No deal yet on smoking ban in Michigan bars and restaurants

[Gentle Taz]

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You are looking at outdated information that has been superceded.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. 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.

You have my sympathies. The anti-smoking propaganda has been going on for years, based on the same flawed statisitcal studies that started it which have spawned more statistical studies since. It's very easy to skew the numbers in a statistical study in order to make it show what you want.
However, that's beside the point here, as the discussion here is about the right of a business owner to serve who he chooses to serve.

[Gentle Taz]

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.

Then don't enter a smoking establishment. It's that simple.

[just candid]

The fact remains, cigarette smokers suck butts.

[SmokerDude]

just candid wrote:

The fact remains, cigarette smokers suck butts.

Candid know her mother is a butt sucker..

just candid wrote:

My Mom smoked when she was carring me, just look at the results by checking out my spelling "ability/not " on other threads. COL

[Happy Contented Soul]

The fact remains, anti-smokers kiss butts.

[Brian Deuel]

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?????

I was replying to someone else who doesn't smoke, and comparing them to someone who has food allergies or other health issues, yet wants someone else (i.e. a restaurant or government) to protect them against themselves. Notice the quotes around the first sentence. That generally means that I'm quoting someone else.

View the very first post of this thread and you'll see my opinion on the nanny state that Michigan has turned into. You got me wrong on this one.

[Brian Deuel]

"Then don't enter a smoking establishment. It's that simple."

Amen, brother.

[Free_America]

Brian Deuel wrote:

<quoted text>
I was replying to someone else who doesn't smoke, and comparing them to someone who has food allergies or other health issues, yet wants someone else (i.e. a restaurant or government) to protect them against themselves. Notice the quotes around the first sentence. That generally means that I'm quoting someone else.
View the very first post of this thread and you'll see my opinion on the nanny state that Michigan has turned into. You got me wrong on this one.

Sorry.

[Jay]

Nick in Shelby wrote:

I hope that this smoking ban passes. It should put all businesses on the same playing field and increase revenues at some businesses.
As for allowing exceptions, I don't think they should. Why should some businesses get out of the ban and not others. I hope eventually smoking becomes illegal also because the smokers are endangering the health of everyone, including small children and infants.

Yup, you are a sick Smoke Nazi. As someone said on here, there are worse things in society than SHS. Ever heard of someone killing kids in the streets with a gun? I certainly have.

But in reply to your point of no business should get exemptions, I guess you believe in killing the tavern industry? Because smoking bans will kill businesses, even with that "level-playing field."

It's funny how you claim smokers endanger the health of everyone. But yet, you believe in endangering the health of the hospitality industry by not giving any business exemptions to the ban.

Smokers will just go to cities out of state where smoking IS allowed in those restaurants and taverns.

http://chicagosmoker-jay.blogspot.com/

[Gary K]

A number of posters have made much ado about the fact that they think SHS kills nonsmokers.
No one has ever said that anti-smokers were very smart.
Smoking bans cause more non-smokers to die!
Since 1965 there has been a 50% decrease in the adult smoking rate.
Since 1990 there have been literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another enacted.
Since 1965 the exposure rate to SHS has decreased by 75%.
The stated reason for smoking bans is that SHS exposure 'KILLS' non-smokers and smoking bans are needed to change that!!
In the early 1990's anti smoking groups claimed that 53,000 non-smokers died from exposure to SHS.
In the early 1990's there were about 140,625,000 non-smokers,53,000 deaths means that there was 1 death per 2,653 non-smokers.
In the current era, pro ban groups claim that SHS exposure causes about 65,00 non-smokers to die per year.
There are about 165,000,000 non-smokers these days, 65,000 deaths is 1 death per 2,538 non-smokers.
Sooo,the antis are saying that after a 75% decrease in SHS exposure and literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another, "THE DEATH RATE HAS INCREASED AND THUS, SMOKING BANS CAUSE MORE NON-SMOKERS TO DIE"!!!
At the very least, smoking bans and a 75% decrease in SHS exposure have not caused a decrease in the number of deaths.
Why do antis lie so outrageously?
No one has ever said they were very smart!!

[Gary K]

Sandi posted:
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.
..........
California EPA says that it is now 3,600 non-smokers die from lung cancer caused by SHS.

