No deal yet on smoking ban in Michigan bars and restaurants

Judged:

Sally Henson wrote:

I just moved here from California (where ALL restaurants and bars are non-smoking. It's disgusting trying to go out here! I'm allergic to second-hand smoke and I believe it's unhealthy for my family to breathe it. There is only a handful of restaurants here that are non-smoking and I don't feel I can even go out in the evening for a glass of wine or a comedy show. One thing I noticed is that all the non-smoking restaurants are always packed and their food is superb...because it doesn't taste like smoke!! I hope the ban passes...why should I be at the mercy of the smokers? They can smoke at home!

The mercy of the smokers? Oh my. That is quite the stretch there. You are never forced onto private property so you are really at your own mercy.

What is it about the right to freely associate that eludes those like yourself? Go where there are others who are like minded, and allow others the same right.

You seem to be quite concerned about the effects of smoke when you go out to eat. Ever noticed the nice juicy aroma of a steak hot on the grill at your local favorite restaurant? How about those flaming skillets they bring out to the table? Next time...you better run.

;-)

Let us see what the EPA has to say shall we?

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.ht...

Polycyclic organic matter (POM)(A)

The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs), of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in particulate form. Sources of air emissions are diverse and include cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, home heating, laying tar, and grilling meat.
---------

By golly it looks like meat smoke is a known carcinogen. It's right up there with vehicle exhaust.

Now what is the safe level of say....meat smoke?

How is this fair to the cooks...and others who wish to breath smoke free air?

Bobbiez

“Go Red Wings!!!”

Joined: Oct 11, 2007

Comments: 1172

Plainfield Township MI

ISP: Allegan, MI

Judged:

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
The mercy of the smokers? Oh my. That is quite the stretch there. You are never forced onto private property so you are really at your own mercy.
What is it about the right to freely associate that eludes those like yourself? Go where there are others who are like minded, and allow others the same right.
You seem to be quite concerned about the effects of smoke when you go out to eat. Ever noticed the nice juicy aroma of a steak hot on the grill at your local favorite restaurant? How about those flaming skillets they bring out to the table? Next time...you better run.
;-)
Let us see what the EPA has to say shall we?
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.ht...
Polycyclic organic matter (POM)(A)
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs), of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in particulate form. Sources of air emissions are diverse and include cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, home heating, laying tar, and grilling meat.
---------
By golly it looks like meat smoke is a known carcinogen. It's right up there with vehicle exhaust.
Now what is the safe level of say....meat smoke?
How is this fair to the cooks...and others who wish to breath smoke free air?

I must admit...your opinions are starting to hit a nerve with me. At first I was taken a little aback by your stances. But now I realize just how over the top the other side is. OMG...there go our civil liberties one at a time. If you haven't yet, I urge you to check out the Libertarian party. We are growing all the time, and if we all work together we can take back the country and our rights from all of the crazies out there. The last thing I need or want if for the government to be my family's nanny.

Free America

Judged:

Bobbiez wrote:

<quoted text>
I must admit...your opinions are starting to hit a nerve with me. At first I was taken a little aback by your stances. But now I realize just how over the top the other side is. OMG...there go our civil liberties one at a time. If you haven't yet, I urge you to check out the Libertarian party. We are growing all the time, and if we all work together we can take back the country and our rights from all of the crazies out there. The last thing I need or want if for the government to be my family's nanny.

To find one near you.
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.shtml

Freedom

Judged:

Bobbiez wrote:

<quoted text>
I must admit...your opinions are starting to hit a nerve with me. At first I was taken a little aback by your stances. But now I realize just how over the top the other side is. OMG...there go our civil liberties one at a time. If you haven't yet, I urge you to check out the Libertarian party. We are growing all the time, and if we all work together we can take back the country and our rights from all of the crazies out there. The last thing I need or want if for the government to be my family's nanny.

What really amazes me are the people who come to this board who do not see what is happening to our rights...one by one. Perhaps they fail to see the big picture. Some claim to hate the patriot act...and then back legislation that creates NARC hotlines and expands the government's right to warrantless searches.

I guess they are willing to trade others freedoms for the moment...in order to temporarily expand their own. They just don't see that in the end...the rules they set for the smokers can then be used on themselves. The smokers are setting precedents that will be used in the future.

When like minded individuals lose the right to gather indoors on private property to enjoy a LEGAL lifestyle what loss of rights does one quote? Since we are talking about 20-25% of the population you would think a few people might take notice.

Double Agent

Winchester, VA

Judged:

Keep the cancer away from me, ban cancer from the bars and jail those who smoke, how stupid can those be?

Free America

Judged:

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
What really amazes me are the people who come to this board who do not see what is happening to our rights...one by one. Perhaps they fail to see the big picture. Some claim to hate the patriot act...and then back legislation that creates NARC hotlines and expands the government's right to warrantless searches.
I guess they are willing to trade others freedoms for the moment...in order to temporarily expand their own. They just don't see that in the end...the rules they set for the smokers can then be used on themselves. The smokers are setting precedents that will be used in the future.
When like minded individuals lose the right to gather indoors on private property to enjoy a LEGAL lifestyle what loss of rights does one quote? Since we are talking about 20-25% of the population you would think a few people might take notice.

