Survey says: Michigan smoking ban results in healthier bar employees, happier health officials

May 31, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: MLive.com

Darlene Krause, the manager of Tipsy Toad Tavern, places glasses into the cooler to be frosted before being served.

Comments
1 - 20 of 27 Comments Last updated Jun 6, 2011
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jerry

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

This is a surprise????

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jerry wrote:
This is a surprise????
Of course not. Clean air is better for you than smoke filled air. Most people are aware of this and either avoid such areas, or frequent them with this in mind. Stupid people on the other hand, can't make such decisions and therefore require the government to do it for them.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 31, 2011
 
Jerry wrote:
This is a surprise????
No, but it IS useful in countering the posts about a supposed hit to the economy.

Also, positive "news" is generally a welcome thing.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What a complete piece of "progressive" propaganda. Love how they continually quote those who either support or actually helped to get this Fascistic ban passed.

Many folks like myself have been warning others for quite some time that this ban happy mentality would only lead to other bans that are "for your own good". Now we have salt bans, cooking oil bans, Happy Meal bans...ect.

Forget the slippery slope as this is a cliff we are all being pushed over.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 31, 2011
 
Freedom wrote:
Forget the slippery slope as this is a cliff we are all being pushed over.
But DON'T forget the slippery slope of that first puff on a cigarette.

You're a bore, boor.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
But DON'T forget the slippery slope of that first puff on a cigarette.
You're a bore, boor.
Coming from a far left leaning self righteous moral busybody....that really hurts.

Tell us...would you be willing to apply your kinds ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to a specific one that you personally can't stand or find useful?

There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody....who has HUGE double standards.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 31, 2011
 
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming from a far left leaning self righteous moral busybody....that really hurts.
Tell us...would you be willing to apply your kinds ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to a specific one that you personally can't stand or find useful?
There really is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody....who has HUGE double standards.
Ah, yes, the egomaniac with the royal "we" and "us" and the pompous decree that everyone opposed on some level to the damage done by smoking or by smoking in public MUST fit neatly into a bogus pigeonhole that makes the most outrageous accusations and presumptions rational.

As you well know, many in the fields of biology and medical science apply that to any carcinogen.

Those who don't offer no explanation that negates the reasoning involved, they just declare a different view.

Any "threshold" with a carcinogen is NOT a "safe" level but a level of risk deemed "acceptable".

If you are simply incapable of understanding that, get over yourself and stop annoying your betters.

If you are not, then get over yourself and stop annoying your betters.

You're a bore, boor.
Smoke This

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Overall just as us non-smokers predicted, another very successful state smoking restrictions. Win, Win for all. Congrats, Michigan!!!

Sure, some of the bar owners that stuck their heads in the sand and refused to change, refused to embrace the new smoking restrictions, refused to buy a gallon of paint or clean the carpet or change the ceiling tiles are facing declines. WHY? Maybe their steady patrons said the hell with them and went to the busier bars as they are soooooooo much cleaner and packed with people and much better food.

BOO HOO for those bar owners that refused to change and CONGRATS to the bar owners that embraced the new laws and are successful.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 1, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass wrote:
Ah, yes, the egomaniac with the royal "we" and "us" and the pompous decree that everyone opposed on some level to the damage done by smoking or by smoking in public MUST fit neatly into a bogus pigeonhole that makes the most outrageous accusations and presumptions rational.
First off just as all collectivists do...you have confused private property with public.

Next, you accuse others of being egomaniacs...when it is your side that demands every place and every one cater to your choices.

Such an attitude is beyond selfish...as it is downright narcissistic.

Pot...meet kettle.
Hugh Jass wrote:
As you well know, many in the fields of biology and medical science apply that to any carcinogen.
Sure...there are all kinds of ideas floating around out there, the problem is they back their opinions not based upon hard science, but instead rely upon "faith". It is at this point that your kind leaves the realm of "science" and enters into the world of a "religion".

Passing laws that remove rights based on pure "faith" is a dangerous precedent to set as your kind has now mixed politics/religion with real science..and history knows the results of such insanity.
Hugh Jass wrote:
Those who don't offer no explanation that negates the reasoning involved, they just declare a different view.
That is pure and simple BS. Your kind defies known science such as the first rule of toxicology silly. Did you not know that there are those in the scientific community who claim a low dose response actually strengthens the immune system?

Good Lord...you really should educate yourself before you spout off pure propaganda.
Hugh Jass wrote:
Any "threshold" with a carcinogen is NOT a "safe" level but a level of risk deemed "acceptable".
If you are simply incapable of understanding that, get over yourself and stop annoying your betters.
If you are not, then get over yourself and stop annoying your betters.
You're a bore, boor.
That is simply your opinion and you have ZERO hard science to back your ridiculous claims.

