Illinois Smoking Ban Passes House

[Texsox]

Wow.

 

I'm confused,. I thought Penn and Teller are magicians.

 

You do know there have been hundreds of scientific studies, not just the EPA regarding second hand smoke. You may not understand this, but part of a study being accepted in scientific circles is it being repeatable. Peer review is a wonderful thing. When different scientists, in different experiments, come up with the same results, it is accepted as fact. Over the decades, with more and more studies and longer term research we are seeing all sorts of health issues with second hand smoke. Some of the studies take time because they are looking at long term exposure. But choose to believe the cigarette companies if you choose.

 

Yes a determined person can drink until they are drunk. But bottom line alcohol related fatalities have been dramatically reduced over the past 25 years. Find a study that shows an increase over the same time period. There is a difficulty in comparing, the legal definition of drunk has changed, making people who were not deemed drunk under the old laws are now deemed drunk. This increases some of the stats. If we applied the same legal threshold, the results would be even more dramatic. (in many states, someone at .09 in 1990 wouldn't be listed as drunk driving, they would in 2007)

 

Let's see, while complaining about apples and oranges arguments you bring in magicians, Yogi Berra, and global warming.

 

 

 

The discussion seems to be narrowing it down to just bars. Isn't it more than just bars that are affected by this? Won't it also affect places like bowling alleys? I would love to be able to go out for a night of bowling and not have to breathe in that stuff as well as not end up smelling like smoke when I get home.

 

It is not just the places that serve alcohol that are affected.

 

It appears to be all public places.

[Y2HH]

Wow.

 

I'm confused,. I thought Penn and Teller are magicians.

 

You do know there have been hundreds of scientific studies, not just the EPA regarding second hand smoke. You may not understand this, but part of a study being accepted in scientific circles is it being repeatable. Peer review is a wonderful thing. When different scientists, in different experiments, come up with the same results, it is accepted as fact. Over the decades, with more and more studies and longer term research we are seeing all sorts of health issues with second hand smoke. Some of the studies take time because they are looking at long term exposure. But choose to believe the cigarette companies if you choose.

 

Yes a determined person can drink until they are drunk. But bottom line alcohol related fatalities have been dramatically reduced over the past 25 years. Find a study that shows an increase over the same time period. There is a difficulty in comparing, the legal definition of drunk has changed, making people who were not deemed drunk under the old laws are now deemed drunk. This increases some of the stats. If we applied the same legal threshold, the results would be even more dramatic. (in many states, someone at .09 in 1990 wouldn't be listed as drunk driving, they would in 2007)

 

Let's see, while complaining about apples and oranges arguments you bring in magicians, Yogi Berra, and global warming.

It appears to be all public places.

 

Ok I'm done. You are 100% right and I'm 100% wrong.

 

FYI, there are "scientific" studies by the same "scientific" community that dispute second hand smoke studies, whether you accept them as existing or not, they do.

 

Nice way to ignore the fact that cars are generally safer, after I pointed it out, which helped equate to less casualities due to drunk driving, too.

 

And yes, they are magicians, quite the same as I'm a network engineer in the computer sector, but my knowledge or wisdom doesn't end there, either. Kinda like the same way I assume that just because you're from Texas, you're not automatically a cowboy rancher that knows nothing outside of that sector.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Ok I'm done. You are 100% right and I'm 100% wrong.

 

FYI, there are "scientific" studies by the same "scientific" community that dispute second hand smoke studies, whether you accept them as existing or not, they do.

 

Nice way to ignore the fact that cars are generally safer, after I pointed it out, which helped equate to less casualities due to drunk driving, too.

 

And yes, they are magicians, quite the same as I'm a network engineer in the computer sector, but my knowledge or wisdom doesn't end there, either. Kinda like the same way I assume that just because you're from Texas, you're not automatically a cowboy rancher that knows nothing outside of that sector.

 

Drunk driving fatalities have dropped further than overall. So vehicle safety, while helping, can not fully account for all the decline. But check with noted scholars Penn and Teller to see if they agree

 

I hope you find a suitable smoke filled environment to satisfy your cravings.