In 1993 the EPA said it was 3,000 per year.

That was 1 death per 46,873 non-smokers.

These days(2007) the number is 3,600.

That is 1 per 45,833 non-smokers.

So,after a decrease of 75% in SHS exposure and all of those smoking bans enacted, the decrease in lung cancer deaths to non-smokers is "ZERO"!!!

SHS can not cause lung cancer deaths because a huge decrease in SHS exposure leads to 'NO DECREASE'.

This is from the numbers provided by the pro ban types.

[FUofCU]

Gary K wrote:

A number of posters have made much ado about the fact that they think SHS kills nonsmokers.
No one has ever said that anti-smokers were very smart.
Smoking bans cause more non-smokers to die!
Since 1965 there has been a 50% decrease in the adult smoking rate.
Since 1990 there have been literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another enacted.
Since 1965 the exposure rate to SHS has decreased by 75%.
The stated reason for smoking bans is that SHS exposure 'KILLS' non-smokers and smoking bans are needed to change that!!
In the early 1990's anti smoking groups claimed that 53,000 non-smokers died from exposure to SHS.
In the early 1990's there were about 140,625,000 non-smokers,53,000 deaths means that there was 1 death per 2,653 non-smokers.
In the current era, pro ban groups claim that SHS exposure causes about 65,00 non-smokers to die per year.
There are about 165,000,000 non-smokers these days, 65,000 deaths is 1 death per 2,538 non-smokers.
Sooo,the antis are saying that after a 75% decrease in SHS exposure and literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another, "THE DEATH RATE HAS INCREASED AND THUS, SMOKING BANS CAUSE MORE NON-SMOKERS TO DIE"!!!
At the very least, smoking bans and a 75% decrease in SHS exposure have not caused a decrease in the number of deaths.
Why do antis lie so outrageously?
No one has ever said they were very smart!!

Great post Gary! I placed a link and your comment on www.FUofCU.com

[brogers]

Sandi posted:
"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".

Sandi, the EPA report that anti's wave about as their banner is completely fraudulent! Get the facts at the following link:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

[brogers]

Bobbiez wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually many of us who are passionately against this Hitler like ban are non-smokers. I prefer non-smoking restaurants. Even more so, I prefer that it be up to a buiness owner to make that decision for themselves, and not have the Nanny Nation do it for them.

Bobbiez, you rock! You also represent a huge number of non-smokers out there. Thanks for speaking up.

[JoJo]

freaking liberals!
the economy is already in a shambles, now smokers will just stay home.
and all the selfish, childish, pushy tell everyone how to live liberals will just find something else to whine and cry about.
we need to run every liberal and their mother out of this country on a rail.
liberals love to talk about revolution...well we need a revolution alright, against the liberal hoards.
socialism = liberalism

[Clancy]

Gary K wrote:

A number of posters have made much ado about the fact that they think SHS kills nonsmokers.
No one has ever said that anti-smokers were very smart.
Smoking bans cause more non-smokers to die!
Since 1965 there has been a 50% decrease in the adult smoking rate.
Since 1990 there have been literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another enacted.
Since 1965 the exposure rate to SHS has decreased by 75%.
The stated reason for smoking bans is that SHS exposure 'KILLS' non-smokers and smoking bans are needed to change that!!
In the early 1990's anti smoking groups claimed that 53,000 non-smokers died from exposure to SHS.
In the early 1990's there were about 140,625,000 non-smokers,53,000 deaths means that there was 1 death per 2,653 non-smokers.
In the current era, pro ban groups claim that SHS exposure causes about 65,00 non-smokers to die per year.
There are about 165,000,000 non-smokers these days, 65,000 deaths is 1 death per 2,538 non-smokers.
Sooo,the antis are saying that after a 75% decrease in SHS exposure and literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another, "THE DEATH RATE HAS INCREASED AND THUS, SMOKING BANS CAUSE MORE NON-SMOKERS TO DIE"!!!
At the very least, smoking bans and a 75% decrease in SHS exposure have not caused a decrease in the number of deaths.
Why do antis lie so outrageously?
No one has ever said they were very smart!!