You mean like this???
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/T83...

Freedom

Judged:

Free America wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean like this???
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/T83...

Why in fact...I do. Let's see. Agents of the state attempting to combine with private industry in order to push an agenda.

Hhhmm.

Brian Deuel

Judged:

"I hope the ban passes...why should I be at the mercy of the smokers? They can smoke at home!"

You remind me of the food allergy whiners who blame the restaurant because they don't serve anything that they aren't allergic to.

IT'S YOUR PROBLEM AND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

Free America

Judged:

Brian Deuel wrote:

"I hope the ban passes...why should I be at the mercy of the smokers? They can smoke at home!"
You remind me of the food allergy whiners who blame the restaurant because they don't serve anything that they aren't allergic to.
IT'S YOUR PROBLEM AND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

Look who's the Whiner you can't have it your way so you want the government to make it your way. Why should the smokers be at the mercy of the non smokers .. did anyone stop you from buying your own business and make it non smoking?????

Freedom

Judged:

Free America wrote:

<quoted text>Look who's the Whiner you can't have it your way so you want the government to make it your way. Why should the smokers be at the mercy of the non smokers .. did anyone stop you from buying your own business and make it non smoking?????

Words of wisdom indeed.

Thanks.

Sandi

Judged:

Gentle Taz wrote:

<quoted text>
Health inspections of restaurants are to protect the customer from known, proven, food born diseases. People actually get sick from the pathogens that cause those problems. SHS is NOT a known pathogen. The so called "proof" that it is harmful is based strictly on flawed statistical studies. The EPA did some testing a number of years ago and came to the conclusion that all the hazardous substances in SHS are in too low a concentration to be harmful, far below their standards of exposure. A federal judge in the early 90s went over the studies that were cited in a lawsuit concerning SHS and came to the conclusion that the people citing studies were cherry picking, that if all the studies were looked at together, the conclusion was that SHS did no harm.

You are looking at outdated information that has been superceded. The Surgeon General reported in 2006 that scientific evidence shows there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Such mainstream and legitimate sources as Mayo Clinic have cited information as recently as May 8, 2008, that secondhand smoke is a known risk factor for lung cancer. Experts believe that secondhand smoke is to blame for about 3,400 deaths from lung cancer in adult nonsmokers each year in the United States. Secondhand smoke is also linked to cancer of the nasal sinuses.

Mayo says that secondhand smoke harms the cardiovascular system of nonsmokers in many ways. For one thing, it causes heart disease, such as a heart attack. It also damages blood vessels, interferes with circulation and increases the risk of blood clots. It's estimated that some 35,000 nonsmokers die of secondhand smoke-related heart disease in the United States every year.

Sandi

If someone were entering bars and restaurants across the country and sprinkling a mysterious purple dust over customers there, and that dust caused thousands and thousands of people to die, would you all be here screaming about his RIGHT to do as he pleased? You are speaking out of your desperation to continue practicing your addiction. I support your right to slow suicide, but please don't include me in your plans.

Free America

Sandi wrote:

<quoted text>
You are looking at outdated information that has been superceded. The Surgeon General reported in 2006

Most of the studies in the surgeon generals report are the same studies in the faked 1992 EPA report. Also the same players.
Junk Science and Courtrooms
Understanding Carmona's report requires familiarity with a different report--the Federal Judicial Center's 2000 "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition," the official guide for judges to understand and rule on science introduced in courtrooms.
According to the manual, nearly all the studies cited in Carmona's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show are too negligible to be reliable.
For example, the Reference Manual states, "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Few of the studies Carmona cites found relative risks this large, and most found risks in a range that included 1.0, which means exposure to secondhand smoke had no effect on the incidence of disease. In the world of real science, that's a knockout blow.
Most of the research Carmona cites was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the most important findings, and failed to honor scientific standards. Carmona's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.
Missing Study
Did Carmona and coauthors cherry-pick the data? Absolutely. They ignore the largest and most credible study ever conducted on spouses of smokers, by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. The authors found:
"The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Carmona mentions the Enstrom study just once, in an appendix listing studies too recent to include in the report. But Enstrom's study was published four years ago, and Carmona cites more recent studies. In fact, Carmona's principal "findings" were taken from a 2005 report--not a scientific study, merely another report--from California's Clean Air Resources Board, mostly citing the very studies the federal judge rejected in 1993.
Additional Confirmation
The Enstrom study isn't the odd exception among all the available studies on secondhand smoke. A 2002 analysis of 48 studies, also published in the British Medical Journal, found only seven showed a relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer, while 41 did not.
A 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study covering seven countries over seven years actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers and no increase for spouses and coworkers of smokers.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...

Free America

Sandi wrote:

<quoted text>
You are looking at outdated information that has been superceded. The Surgeon General reported in 2006 that scientific evidence shows there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Here is a little tidbit on the chief scientific editor for the Surgeon generals report.

