American Liberty: Smoking Bans are Killing People

Tagged:  

American Liberty: Smoking Bans are Killing People

http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/2007/06/smoking-bans-are-killing-pe...

(NOTE - Before I get blasted for 'another smoking thread', stop & count how many TPS & city council posts there are.

Smoking Bans Are Killing People
Colin Grainger
23rd June 2007.

Not news per se, but required reading for any people out there that are in two minds about whether ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) harms or not.

Here's a snippet:

While EPA claimed secondhand smoke was dangerous, the Congressional Research Service, at the request of the U.S. Congress, looked at the same data as EPA and concluded:

No votes yet

No kidding! Green house gases are skyrocketing because of effluvia emanating from anuses of mammals all over the world. This is not to mention the natural outpourings of gases from natural decay of stuff that turns into GREEN HOUSE GASES. We're all doomed. So let's ban all this shit. And tobacco, too.

News Flash: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

Matt Holdridge
The Toledo Tattler

But we shouldn't have to worry about dying violently, just because some asshole is annoyed by a cigarette. I wonder if matt would be so cavalier if these attacks & deaths were done to people because they were fat. Would he brush off the attacks by haters of obese people & simply say 'well, we're all going to die someday'?
matt - are you suggesting that these violent attacks are just part of the cycle of life? Yes, we are all going to die. Unfortunately, I think the biggest reason the smoke nazis have gone so overboard, is because they are hoping it won't happen to them. We could be hit by a car today, or die in our sleep at 102 years old.
Recent article in the Free Press, that cites all types of statistics & numbers of people who have died from shs - horsefeathers! I noticed the author did not cite his sources or prove his statements. I challenge the author here, to do so. Read the original article I posted on this thread - there have been NO studies that have proven any of it. In fact, out of the 70 or so studies that have been done, all have been proven to be faulty, or thrown out. The only really good study that was done, simply proved that there is NO proof that shs causes disease. And yet - they continue to spout & print fabrications, and horror stories that gullible people believe.

I hope I die in my sleep of old age. If I die due to smoking, I'll have nobody to blame but myself. But I sure as hell hope I don't die at the hands of a violent asshole because he's annoyed I have a cigarette.

Lets just hope someone doesn't die because of your shs...

Hey hey hey, starling02, I'm on your side here.

Matt Holdridge
The Toledo Tattler

I'm sorry but a father/husband who kills his wife and/or family because the wife smoked is bullshit. He killed them because he's an abusive dumbass. Its a fair bet the men had been beating his wife and kids for a long time before any smoking ban. He used smoking as the excuse, its a control issue. It very well could have been over dinner being cold or burned or any other damn thing.
Trying to blame those deaths on smoking bans is just plain falsely inflamatory.
Same thing with the kid who fell to his death because his aunt wouldn't allow smoking in her apartment.
What does that have to do with a ban on smoking in public places?
Just because someone dies while they are smoking doesn't mean they died because they were smoking.

OK, I know I'm being a broken record here, but this BLOG entry that is linked to does not in any way, shape, or form produce any evidence that should overturn the weight of the scientific evidence that indicates that SHS is a health hazard. It tries to turn on the EPA study (just one of many) and use that as the lynchpin to indict all others - an egregious fallacy of logic. And that evidence has been posted on other smoking threads before on this list, so I may skip by it today. Evidence of misleading statements by anti-smoking groups does not mean that secondhand smoke has not been proven to be a dangerous hazard - it has.

Also, the examples of "smoking bans killing people" - maybe I just don't get it. Is it meant to be a joke or make a witty point? The violence is not funny, but trying to blame smoking bans on this violence is ridiculous. You could just as easily say "POOR SECURITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY PROPRIETORS LEADS TO A SURGE IN VIOLENCE" (and no, I don't believe that either). Many of the titles don't even indicate if smoking was the cause of the altercation, or whether the person just happened to be smoking at the time of an attack. I remember an outrageous posting a month (more?) ago about violence outside a gentleman's club that was another "solid case" about smoking bans causing violence, and it turns out that if you dug into the actual case itself smoking was ancillary to other crud that was going on between the involved parties.

