PicassoIII

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Got a problem with that? Are you a homophobe as well as a bigotDid i SAY i was a member of the LP? Yes i donate, just like i'll donate-support to ANY candidate who makes sense, which has included some Rs and even Ds (huge fan of Fiengold WI, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot act). There's a difference betweel little l and big L libertarian, get a clue. As for the party being a joke, the joke is on the american people. The Republicrat-Democa n duopoly have tilted the table so far with ballot access rules that a truly free and open market of parties and candidates is bordeline impossible. That said CATO institute and Reason magazine hold much more sway over DC than you (or i) ever will. AND if the movement is such a joke explain the phenomenon of Ron Paul. In many places he was polling 2nd to Obama among under 30 votersBoy, you're really obsessing on this one eh. The funny thing is tho, it's a reference to something Barry Goldwater said. [i]In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."[/i] http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Barry_G oldwater But feel free to read whatever you want into it, it's far more amusingReally, counter anything about the EPA, Crichton, Edell Bailar. For extra credid, explain why smoking tobacco causes cancer, SHS also does, but smoking pot doesn't. (this oughtta be good) http://www.erowid. org/plants/cannabi s/cannabis_info3.s html http://healthy.net /scr/article.asp?I d=8085 http://burningissu es.org/car-www/pdf s/WoodSmokeTobacco Smtablemira.pdf  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6151)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Oh and JDH ... Ahhhnold is a RINO. Take it from a libertarian (we tend to be VERY savvy politically) he wouldn't know what 'small government' was if it came up and bit him on his muscular gluteus maximus. I hope Barry Goldwater visits him in his dreams and kicks him in that ass.  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6146)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

My 'feelings' about it are irrelavent. But i have a very good idea of what is fact, what is theory and what is BS. Hmmm, search my posts on here, i'm registered. I never said smoking is harmless, i've never even said that SHS is harmless either for that matter. Feel free to prove otherwise or STFU. FACT: The EPA's assesment in '93 is jacked. They did their meta analysis and couldn't prove it. So they dropped a 'problem' study (Brownson 92) included an incomplete one (Fontham 94), shifted the CI from 95% to 90% and still BARELY got it to sqeak through. This being in direct violation to their policies and standards. Not surprising at all, because the activists in the agency declared BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED in 90 or 91 that they were going to prove it. They had made up their mind what the result was going to be FIRST. You follow the data where it leads ... they led the data where they wanted it to go. Don't wanna take my word for it, fine, here's an MD, Harvard, with Honors who says exactly the same thing. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=aGoZ- b1OaW4 Or how bout Dr Dean Eddel http://www.scottho lleran.com/intervi ews/dr-dean-edell. htm "Secondhand smoke stinks—but is it killing people? There was a study of the wives of the smokers—they have crummy health habits. They eat terrible diets of meat and fat, they don’t get any exercise, but when they show up with worse health statistics, it’s blamed on secondhand smoke, it’s not blamed on all the other factors. We don’t even know how cigarettes affect us. We don’t know what causes cancer. We don’t know what causes the increase in heart disease—it’s not nicotine—nicotine gum actually helps heart disease patients. Carbon monoxide? Well, any kind of smoke has a lot of carbon monoxide—that’s a possibility—but carbon monoxide has a temporary effect; it blocks the oxygen linking to your hemoglobin, then you take a breath of fresh air and it goes away. Is that the cause of chronic problems in smokers? We don’t know—now we’re into secondhand smoke when we don’t even know firsthand smoke does. I think we’re becoming a really, really neurotic, fearful people and politicians and the media love it and know how to feed that monster." Dr Doll, Dr Peto, Dr Kabat ... all of them point to this as PC hype. Lets just assume for a moment that it's still valid if exaggerated. The EPA estimates ~3000 deaths a year in the US from SHS due to cancer, that number SHOULD be 1000-1500 max. This will NOT be from occasional exposure, or even part time jobs, this will be from living or working with heavy exposure for DECADES. Please do NOT bring up CVD and SHS. It's an absolute JOKE, the post ban studies cherry pick