And the beauty of America is laws can be enacted when people create a public nuisance.

[Y2HH]

Drunk driving fatalities have dropped further than overall. So vehicle safety, while helping, can not fully account for all the decline. But check with noted scholars Penn and Teller to see if they agree

 

I hope you find a suitable smoke filled environment to satisfy your cravings.

And the beauty of America is laws can be enacted when people create a public nuisance.

 

For the final final time...I do not, nor have I EVER smoked.

 

Now to russle me up some cattle.

[Texsox]

For the final final time...I do not, nor have I EVER smoked.

 

Now to russle me up some cattle.

 

I know you don't smoke, but you have spent a lot of time making certain that people are given the choice to work and play in a safe, smoke filled, ashtray.

 

I understand tobacco companies have an economic incentive to prove second hand smoke isn't a health risk. They also funded studies that "proved" smoking was actually good for you. But who has the economic incentive to proven it is a risk and get smoking banned?

Off to rustle an engineer who knows how to use a spell checker . . .

 

I do find it easier to side with people who wish to breath fresh air and not smell like an ashtray and potentially take better care of their health. You prefer to trust Penn and Teller's scientific expertise and have people work and play in an ashtray. I'll agree to disagree.

[mr_genius]

For the final final time...I do not, nor have I EVER smoked.

 

Now to russle me up some cattle.

 

you might as well just leave the thread. it's just a long list of bad analogies.

 

i've tried to explain how a owner of a private business should be able to allow legal and reasonable activity in their establishment and i got a bunch of "well, you can't dump toxic waste in an oprhanage!" or "go kill yourself with smoke, not me!"

 

i don't smoke, but i would totally use an orphanage as a commercial toxic waste dump. so i guess their analogies were 50% accurate.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We protect workers and the public all the time from unsafe conditions. Asbestos, lead paint, lead in gas, auto emissions, etc. Why is smoking different? The evidence of health risks from second hand smoke has reached a critical mass where society can not ignore it anymore.

Please show this.

 

There is evidence that second hand smoke isn't as dangerous as it's made out to be, that studies have had the final conclusion pre-determined before studying the data, and organizations referencing studies that were thrown out of court due to people cherry picking the data.

 

If second hand smoke is so vicious, how could anyone survive the 1940's-1970's where everybody smoked everywhere? If workers in bars are working under such terrible conditions how is possibly for people to spend so much time in the industry? Shouldn't it be impossible for someone to be a bartender for 30+ years if the conditions are so bad?

Edited May 8, 2007 by santo=dorf

[Balta1701]

If second hand smoke is so vicious, how could anyone survive the 1940's-1970's where everybody smoked everywhere? If workers in bars are working under such terrible conditions how is possibly for people to spend so much time in the industry? Shouldn't it be impossible for someone to be a bartender for 30+ years if the conditions are so bad?

Lung and Bronchus Cancer

U.S. Death Rates† by Race and Ethnicity, U.S., 1969–2003‡

 

My grandfather died of Emphysema. That's only lung cancer there, and that graph shows something like 600,000 dead people per decade.

 

According to data from the state of California: being a bartender in the 80's gave a higher incidence of lung cancer than a huge majority of jobs in this state, including firefighters, miners, cooks, etc. Being a bartender shows a highly elevated death rate over what one would have expected, largely due to a highly elevated rate of deaths by lung cancer compared with other jobs.

 

Like many of these sorts of data, there will always be a distribution. There will be some people who smoke for 40 years and die from something else, and there will be people who smoke for a few years and wind up with cancer. Saying that they should all be dead is simply not how things work. The data clearly shows a highly elevated risk for those working in those professions. Working as a bartender appears to roughly double, if not more than that, the risk of lung cancer.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

Being a bartender shows a highly elevated death rate over what one would have expected, largely due to a highly elevated rate of deaths by lung cancer compared with other jobs.

 

 

a lot of bartenders drink and smoke. i would be willing to bet that the percentage of bartenders that smoke would be much higher than the percentage of other professions that smoke. the high lung cancer rate for bartenders may not be largely due to second hand smoke, but first hand smoke.

