on my clothes or how my contact lenses feel like razor blades when I'm around smoke.

C'mon, that wonderful smell on your clothes the next morning is one of the best parts of the concert/bar experience!!