Oh5er - Produce a name of somebody who died of shs. You can't, because out of the 70 or so studies that have been done, ALL have been proven to be faulty, thrown out, or proven it does not cause disease.

The article was clear that it was not a news article. I think the author's point, was to show the extremes bans can cause. And yes, some of those examples WERE over smoking. Were the people who assaulted or killed smokers just nuts? Probably. But pushed over the edge over smoking. And yes, if they designate an outdoor area for people to smoke, and that area collapses & kills people - it IS ban damage. If smokers weren't required to smoke there in the first place, they'd be alive today. If they're going to require smokers congregate in specific areas, then they'd better make sure those areas aren't going to kill them faster than smoking does.

if they designate an outdoor area for people to smoke, and that area collapses & kills people - it IS ban damage

See now I'd see that as poor construction not because they were smoking.
Many places like hospitals and other employers stopped allowing smoking in the buildings years ago. If someone on their grounds is injured while smoking would you blame the ban on smoking then? Even though you say employers have the right to establish the smoking rules for their facilities?

More then a few examples in that blog were things that obviously happened in private homes so they have absoloutely nothing to do with statewide smoking bans anyways.

Before the bans and even up in Michigan I've seen plenty of smokers going outside to smoke, many doing so to escape how terribly smokey it is inside the bar/club. So going outside to smoke is nothing new.

ohiokat - honestly, do you even LIVE in the same country (and for how long?). I have lived in this country for over 50 years, and have never, ever read or heard of an instance of so much violence associated with smoking - until the smoking bans. Since the ban nazi's started spewing bogus propaganda, people have become convinced that it must all be true - creating so many people who just HATE, for no reason other than somebody was smoking. This shit never would have occurred 20 years ago - or even 10 years ago. It amazes me how you find ways to justify the violent attacks, or deaths of smokers. Whenever you read articles like I posted originally on this thread - why not just substitute "smokers" for "fat people", and see if your reaction would be the same. (because that is exactly where it's going, and will be. And it will point out some hypocracy).

The people who were drugged, raped, assaulted or murdered because they smoked in an outside 'assigned' smoking section at night would not have suffered those extremes, if the smoking bans hadn't demanded they go there to smoke in the first place. Yes, a woman's drink may be drugged if she goes to the restroom - however, most women will take their drink WITH them anymore (since date rape drugs), or, let a non smoking friend watch over it (assumes they are cautious). However - if two smoking friends are in a bar at night & go out to smoke together - who watches the drinks? You cannot take the drink out of the bar. I don't go to a lot of bars - however, my daughter told me it's common to see drinks lined up in bar restrooms till the owners have done their business.

It is not the smoking ban that caused some of those people to die, but it is the extreme hateful smoke hater/your gonna die & kill us all propaganda they bought into, or their attackers bought into that triggered a lot of it, I'm sure. There have always been smokers & non-smokers. There have always been people who just hate smoking/smokers/smoke. But it wasn't until we got overdosed on bullshit propaganda (you tell a lie long enough & people will believe it) - that hate stepped over the thresh hold of tolerance.

jr - you're right I guess about Godwin's Theory. I just thought it wouldn't apply if the subject was about nazi's.

Let's assume we allow smoking (especially based on the argument that RR that is 4.0 or less is acceptable to the general public). Would it also be considered permissible to allow ash to be dropped into food to be served to the public? Would cooks who smoke be allowed to smoke while cooking your dinner? After all ash is a pure substance. It has been burned, and probably has no baterial content. If it is "proved" that ash has an RR of 3.0 or less would it be permissable to allow it to drop into food to be served to the public?

How far should smokers be allowed to go so that they feel comfortable in their pursuit of life?

Old South End Broadway

I haven't found any articles that relate the relative risk of ingesting cigarette ash. Could it be that there is no risk? It might be rather unsightly, but what you don't know might not hurt you.