 

but, i will concede that second hand smoke is bad for you.

Edited May 8, 2007 by mr_genius

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 8, 2007 -> 06:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lung and Bronchus Cancer

U.S. Death Rates† by Race and Ethnicity, U.S., 1969–2003‡

 

My grandfather died of Emphysema. That's only lung cancer there, and that graph shows something like 600,000 dead people per decade.

 

According to data from the state of California: being a bartender in the 80's gave a higher incidence of lung cancer than a huge majority of jobs in this state, including firefighters, miners, cooks, etc. Being a bartender shows a highly elevated death rate over what one would have expected, largely due to a highly elevated rate of deaths by lung cancer compared with other jobs.

 

Like many of these sorts of data, there will always be a distribution. There will be some people who smoke for 40 years and die from something else, and there will be people who smoke for a few years and wind up with cancer. Saying that they should all be dead is simply not how things work. The data clearly shows a highly elevated risk for those working in those professions. Working as a bartender appears to roughly double, if not more than that, the risk of lung cancer.

Where are the tobacco related deaths on that chart? Or are we supposed to assume that smoking is the only contributing factor in there? I also see a downward trend to levels in 1983 with the white and blacks.

[Balta1701]

Where are the tobacco related deaths on that chart? Or are we supposed to assume that smoking is the only contributing factor in there? I also see a downward trend to levels in 1983 with the white and blacks.

You are correct, you do see a downward trend in the more recent years. This is almost entirely because of the greater political and market-based emphasis on getting people to stop smoking in the 90's, from nicotine patches to vastly higher cigarette taxes to the tobacco settlements. There is probably a little bit of air pollution reduction thrown on top of that.

 

[santo=dorf]

Well I should've been a little more clear, I have no doubt that smoking cigarettes will cause problems to your health, specifically to your lungs.

 

When talking second hand smoke, we shouldn't include the figures for those who are smokers.

Edited May 8, 2007 by santo=dorf

[Texsox]

Let's say for the sake of discussion that second hand smoke is a problem. By eliminating it as much as possible we have a benefit to the health of everyone, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like and ashtray.

 

Now let's say it isn't a health risk and we ban it in public places. We've helped the health of smokers, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like an ashtray.

 

If we don't ban it and it's harmful, we continue to harm our health.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's say for the sake of discussion that second hand smoke is a problem. By eliminating it as much as possible we have a benefit to the health of everyone, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like and ashtray.

 

Now let's say it isn't a health risk and we ban it in public places. We've helped the health of smokers, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like an ashtray.

 

If we don't ban it and it's harmful, we continue to harm our health.

You must also be in favor of New York banning trans fats as well.

 

It's your health and your liberty, but who cares about freedom? The Government always knows what's best for us

Edited May 9, 2007 by santo=dorf

[Texsox]

You must also be in favor of New York banning trans fats as well.

 

It's your health and your liberty, but who cares about freedom? The Government always knows what's best for us

 

Seatbelts, minimum safety standards, restaurant health inspections, product safety laws, OSHA, it's your health and liberty.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seatbelts, minimum safety standards, restaurant health inspections, product safety laws, OSHA, it's your health and liberty.

That is the only even closely related to the second hand smoke and trans fats debates.

[Texsox]

That is the only even closely related to the second hand smoke and trans fats debates.

 

Aren't they all about the government knowing what is best for you and taking away your liberty? After all. no one is forcing you to work or play in an unsafe place at an unsafe job?

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, and before you say something insane to counterpoint me like, "Ok then, should I have the right to shoot people randomly on the streets", let me clear something up. I have no problem with them banning smoking outdoors or in publically owned places...but telling a privatly owned establishment, like a bar, that smoking is banned is, IMO, unconstituational. Tobacco is a LEGAL product. You don't have to go there if you don't like smoke...but passing by this establishment, say to get from point A to point B, on public property, that is absolutly your right, and in that right you shouldn't have to deal with smoke. If that is the case, I agree with you. There is a time and a place for certain things. Drinking in bars, not on the streets. Smoking in bars, not on the streets. I can deal with that. But when the government begins to tell us, yes, although this product is LEGAL, it's ILLEGAL for you to use it in your own private establishment...then I have to question freedom as a whole.