time frames and/or have no control group and/or ignore changes in treatment and/or the availability of autodefibrilators (BTW, i'm certified for that and CPR). In fact the whole connection is still up in the air PERIOD with people like Dr Bailar III questioning it to this day. http://www.ajph.or g/cgi/ijlink?linkT ype=FULL&journ alCode=nejm&re sid=340/12/958 http://www.topix.c om/forum/health/sm oking/TFSI69I21USV 96ACF http://www.pubmedc entral.nih.gov/art iclerender.fcgi?ar tid=2164936 And guess what, there's scientists who buy this stuff hook, line, sinker and feel like me, that it's ridiculous and hypocritical to ban smoking in f-ing bars!! http://scienceblog s.com/purepedantry /2007/11/the_price _of_exaggeration_e xhi.php  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6144)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Know what JDH, forget it. You've descended into the ugliest of identity politics now. I'd love to see you try this: Walk up to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, General Tommy Franks or Jay-Z, and call them a 'loser' to their face. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Cigar_A ficionado Good luck with that.  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6135)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

*Selfish Gene... Yeah, i know it's not that new, but DePaul Bio was more into SJ Gould school. The whole Intelligent Design controversy got me curious about all that stuff again.  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6131)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Double major Chemistry - Environmental Sciences with a minor in Bio. Almost applied to med school until some hospital experiences (older relatives) convinced me that our murrican medical system is pretty f-ed up. Plus, i can't stand golf, prefer auto racing and sailing. I've worked for the DOE, one of the top 5 environmental labs in the world and currently supervise a couple of departments for the largest waste water lab in the US. I've interviewed with the USEPA and the Chicago Dept o Water (to RUN their Chem lab). In both cases it was pretty clear by the end of the interview ..... they couldn't afford me. My boss calls me 'MacGyver' on a regular basis and can count on one hand the number of times a scientist/doctor/e ngineer has gone 'over my head'. I stay current like a fiend, Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene' is on my nightstand right now. Please ... in a battle of wits your a$$ would be handed to you before you even open your mouth.  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6130)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Oh good grief. So u work for Abbott essentially. That explains everything. http://www.abbottl aboratoriescorpora tion.com/ http://blogs.jobdi g.com/diggings/200 6/04/11/corporate- anti-smokling-poli cies-raise-tough-q uestions/ How often do they do drug testing these days, monthly, LOL. Companies like that are as bad as old Henry Ford. Has management scheduled their 'in home' visit to make sure you live your life according to 'their' standards? It's only a matter of time before you'll have to start 'weighing in' at the start of the day. *shakes head* Just one more reason why you coulndn't pay me enough to work for these rent seeking corporate drug pushers.  (Wednesday Dec 23 | post #6125)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Ah, crap. Bad block quotes. Mine not GTW's. Also they can: not take the job, work with their employer to reduce the hazard (set up 'environmental controls') IE turning on a vent,'force' the employer by calling ... uh, OSHA, or strike. Again, linesmen, roofers, driving salespeople, welders, pilots, fisherman and lumerjacks all have jobs much far MORE hazardous than WORKING in SHS 40hrs a week. And that's IF the clearly jacked EPA-IARC numbers stack up. http://money.cnn.c om/2003/10/13/pf/d angerousjobs/index .htm And it's not as if these jobs aren't HIGHLY regulated already.  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #6101)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Funny you should mention that. http://www.osha.go v/pls/oshaweb/owad isp.show_document? p_table=INTERPRETA TIONS&p_id=246 02 "Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS." OSHA HAS looked at SHS. Compared to REAL workplace 'risks' they don't bother. IF somthing bumps your chances of a serious disease from 1 to 10% they step in. If it bumps it up from 1 to 1.2% they understand there are too many other factors to say for sure in general and specifically with the job itself. Not to mention IF there is a big risk, they do a cost-benefit analysis and then institute exposure LIMITS. What's beyond ironic is the Fed was sued by ASH in teh mid 90s in fact which promted them to hold hearings on it. OSHA was