Old South End Broadway

oldsouthendbirdy - I don't know how many restaurant kitchens you've worked in, but they do NOT smoke in restaurant kitchens - at least none that I'm aware of, or have worked at. Restaurant employees have long been required to smoke on their breaks, like most other employees - in separate smoking areas - away from the food prep areas. Your post about cooks dropping cig ashes into food is an absurd laughable stretch. A grasp. Every restaurant I've worked in, I was required to tie my hair back & obey health dept. rules of cleanliness, sanitation, etc. Perhaps you've seen too many re-runs of "Alice", where Mel smoked while running the grill in "Mel's Diner".

At any rate - you'd be freaked out over a cig ash? The meat you get grilled is far worse than a cig ash would be. (and worse for the cook who grills it).

Actually, Starling, I wouldn

Old South End Broadway

I guess that Darkseid perked my curiosity, and whimsy. I know that he is raising a

Old South End Broadway

southend - it's a stretch to attempt to compare America to Ethiopia, as far as restaurant/food prep standards go. I had a teacher who spent a long time in Ethiopia - heard many horror stories, but nothing that'd happen or be allowed to happen, here.

You say you don't know to what extremes smokers would want to push the limits & fear they'd demand to smoke in the kitchen food prep area? That's absurd - and funny really, because, it's the smoke haters & ban pushers that pushed (and are still pushing) the limits. I have never once heard of an employee - restaurant, dept.store, etc. demanding to be allowed to smoke in restricted areas - not when they had separate smoking sections, or break time to smoke in said areas, which they DID before these bans. Most restaurants would allow employees to smoke in a designated area or room on break time - and employees accepted that this was how it was - the same way all employees accept that when they have a break, they are free to kick back, get a cup of coffee, use the restroom, etc. I have never once heard of a smoking employee who worked anyplace, who tried to ever take it to the extreme like you're suggesting they'd do. It's the smoking ban pushers who take it to the extreme. Smokers tend to be pretty easy going & tolerant people, and like you - they expect that they have to wait for their break time to do personal things. Why you'd assume that smokers would push the limits more than any other employee is beyond me. That's like presuming an overweight cosmetic representative that works at Dillards will expect to be able to stuff Big Macs in her fat face all day while she sells overpriced cosmetics. She'd never expect to be able to do that on the job, no more than a smoker would expect to light up on the job.

I suppose that those who smoke were too liberal in their in their approach to their rights. Perhaps if they had fought harder for them they might have retained the "right" to smoke in the spaces they had.

I don't know. I know I voted for the ban. I do believe that people should have their rights, but I assumed that those who smoke could congregate in "clubs" and the rest of us wouldn't have to try to find non-smoking areas. Maybe you all will succeed in getting it back on the ballot, and getting out enough "die-hard" smokers to change the law.

In a case like that it is the side that mobilizes the numbers (since not many people vote for these issues) that will win the contest. Otherwise, things will stay as they are unless you try "civil disobedience".

If enough people break a law, it becomes unenforceable. And if you believe enough in your "rights" then you obey your conscience. Rather like those who wanted their civil rights broke "Jim Crow" laws in the South in the 1960's. If you break the law, and make it public, then people have to reckon with the implications of having laws that people don't believe in.

It is the side that shows the greater "moral" strength that wins such a contest. But the question then becomes: do you really believe that you have a "moral" right to smoke, or is it just a desire that must be met?

Old South End Broadway

oldsouthend- This has NEVER been about my right to smoke - or anybody's right to smoke. This has always been about the rights of private business owners to allow whatever legal activities they choose, and to pursue whatever customer base they want. Sure, I'm inconvenienced by not having any good restaurant selection that has smoking sections. But it's a more than an 'inconvenience' for a business owner to watch his business suffer and/or die. It's more than an 'inconvenience' to lay out new rules to a business owner who's worked hard for years, or decades to build up his business - rules that cost him severely in profits, & wipe out a huge part of his customer base. Tell a bar or restaurant owner that it's only an 'inconvenience' as he sees his customers head to the border.