You have been asked time after time to produce proof of other forms of smoke that qualify for the "magical" standard of "no safe level"...and yet you simply can not come up with even so much as one backed by scientific fact.

Face it you collectivist fool...your kind pushes your "religion" while claiming science as your guide. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As for your arrogance...not only are you arrogant....you are a narcissist as only such a fool would not simply use their right to freedom of association by chosing places where there are others who are like minded...rather than demanding all bend to your will on land you hold no title to.

Why on earth is the right to freedom of association never good enough for your kind...when it is this very right that is the basis for virtually all freedoms?

Bested by the likes of you? ROLMAO!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 1, 2011
 
Freedom wrote:
Sure...there are all kinds of ideas floating around out there, the problem is they back their opinions not based upon hard science, but instead rely upon "faith".
Okay, right. Now, YOU provide a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that a single cancerous cell produces a tumor.

If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell.

Then perhaps you will have taken one step on the path toward credibility.

Doesn't mean you will cease being a bore, boor.
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 1, 2011
 
Hugh Jass wrote:
Okay, right. Now, YOU provide a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that a single cancerous cell produces a tumor.
First off...you completely ignore known science such as the first rule of toxicolgy. That in and of itself closes the case for all practical purposes.

Second...how do you explain the fact that many people live well into the 100 year range without developing cancers....who die of "natural causes"? Kinda makes your whole point mute...eh?

LOL

Third..one can not prove a negative...and since your kind makes this claim and then passes laws based upon your "religion"...the burden of proof is on you.

That pretty much covers your "religion"....eh?

Your lack of logic is beyond comprehension.
Hugh Jass wrote:
If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell.
See the above explanation. One can not prove a negative...or can you in your twisted world?
Hugh Jass wrote:
Then perhaps you will have taken one step on the path toward credibility.
Doesn't mean you will cease being a bore, boor.
You can't even come up with so much as one other form of smoke that qualifies for the "religious" standard of "no safe level" based upon known and proven science.

Your credibility is ZERO!
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 1, 2011
 
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, right. Now, YOU provide a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that a single cancerous cell produces a tumor.
If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell.
Then perhaps you will have taken one step on the path toward credibility.
Doesn't mean you will cease being a bore, boor.
EXCELLENT Post!
Of course that addict in denial will twist, defer, change the subject, and side step reality...or just stay away in until the conversation changes...then he will stick nose in there again when he feels "safe"!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 1, 2011
 
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, right. Now, YOU provide a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that a single cancerous cell produces a tumor.
If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell.
Then perhaps you will have taken one step on the path toward credibility.
Doesn't mean you will cease being a bore, boor.
Excuse me, I must have yawned as I was responding. That should have read:

"If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that no more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell."
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 1, 2011
 
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>EXCELLENT Post!
Of course that addict in denial will twist, defer, change the subject, and side step reality...or just stay away in until the conversation changes...then he will stick nose in there again when he feels "safe"!
Hey TBT...your hero just got trashed...and here you are singing praises.

LOL

Tell us...can you provide the casual reader with a list of other forms of smoke that qualify for the "magical" standard of "no safe level" based on known science?

If not....please admit you are nothing but a "useful idiot".
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 1, 2011
 
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, I must have yawned as I was responding. That should have read:
"If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that no more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell."
Since one can not prove a negative...the burden of proof is upon you.

Once again...based on your knowledge of real science...just what other forms of smoke qualify for your kinds "magical" standard of "no safe level"

Then again...based on real science...please provide any kind of "study" that proves there is such a thing.

No theory...no conjecture...just plain and simple facts please.

Do you ever grow tired of making a complete fool of yourself?
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 1, 2011
 
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, I must have yawned as I was responding. That should have read:
"If you can't do that, then how about a list of the top ten scientifically defensible reasons to reject the concept that no more than one molecule of a carcinogen is required to interact with a cell in order to trigger the mutation that creates a cancer cell."
Thats ok, it read good either way!
Freedom

Niles, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 1, 2011
 
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>Thats ok, it read good either way!
What is really comical is you lack the intellect necessary to comprehend what you are responding to.

Just to once again demonstrate this simple fact...based on your knowledge of real "science"...just what other forms of smoke qualify for your kinds "magical" standard of "no safe level"?

No theory...no "religion"...just plain and simple facts.

And you must actually wonder why your kind is known as "useful idiots"?