about to SET an evidence based exposure limit and ASH dropped the suit cause they simply wanted a banAgain, great point. Asbestos isn't banned, simply regulated. “OSHA, (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has set limits of 100,000 fibers with lengths greater than or equal to 5 µm per cubic meter of workplace air for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work weeks” http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Asbesto s#United_States As for coal, that's the best example yet. If coal mining burning were banned, entire regions would be devastated by unemployment AND electric rates would skyrocket. Would you put up with your electric bill tripling for a few years while alternatives were constructed. Even with TONS of regulations and precautions, mining is dangerous regardless of what they're digging. So even IF they find jobs doing something else it's likely to be almost as risky. And it's all far more dangerous than the supposed 40hr a week risk of regular exposure to SHS. Which is far more hazardous than a couple of hours a week in a smoky bar. Not to mention a drop in the veritable toxin-carcinogen bucket you walk around in, all day, every day .(unless you live on a mountain top in alaska or something). http://upload.wiki media.org/wikipedi a/commons/7/79/Die sel-smoke.jpg Ah the semi, what modern american society would utterly collapse without.  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #6100)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Did you even read the rest of my post?!? Do you think about the risk you are putting a poor deliver driver in when you order a pizza? It's pretty much the same risk (except while SHS/cancer data is kinda thin, traffic records are voluminous in comparison) Oh and yeah, how often do YOU have alaskan crab. Like football? "A 1994 study of 7,000 former players by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found linemen had a 52 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease than the general population. While U.S. life expectancy is 77.6 years, recent studies suggest the average for NFL players is 55, 52 for linemen." http://www.sptimes .com/2006/01/29/Sp orts/A_huge_proble m.shtml And seriously yer average lineman doesn't really make that much. Wanna see the numbers on boxing? Lets not forget WHAT a bar is selling and profiting from in the 1st place. http://scienceblog s.com/scientificac tivist/2007/03/stu dy_finds_alcohol_a nd_tobacc_1.php Alcohol is not exactly harmless and in many ways worse than tobacco. http://www.rsadrug scommission.org.uk /pdf/RSA_Drugs_Rep ort.pdf A March 2007 report by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (UK) found that the financial health costs of alcohol and tobacco were equal. Drinking, unlike smoking, played a role in 78 percent of assaults and 88 percent of criminal damage. http://www.marinin stitute.org/alcoho l_policy/health_ca re_costs.htm Twenty-five to forty percent of all patients in U.S. general hospital beds (not in maternity or intensive care) are being treated for complications of alcohol-related problems. Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking). In comparison to moderate and non-drinkers, individuals with a history of heavy drinking have higher health care costs. Untreated alcohol problems waste an estimated $184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths. Health care costs related to alcohol abuse are not limited to the user. Children of alcoholics who are admitted to the hospital average 62 percent more hospital days and 29 percent longer stays. Alcohol use by underage drinkers results in $3.7 billion a year in medical care costs due to traffic crashes, violent crime, suicide attempts and other related consequences. The total annual cost of alcohol use by underage youth is $52.8 billion. Fear mongering stats ... maybe, but so are the ones concerning smoking. So, on one hand i can hardly be that sympathetic to these 'drug dealers'. Also the greatest hazards associated with the job has to do with what they are selling. They are more likely to get hurt going home anyway, the roads tend to have more drinking drivers @ 2am than @ 9. I think i've seen a bartender refuse service maybe once or twice in my entire life. Still i'd rather they HAVE a job, there is no denying that smoking bans hurt bars. Where i work i am surrounded by chemicals, many of them toxic even carcinogenic. But i'm about to do something even more hazardous, i'm going to hop in my car and try and make it home.  