Did I miss where you got these facts from? Unless my math is bad (which it could be) 165,000,000 non-smokers today, leaves approx. 140,000,000 smokers, that's like 45% of the population, I find that hard to believe. And if that is less than in 1990, then half the population was smoking then. I gotta say both you and the "anti's" you got these numbers from may not be very smart.

[KHartman]

Gary K wrote:

Sandi posted:
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.
..........
California EPA says that it is now 3,600 non-smokers die from lung cancer caused by SHS.
In 1993 the EPA said it was 3,000 per year.
That was 1 death per 46,873 non-smokers.
These days(2007) the number is 3,600.
That is 1 per 45,833 non-smokers.
So,after a decrease of 75% in SHS exposure and all of those smoking bans enacted, the decrease in lung cancer deaths to non-smokers is "ZERO"!!!
SHS can not cause lung cancer deaths because a huge decrease in SHS exposure leads to 'NO DECREASE'.
This is from the numbers provided by the pro ban types.

You seem to be making a very elementary error. You believe that the effects of a smoking ban should be an immediate improvement in lung cancer deaths. But lung cancer is a DELAYED effect of smoking. A reduction in SHS exposure today will result in less lung cancer DECADES from now.

But if you don't want to wait, why not just look at non-smokers that have lived with smokers for a long time, and see if they have increased rates of lung cancer?

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/...

"A population-based, case-control study in central Florida among nonsmoking women demonstrated an elevated risk of lung cancer (or 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 5.4) in women who were exposed to &#8805; 22 years of ETS. Nonsmoking women with spouses who used tobacco had a 30% increased risk of lung cancer, with a higher risk in those women with increased levels of exposure in a multicenter case control study (p = 0.03)."

[Aloxety]

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be making a very elementary error. You believe that the effects of a smoking ban should be an immediate improvement in lung cancer deaths. But lung cancer is a DELAYED effect of smoking. A reduction in SHS exposure today will result in less lung cancer DECADES from now.

But that's exactly the point. The reference for your quote is Fontham's 1994 study, one of the four (?) that was used to generate the 3000/yr figure for the Cali EPA in the first place.

Isn't it somewhat disingenuous to inflate that figure upward to account for nearly 15 years worth of population growth while completely ignoring the dramatic decreases in smoking prevalence and ETS exposure that have occurred since 1994?

You can't have it both ways. Smoking prevalence has been steadily declining for 50 years, as has ETS exposure. You can't take 1994 as a starting point and say that lung cancer deaths will rise for 20-30 years before beginning to fall. The +20/30% from Fontham were being exposed in the '60s and '70s when smoking prevalence was nearly 50%(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html ). That's not even taking into account that smoking was permitted virtually anywhere, so ETS exposure was ubiquitous.

Whatever percent increase we're seeing today was exposed when smoking prevalence was half that of it's peak. It's impossible to think that the 3000 /yr figure is increasing.

[Free_America]

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be making a very elementary error. You believe that the effects of a smoking ban should be an immediate improvement in lung cancer deaths. But lung cancer is a DELAYED effect of smoking. A reduction in SHS exposure today will result in less lung cancer DECADES from now.
But if you don't want to wait, why not just look at non-smokers that have lived with smokers for a long time, and see if they have increased rates of lung cancer?
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/...
"A population-based, case-control study in central Florida among nonsmoking women demonstrated an elevated risk of lung cancer (or 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 5.4) in women who were exposed to &#8805; 22 years of ETS. Nonsmoking women with spouses who used tobacco had a 30% increased risk of lung cancer, with a higher risk in those women with increased levels of exposure in a multicenter case control study (p = 0.03)."

Minnesota enacted the indoor clean air act in 1975. That's 30 years ago. How come there hasn't been a massive reduction there?

[PicassoIII]

KHartman wrote:

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/...
"A population-based, case-control study in central Florida among nonsmoking women demonstrated an elevated risk of lung cancer (or 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 5.4) in women who were exposed to &#8805; 22 years of ETS.

OI!

KH, you link to a general 'womens lung cancer' study from 05 http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/...
that references Stockwell 92 http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/ijlink... for that statistic?

Uh that's called reaching.
Sample size in the hundreds ... where Brownson, Frondham and Boffetta who had tens of THOUSANDS found much smaller RRs.
Like 1.N ... N = 0 sometimes?