This pretty much hits it on the head, I think. I am not sure its unconstitutional, but I definitely agree that this sort of encroachment goes against the principles of personal freedoms.

[Texsox]

But how can you call a bar "private"? That is the biggest misnomer in all this. Bars are public places and subject to laws. I will agree that a true private club should be exempt from this.

[Y2HH]

That is the only even closely related to the second hand smoke and trans fats debates.

 

Finally another voice of reason.

 

I stopped trying in this conversation because any statistics they post are 100% accurate, and anything you say to dispute those claims, such as scientific studies that have prooven second hand smoke has almost a negligible effect, they will dismiss by saying those studies are "backed by big tobacco and other companies that want to proove smoking is safe", when they aren't. Have there been studies backed by big tobacco? Yes. Are these those same studies? No. But that doesn't matter, because it doesn't back their argument, so it CANNOT be true.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's freedom as long as "they" agree with it, and only IF "they" agree with it. Otherwise they hide behind public safety laws and other such nonsense. Who are they? The majority that can be convinced to think exactly how the government wants you to think. Heaven forbid someone question these "stats" and "laws"...if they do that, suddenly they go from, "I don't agree with non-smoking or non-trans fat laws" to "orphanage burning toxic waste dumping criminals". What a way to dismiss someone who is a skeptic of big brother invading everything in our lives.

 

Same with drunk driving. They'll post stats that proove "drunk driving related deaths have lowered because less people are drinking". Uh...well, I have eyes...and less people are NOT drinking. My brother is a cop in Chicago -- and he says DUI's are so common that most cops don't care. Fact of the matter is, now, versus in the 80's, cars are about 5000% safer to drive and crash, because of airbags, side airbags, crumplezones and various other breaking and safety features. None of which have ANYTHING to do with controlled alcohol content in beer (simply drink more), closing times (simply show up earlier), or non happy hour prices (joke -- just at a bar the other day and beer was like 1$, kthanks).

 

Bottom line is...there is MORE too these stories than they'd like to admit. Yes, perhaps those laws DID contribute to drunk driving casulaities going down -- but they are NOT the only factor. Same for second hand smoke...I'm sure there is somewhat of a contributing factor, but how much? And which studies do we believe?

 

But how can you call a bar "private"? That is the biggest misnomer in all this. Bars are public places and subject to laws. I will agree that a true private club should be exempt from this.

 

Perhaps the definition is public/private has become convoluted here. That bar is owned by a person, making it privatly owned. It's not publically traded, the government doesn't subsidize it, and the tax-payers aren't helping pay the rent, expenses, licensing fees or employment costs. That, to me, is PRIVATE.

 

What you're saying is that a business that services the "public" is therefore "public"? Sorry, but I'm not buyin' your brand.

[Texsox]

Fair enough. How do you answer those studies that show a significant health risk? Are you dismissing those as well? Show me the correct way to respond when statistics show something that goes against your point?

 

Is the bar inspected by the government to assure it complies with public safety laws? Occupancy? ADA? Bathrooms? Emergency exits? That sounds like a public building that has to conform with public safety laws, including no smoking.

 

There is rarely one solution to a problem, generally, especially in complex issues, it takes multiple solutions, all contributing a little. Using your convoluted logic, since it can't be one solution, we must not do anything. But in your world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference.

[Cknolls]

At one point in time statistics showed silicon breast implants affected the health of the woman. They were banned, lawyers got rich, companies went bankrupt, people lost jobs. Silicon breast implants are now said to be safe for the woman. Who was/is right?

[Texsox]

At one point in time statistics showed silicon breast implants affected the health of the woman. They were banned, lawyers got rich, companies went bankrupt, people lost jobs. Silicon breast implants are now said to be safe for the woman. Who was/is right?

 

At one point we thought asbestos was safe. Lead was a great additive in gasoline and paint. Etc. Who was harmed while silicon was off the market? When it comes to health, shouldn't we be conservative?