As for smokers being content to smoke where they were allowed - for the most part, most smokers were, and did comply. I never once witnessed a smoker light up in a non-smoking section, or on the job when no smoking was allowed on the job. Of course, there have always been the handful that would sneak behind a machine in a factory to grab a smoke - the same way they'd sneak behind a machine to take a nap on company time. (or in the john). But that was not the norm. I never once lit up in a public building, store, bank, library, etc., etc. and don't know of any smoker who did. My point is, that smokers complied, more often than not - but it wasn't good enough for the smoke haters. (and there IS a difference to me, between a non-smoker & and a smoke hater, and even a difference between a smoke nazi - the latter is a catagory onto itself.)

nor ANY OTHER rabid smoker-hater here would answer my qustion I posed back then-BOTTOM LINE: WITHOUT A SMOKER BAN IN PLACE IN AN ADULT VENUE, THIS INCIDENT NEVER HAPPENS, AND THE YOUNG GUY IS STILL ALIVE. CORRECT? Nah, that's ok, I don't expect an answer this time , either-that's the fourth time I've asked it.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

The media despises gun-owners, too, so I'm sure they LOVED this , but ask youself-would this altercation have taken place 20 years ago? Before the 'denormalization' started?
--------------------------------

Charges against Examiner editor dropped
Luke Broadwater, The Examiner
2007-06-27 07:00:00.0

BALTIMORE -
Baltimore City prosecutors dropped assault and gun-related charges against Baltimore Examiner Editor Frank Keegan on Tuesday.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Using the list presented in the linked blog and Google, you can discover the following:

"Utah: A teenager was murdered for smoking in downtown Salt Lake City."

...by members of Straight Edge, a gang that espouses violence towards those who don't follow their lifestyle. Believe me, if they were in charge of the country, you'd be in a camp by now. As would I because I enjoy a big juicy steak and a bourbon.

"Ohio: Man Beaten To Death For Not Giving Up Cigarette. Ricardo Leon, 23, died."

That's incorrect. He was beaten to death because he wouldn't give a fellow bar patron a cigarette. Here's a link. One could easily argue that smoking killed the man.

"UK: Nurse stabbed to death at hospital in an outside smoking area."

From a TimesOnline article: "The sprawling hospital is set in grassy surroundings near a quiet residential area. It is unclear whether the victim was stabbed on hospital grounds, or in an area outside of its perimeter."

Those were just the first three claims he presented and I could probably go on to discredit most of them, but some of the examples discredit themselves.

(NOTE - Before I get blasted for 'being an anti', stop & count how many times I've voted for a smoking ban.)

---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

ohiokat - honestly, do you even LIVE in the same country (and for how long?). I have lived in this country for over 50 years, and have never, ever read or heard of an instance of so much violence associated with smoking - until the smoking bans

Well heres the thing, I'm not convinced that most, if not all, of the examples cited are because of the smoking bans.

UK: man killed wife and two sons over her smoking. John Jarvis, 42, stabbed his wife Patricia in the heart and then murdered their sons, John, 11, and Stuart, eight.

Do you honestly think that this man was a mild-mannered loving husband who never harmed a hair on his wife's head, and that he just came in one day and saw her smoking and snapped killing not only her but his two children? Seriously?

Illinois: Smoker Falls To Death. Ian Honeycutt, 28, of Glenview, tumbled from a ninth-floor apartment, blown off a window sill by a gust of wind while smoking. His aunt asked him not to smoke inside, police sources said.

So you're saying this guys aunt planned his death by not allowing smoking in her own home? Did she force him to sit in the window in high winds? How is this related to a smoking ban in bars and resturants?

Texas: Date Rape Pill Put in Drink, While Going Outside for Cigarette. Maria says she and two other friends stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. She says it was during that time that someone spiked her drink.
Its been said over and over again to never leave your drink unattended. She could have just as well been in the restroom when he drugged the drink. Please don't try to twist that into saying I am condoning what happened to her.