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #6031)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Interesting, that was tried with one primary cause, it was called prohibition. It failed. Or did you miss the second HALF of that chapter. Tobacco is a plant, the genie is out of the bottle. Or do you consider the War on Drugs a success. "We are trying to abolish cancer!" Great, find a CUREWhich is why I don’t smoke mo(n?)dern day cigs. Plus they taste like crap. Hey, here’s an idea, how bout having the FDA mandate natural tobacco cigs or at least have them list ingredients & additives? (Like the FDA does with EVERY OTHER PRODUCT IT REGULATES!!) Oh wait, that’s right; FDA regulation is nothing more than a protection racket for Phillip Morris. And an excuse to tax smokers even moreReally, not pig lungs soaked in a staining solution? (Love that little ALA trick) Ever hear the expression “The plural of anecdotes is not dataI never said it didn’t. BUT, you are not my father, mother or wife. You are not my keeper. Given my druthers I’d rather ‘go’ a few years early than be a senile imbecile in a diaper when I die thank you very much. And again what does any of this have to do with smoking bans, UNLESS you support them because it’s stealth social engineering to get people to quit. The end justifies the means eh Dr GTW?  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #6027)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Nope this is EXACTLY the point I’m trying to make. A smoker’s risk is MUCH greater than living with a smoker, which is greater than working with smokers, which is much greater than simply visiting a smoky bar. In fact the risk of living with a smoker for decades is so small that it’s almost impossible to tell with any certainty lower exposures carry any REAL risk at all. Kabat said just that in the conclusion of the study I posted earlier. In fact the infamous 1998 WHO study confirms that occasional exposure doesn’t. Pg. 1444 Exposure to ETS in Public Indoor Settings http://www.data-ya rd.net/science/ets _lung/1440.pdf Of course the risk can completely be avoided by ….. not walking into a smoky bar. A little tidbit, while in principle I am opposed to government smoking bans period, I actually prefer smoke free dining establishments and otherwise really don’t care personally. Now IF the risk is real for a workplace setting, it’s still small AND it’s not as if people don’t take risks to earn a buck. You might move to a big city to improve your earning potential … causes cancer. http://content.nej m.org/cgi/content/ full/329/24/1753 “The adjusted mortality-rate ratio for the most polluted of the cities as compared with the least polluted was 1.26 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.47).” Note one BIG difference between this study and all the SHS ones, the entire confidence interval is above 1.00 which means there’s a 95% chance that a ‘true’ risk IS in there. For most of the SHS ones it’s much wider and includes values LESS than 1. AND there is NO avoiding this; in your house, car, work, wherever. People take all sorts of risks to earn a living. http://money.cnn.c om/2003/10/13/pf/d angerousjobs/index .htm Play around with the numbers and you’ll see that working for decades in a smoky environment may be about as dangerous as driving a truck or construction. You eat King Crab GTW? How dare you put those poor fishermen at such risk for your pleasure (4 times as hazardous as ‘regular fishingAh, so it’s a part of COPD eh? Think I posted the risk of that, not likely. But the fact that you bring it up as a ‘certainty’ is very telling, as if you’re hoping or wishing for it. Like you think a smoker deserves it. This is the moment where a poster’s motives become pretty obvious. This isn’t about protecting the public or bartenders, it’s about punishing smokers. Asking for the ‘divine’ retribution you think they deserve …. nice.  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #6009)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Don’t have the other links handy (prolly on the ther ‘puter) But here’s a little tidbit. Page 25, figure 2.6. http://www.iarc.fr /en/publications/p dfs-online/wcr/200 3/index.php Note how at almost any amount of smoking us murricans have about twice the lung cancer risk as the Japanese. Note something else, the second half of chapter 2 is devoted to alcohol as a cause of cancer. Hilariously ironic considering we’re talking about the risks of SHS ….. in a freaking BAR. *shakes head* Oh and in case you didn’t know LOTS of things cause cancer if you get enough, including OMG…. the Sun. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/List_of _IARC_Group_1_carc inogens Another one i find particularly ironic, you can avoid walking into a smoky bar, but try avoiding this. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Soot  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #5993)

Smoking

Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Try your closest Burger King. Or do you think all the employees wear 'flame broiled' cologne?  (Tuesday Dec 22 | post #5932)