Your lack of a logical answer is all that is needed to prove the obvious.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 1, 2011
 
Freedom wrote:
First off...you completely ignore known science such as the first rule of toxicolgy. That in and of itself closes the case for all practical purposes.
Only if you can show that a cancer occurs because the number of molecules interacting with the body achieves a size where the system is overwhelmed. That is CONTRARY to the science of cancer.

Granted that an increase in the number of cancer cells created increases the probability that one will get past the body's defenses and become a tumor, a tumor may STILL develop from a single mutated cell.

Provide cancer-specific science that disputes that, if you can. If you CAN'T, then stipulate that it is CORRECT.

Granted that an increase in the number of carcinogenic molecules present increases the likelihood that ONE of them WILL trigger a lethal mutation, it STILL requires only ONE to do the job.

Provide cancer-specific science to dispute that if you can. If you can't, then stipulate it as CORRECT.

IF it only takes ONE carcinogenic molecule to do the deed, and IF it only takes one mutation to do the deed, then any time ONE such molecule is present, there is the possibility of carcinogenesis.

Provide cancer-specific science to dispute that if you can. If you can't, then stipulate it as CORRECT. In this instance, even something RATIONAL to dispute it seems completely out of range.

IF this is true, then there is NO level of exposure to a carcinogen below which anyone can GUARANTEE that cancer will not result.

IF yo are so sure that it is NOT true, please provide cancer-specific science that shows one of the elements of this argument is incorrect.

Your mantra of the first law of toxicology is satisfied by the stipulations I made in my points. Increased dosage DOES increase likelihood of carcinogenesis. HOWEVER, there is no dose beneath which all is safe.
Freedom wrote:
Second...how do you explain the fact that many people live well into the 100 year range without developing cancers....who die of "natural causes"? Kinda makes your whole point mute...eh?
The potential to cause harm does not imply the certainty of harm. Nor does the anecdotal escape from harm disprove the potential.

If only something would render your keyboard "mute".
Freedom wrote:
Third..one can not prove a negative...
Oh, you mean you are being irrational when you demand proof that there is no safe level of SHS exposure?
Freedom wrote:
Your lack of logic is beyond comprehension.
You can't even come up with so much as one other form of smoke that qualifies for the "religious" standard of "no safe level" based upon known and proven science.
Science offers no proofs. Science deals in most likely explanations. Find a better than that provided above. Satisfy the requirements I laid out. Find a scientific reason for rejecting the concepts involved OR show how the concepts do NOT lead by direct and irrefutable logic to the statement that there is NO threshold for exposure to SHS (apart from the complete line of crap about there being no carcinogens in SHS to start with--the idea that THAT had anything to do with science was debunked long ago).

As noted earlier and often, virtually ANY carcinogenic molecule fits this model, so your constant strident shrieking about wanting a list is empty posturing.

You are a bore, boor.

Come back when you have the cancer-science refuting the specific points I raised. Or, if you'd rather, stay away even then. We won't mind.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 1, 2011
 
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
What is really comical is you lack the intellect necessary to comprehend what you are responding to.
Just to once again demonstrate this simple fact...based on your knowledge of real "science"...just what other forms of smoke qualify for your kinds "magical" standard of "no safe level"?
No theory...no "religion"...just plain and simple facts.
And you must actually wonder why your kind is known as "useful idiots"?
Your lack of a logical answer is all that is needed to prove the obvious.
Your inability to learn of carcinogens for yourself is all that is needed to prove the obvious: You're a bore, boor.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 1, 2011
 
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Since one can not prove a negative...the burden of proof is upon you.
Sorry, weasel, but no one has ASKED you to "prove a negative". I asked only that you provide relevant (i.e., cancer-specific) scientific grounds for rejecting either element of the basis for the statement.

"Cause I say it ain't so" isn't going to cut it. Cough it up.

What is YOUR explanation for the development of a tumor?

Does it NOT involve unchecked replication of a single cell?

Does it involve the mutating cell's being affected by a huge number of molecules?

How DOES it differ from what is taught in every standard biology text used today?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Muskegon Discussions

Search the Muskegon Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
MI 2010 Michigan Primary Election: Did you vote? (Aug '10) Jul 23 gottondas 5,482
Teen Challenge Exposed! (May '07) Jul 12 tjj 147
MI Who do you support for Secretary of State in Mi... (Oct '10) Jul 7 maeball 169
Free movie tickets! (May '09) Jun '14 barbara bellis 12
MI Michigan Felon Politician Ban Amendment, Propos... (Oct '10) Jun '14 lulubell 302
Heroin and Marijuana Jun '14 Tony Rowe 1
MI Who do you support for Attorney General in Mich... (Oct '10) May '14 Ned Tugent 114
•••
•••
•••
Muskegon Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Muskegon Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Muskegon People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Muskegon News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Muskegon
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••