UK: A female backpacker fell 100 feet to her death from the roof of a hostel early yesterday. The 20-year-old Canadian plunged six storeys into a lane at around 3am. One theory is that she climbed onto the flat roof of the no-smoking Edinburgh Backpackers hostel for a cigarette.

She knew when she checked in that the hostel was no smoking. It's sad she died but it was her stupidity that made her try to climb to the roof. She should have found a place that allowed smoking if she needed to smoke that badly.

UK: Boy smoker hanged himself. A 12-year-old boy hanged himself with his school tie rather than admit to his parents that he had been caught smoking and this one Wisconsin: Girl kills herself after being caught with a cigarette.

How terribly sad and utterly pathetic that these kids deaths are being use in such a way. They did not die because of a smoking ban. Smoking has never been legal for 12 year olds
Why is it on the list?
Maybe because they are being used to inflame emotions?

Many of those little snippets from that blog list fights outside of pubs/bars. Where is the proof that the ONLY cause for the fight was because of smoking?
What was the blood alcohol level of all the participants of the altercation?
Was there absolutly no other reason the fight might have taken place?
Where is the proof that the attacker is a non smoker?

An example: Just because Joe Smoker steps outside for a smoke and the big guy whos wife he's been sleeping with sees him and whoops his ass doesn't mean he was attacked because he was smoking.

You would have people believe that there are roving bands of thugs going around looking for people who are smoking just to hurt them.

I don't know what bars you go to but I've been to a few prior to the ban and people would be outside smoking all the time. I've seen (and been) smokers go outside to smoke because its so crazy smokey inside the bar. I don't recall of ever hearing someone being attacked because they were smoking back then

Yes smoking outside, especially at night can be dangerous. I've worked 3rd shift most of my life and I've had to go outside to smoke because smoking in nursing facilities has been not allowed for years. I sure as hell never stepped foot outside to smoke ALONE because I'm not that brave or stupid.

Oh and to answer your question I've lived in Ohio my entire life, 41 years so maybe you have a couple of years on me but that doesn't make you anymore of a citizen then I am.

People outside in the night have been being attacked since the begining of time, so yes I find it hard to suddently start blaming it on smoking bans.

This has always been about the rights of private business owners to allow whatever legal activities they choose...

And considering that smoking in public is no longer legal...

Thanks for making my argument for me.

*

Taken from another board:

Science, Journalism, and Public Policy BAD SCIENCE = BAD LAWS

Anti's have told politicians that studies show that SHS causes blah-blah-blah,and bans are enacted.

This is the truth that we must tell about.

http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/HowToReadStudies.html

Again, in the canon of conventional science, we're told that any RR rating of less than 2 is very difficult to interpret, very iffy, very weak, and very likely to be due to either Bias, Confounding or the whimsy of pure chance. And further, any RR rating of under 3 (3.0) is just a blip of statistical static.

Says who?

The editor on the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell:

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 [3.0] or more before we accept a paper for publication."

The director of Drug Evaluation for the FDA, Robert Temple:

"My basic rule is that if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4 [3.0 or 4.0] forget it."

PASSIVE SMOKE STUDIES 1981-2006

Here are all the studies available to date concerning the exposure to PS and LUNG CANCER

http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm

This chart lists 149 studies on PS and Lung Cancer. Only 12 show a RR of 2.0 or greater. Only 2 show a RR of 3.0 or greater. That is a ratio of about 12 to 1 against any association.

That is a ratio of about 74 to 1 against a statistically significant association.

STUDIES ON PASSIVE SMOKE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE (complete list updated May, 2006: 42 primary studies)

http://www.forces.org/evidence/financial-ties/index_cardio.htm

The minimum risk elevation which, according to epidemiology, is necessary to seriously consider that the risk elevation is due the examined factor is over 200% or RR=3.

This lists 40 studies that show Relative Risk(RR).

Of these 40 studies,only 2 have RR's of 3.0 or higher.

That is;only 5% show a significant risk elevation,
"95% DO NOT SHOW A SIGNIFICANT RISK ELEVATION."

These studies run 20-1 against a significant association between passive smoke and cardiovascular disease!!

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.