[Balta1701]

At one point in time statistics showed silicon breast implants affected the health of the woman. They were banned, lawyers got rich, companies went bankrupt, people lost jobs. Silicon breast implants are now said to be safe for the woman. Who was/is right?

Actually, the evidence is still out there that they're not 100% healthful. Some companies just have good lobbyists. And also there are occasional advances in technology that can move some products from the unsafe realm to the safe realm. I am aware of no advance in technology that can make cigarettes, or while we're at it, the specific types of trans-fatty acids under discussion, safe.

[Y2HH]

Fair enough. How do you answer those studies that show a significant health risk? Are you dismissing those as well? Show me the correct way to respond when statistics show something that goes against your point?

 

Since you asked how I respond to studies that show a significant health risk, I answer by researching it for myself, checking for counter studies that show little to no heath risk and then questioning both sides. Blindly following the one side that makes our life more convienent is NOT the answer, because it may be a decided inconvienence to others, even if you disagree with their stance. I don't smoke, but I still don't believe some cherry-picked data study that shows a clear agenda to ban smoking, researched and funded by people who hate smoke/smokers. A few questions you need to start asking are why were these studies made? Who made them? And is it possible that these "health risks" are only going to affect people who have a family history or faulty gene that allows it to affect them?! And furthermore, to get the data to support the arguement, did they flood the pool of people with those that show such a family history?!

 

I bet you believed every word Michael Moore said in his movies, too...because you never bothered to see if there was another side to the story. You see, I can do that to you too...you know, just make totally ignorant assumptions like you keep doing in response to me? I'd appreciate it if you'd stop if you want to have an intelligent conversation, whether we agree or not.

 

Is the bar inspected by the government to assure it complies with public safety laws? Occupancy? ADA? Bathrooms? Emergency exits? That sounds like a public building that has to conform with public safety laws, including no smoking.

 

Because our government has nothing better to do than inspect the multitude of bars and other public places 24/7, nevermind the endless amounts of crime in the streets that they already don't have time for -- we have to make sure people are leaving the bars on time and not getting happy hour prices@!#$@!@! Yea...right. We all want to live in a utopian society, but that's not reality, nor will it ever be in our lifetimes.

 

There is rarely one solution to a problem, generally, especially in complex issues, it takes multiple solutions, all contributing a little. Using your convoluted logic, since it can't be one solution, we must not do anything. But in your world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference.

 

There you go again, taking personal, and quite ignorant shots at "my convoluted logic" and "my world". Not the best way to argue a point.

 

Moving on.

 

When it comes to complex issues, it often takes multiple GOOD solutions working together to solve them, not just multiple solutions, even if those "solutions" aren't good ones. Yes, in my world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference...and why?! Because it HAS NOT. Since this was your second "shot" at me, time to return fire by prooving you wrong on this once again, just so you stop trying to lean on this WEAK arguement over and over.

 

Tex (the law) limits alcohol content in beer to 5%. Fine.

Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 beers instead of 2. So much for your 5% limit.

Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 shots of Everclear, completely EVADING your stupid beer law. So much for your 5% limit...again.

 

Now, do you see where YOUR convoluted, and frankly, short-sighted logic fails?!

 

First, the limit on alcohol content is only for imported and MACRO brew beer. Second, you can't limit how much a person can or will drink. PERIOD. For further proof, go to any brewhouse and you can get beer with 8+% alcohol content, so again...stop making up "facts" to support your bias, and frankly condescending method of argument, because you are simply WRONG in this case. These are not "good" solutions, they are stupid government mandated "bad" solutions so a bean-counter can sit behind a desk and say "we are doing all we can" when a mother asks WHY her son was killed by a drunk driver.

 

Also, you seem to be forgetting there is much more available in terms of alcohol than beer.

 

Tell me, since you seem so good at making up statistics on the spot -- whats the U.S. alcohol limit on Everclear? And since we all know the answer is NONE, because it's 100% pure grain alcohol...what stops me or someone else from going to a bar and drinking 5 shots of that, and then driving?

 

Answer? Nothing, other than my own self control to NOT. Takes that same self control to not walk into a privatly owned business where smoking is permitted.