Jonathan M. Samet, M.D., and the 1992 EPA Report
One might wonder how omissions, distortions, and exaggerations like those pointed out above could occur in a document as important as a Surgeon General's Report on ETS. To better understand this phenomena one must realize that Samet has dealt with the ETS issue in this manner for many years. In particular, he played a major role in the epidemiologic analysis for the December 1992 report on Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency [120]. This EPA report classified ETS as a Group A human carcinogen, which causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the U.S. The findings from this report were used in the Broin v. Philip Morris litigation described above.

The epidemiologic methodology and conclusions of the EPA report have been severely criticized. One of the harshest critiques is the 92-page Decision issued by Federal Judge William L. Osteen on July 17, 1998, which overturned the report in the U.S. District Court [121]. For instance, in his conclusion Judge Osteen wrote: "In conducting the Assessment, EPA deemed it biologically plausible that ETS was a carcinogen. EPA's theory was premised on the similarities between MS [mainstream smoke], SS [sidestream smoke], and ETS. In other chapters, the Agency used MS and ETS dissimilarities to justify methodology. Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiologic studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies...."

In order to more fully understand the EPA report and its inherent flaws, one must read the complete Osteen decision [121], as well as the books Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy by Drs. Gio B. Gori and John C. Luik [122], Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris by Richard Kluger [123], For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health by Jacob Sullum [124], and the Brill's Content magazine article "Warning: Secondhand Smoke May NOT Kill You" by Nicholas Varchaver [125]. Finally, one must read the January 28, 1993 Investors' Business Daily article "Is EPA Blowing Its Own Smoke? How Much Science Is Behind Its Tobacco Finding?" by Michael Fumento, who stimulated my own interest in the ETS issue .

Freedom

Judged:

Sandi wrote:

If someone were entering bars and restaurants across the country and sprinkling a mysterious purple dust over customers there, and that dust caused thousands and thousands of people to die, would you all be here screaming about his RIGHT to do as he pleased? You are speaking out of your desperation to continue practicing your addiction. I support your right to slow suicide, but please don't include me in your plans.

If you knew this place allowed purple dust that frightened you....would you go there anyway?

What a phobe.

You must be the same person who swims in the Pee pool...and then complains.

What a moron.

Free America

Sandi wrote:

<quoted text>
The Surgeon General reported in 2006 that scientific evidence shows there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Surgeon General Trades Integrity for Advocacy

The U.S. Surgeon General recently appeared in a TV interview on PBS's News Hour on the day his new report on secondhand smoke was released. He stated repeatedly and emphatically that there was no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.(This is the “no threshold” theory.”) But the very report he was talking about doesn't support what he was saying. It draws no such conclusion, nor does it provide any data to support such a conclusion. The SG was simply not being honest.

The “no threshold” theory about cancer has never been shown to be true for ANY chemical, much less secondhand smoke. The theory that if something is carcinogenic at high doses it must also be proportionately so at small doses simply does not fit the real world. At least ten elements (including iron and oxygen) are carcinogens at high doses but essential to human life in small doses. And some carcinogens, such as selenium and Vitamin A, are proven anti-carcinogens at low doses. These facts contradict the “no-threshold” theory. Thresholds are a law of nature; the mere title of one treatise says it all:“Environmental Carcinogenesis—The Threshold Principle: A Law of Nature." The authors, Claus and Bolander, state that the no-threshold theory about any dose being dangerous ignores “all the fundamental principles of cell biology.”

Dr. Elizabeth Miller, former president of the American Association for Research on Cancer, has stated:“Chemical carcinogenesis is a strongly dose-dependent phenomenon.” This is opposite to the claim by smoking ban advocates—including the surgeon general—that it is not dose dependent, that any dose is a health hazard (no threshold.)

The no-threshold theory, when applied to secondhand smoke,“incorporates unsound assumptions that are not valid,” says an article by Drs. Huber (pulmonary specialist), Brockie (cardiologist), and Mahajan (a hospital director of internal medicine and professor of medicine.)

Furthermore, thresholds are known to exist for mainstream tobacco smoke in total as well as for each of the individual carcinogens known to exist in it. It is preposterous to claim, as the SG does, that secondhand smoke—which is more than 100,000 times more dilute than mainstream smoke—has no threshold, even though mainstream smoke does. This turns the dose-response principle of epidemiology on its head and means secondhand smoke can be more dangerous than actual smoking! Ridiculous!
http://www.amlibpub.com/essays/surgeon-genera...

Sandi

Judged:

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
If you knew this place allowed purple dust that frightened you....would you go there anyway?
What a phobe.
You must be the same person who swims in the Pee pool...and then complains.
What a moron.

Well, thank you for confirming my suspicion that your pseudo-scholarly opinions are a thin disguise for irrationality and venom. If you were truly secure in your position, you would have no need to denigrate those with other points of view. Moron? Pee pool? Your professionality astounds me. It does not make me phobic to want to preserve my health.

Freedom