Sensible?
posted by CrankyEastSider at 08:53 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
You deserve a big "Atta Boy!" jimavolt. Wow, does this stu guy know you know he goes to places with second hand smoke? Funny thing is, this new 'sensible' smoking ban seems real similar to what was in effect prior to the smoking ban in the first place. Go figure. I don't see how anybody can read that osha study you put up and believe all these anti smoking fanatics, that was an eye opener.
posted by starling02 at 09:15 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
In fact, that osha study carried so much weight, so powerful, I think you should print it out or post it around so more people can read it.
posted by starling02 at 09:16 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
Thanks Starling02. Here's a copy of one of my earlier posts on the topic:
You might not know that all the ETS groups are funded in no small part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://www.cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html"
(Be sure to hit the OSHA link on the bottom.)
posted by jimavolt at 09:29 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
Good work, Jim, and of course YOU folks had to attempt to do this because our worthless, spineless RHINOS who control the state refused to get involved & pass it themselves. But then, the country club repubs we have here (like Taft) are more than happy with big government and further control/intrusion. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they lose the state in November, as I no longer care what happens to either party.
posted by Darkseid at 09:39 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
You know what pisses me off the most about the rabid smoker-haters, Jim (and Starling)? They wouldn't be caught dead in any of the local businesses throughout the states that they try to put out of business. Jim's place, or the High Level Cafe, just to name a few. And Frisch's has totally seperate ventilated, walled-off areas for smokers to enjoy. Not good enough for them. They're telling them/you who their customers can be, and they'll never set foot in the place, even if it were smoker-free. That's the evil side of 'democracy'-it's mob rule.
posted by Darkseid at 09:46 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
Sensible?
posted by CrankyEastSider at 09:53 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
-------------------------------------------
What's wrong with it? The amended one here in town works fine for me. I choose to go to those places that are smoker-friendly-the ones that aren't-well, then, I'll just be a 'non-customer'. The free market decides. You have the right as well to give your dollars/business to the no-smoker establishments. I don't want to be around rabid smoker-haters myself,so it's great (the new term, I've heard, is 'Tobaccophobes').8^D
posted by Darkseid at 09:54 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
It isn't always smokers who irritate the 'clean air' freaks:
-----------------------------------------------
Stossel: Accommodating the Victim Mentality
Creator's Syndicate ^ | May 3, 2006 | John Stossel
I always thought victimhood was something to avoid. It meant that something bad was happening to you, something you didn't want. But since today's laws give victims special power and attention, some people seem to aspire to the title of "victim."
What taught me how far things have gone was one small workplace in Ithaca, N.Y., where a group of "victims" said they were being poisoned by the office air. This was odd since the building was in a rural area and the windows could be opened. The air seemed fine to me, but the workers' demands might make you sick.
They complained chemicals emanating from a new rug gave them a zillion different symptoms -- memory loss, headaches, sore throats, "severe mouth infections," a "metal taste in your mouth," "shortness of breath," and "burning, itching, tearing eyes."
Four said they were sick all the time. They said the building gave them a disease called Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). This meant just a whiff of copier fluid could disable them. Their doctors went along, declaring them "totally disabled."
Their employer was Tompkins County's Social Services Department, the agency charged with dispensing services to "victims." Is that a coincidence? Or does being in the "victim business" make you susceptible to becoming a victim? I think it's the latter. Servicing victims all day encourages you to focus on things being wrong.
The Social Services Department went out of its way to accommodate its "sick" employees. Tompkins County hired an "environmental expert" to test if there was anything wrong with the building. His tests found no problems, but he acknowledged that the office photocopiers gave off fumes. So the county installed vents to suck any fumes out of the building. One vent cost $3,000.
Not enough! said the workers. They were still sick. So the environmental expert said maybe the problem was the carbonless paper. This is the same paper restaurants use for credit card receipts. It's not known for "chemically assaulting" diners or waiters. If it were, restaurants would quickly stop using it, or they'd go out of business.
In this case, however, the carbonless paper was in the county's offices. The offices were run by bureaucrats. They weren't spending their own money, and they couldn't go out of business. Tompkins County bureaucrats agreed to pay someone to photocopy every single piece of paper so these workers never had to touch it.
Not enough! said the workers. You also have to photocopy every single old form stored in the basement and every single form that's touched carbonless paper. The county did.
But even that wasn't enough to appease these "victims." Margaret Marks said, "I got awful sick." Her co-worker, Claudia Cinquanti, said, "I had to bring her to the emergency room."
So the workers demanded the county make the photocopies elsewhere and keep them in storage for at least 24 hours. The county agreed, and moved all of the new carbonless paper forms into a separate storage area.
But even this wasn't sufficient, said the workers. So the county built them their own special room with its own huge ventilation system, bringing in filtered air from the outside. They installed two air purifiers.
Were the workers finally satisfied? No. They sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, demanding $800 million.
So the county offered to renovate an entire wing of the building, give the new wing to the complaining workers, and move other employees out.
Not enough! the workers told me. "I am going back to work for Tompkins County, whether they like it or not," said one. "I don't care if they have to build a new building. They're going to accommodate me or they are going to pay."
Lonny Dolin, Tompkins County's lawyer, said, "We ripped out all of the carpeting in your rooms. We built you a scientific room. And you won't come back to work because now you say a simple Xerox paper makes you sick. That's not accommodations. They just say, fix the whole building. Make it perfect or blow it up, whatever."
The workers' lawsuits were eventually dismissed, but the legal battle cost the county a fortune.
I say the real victims were the taxpayers.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
posted by Darkseid at 10:05 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
yikes....well we'll be seeing this revisited in November then - sigh. We had things fairly well worked out.
Smoking/nonsmoking sections and some businesses that just didn't allow smoking - at their pleasure.
posted by katie82640 at 10:32 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
Public businesses should be open to all the public, period. Telling those who, for whatever reason, don't wish to be around smoke that they can just go somewhere else doesn't cut it. The right to smoke isn't what's at issue. Rather, it's the notion that there's a right to smoke in public places, even if it infringes on the rights of others.
The victim mentality is what smokers are using in this debate ("my rights are under attack", "my business will suffer" etc.).
I don't wish this on anyone, but it might be informative for those fighting for this "sensible" ban if they could experience, just once and for just a moment, what it's like to have one's bronchial tubes close at a whiff of smoke. It's sudden and unavoidable; there's pain, and there's a feeling of suffocation. The constriction of the tubes remains for hours afterward, even if the whiff was brief.
What we have here is a lack of sympathy for addiction on one side, and a lack of empathy for another's suffering on the other. Denial of another's suffering no doubt becomes easier when an addiction is driving that denial.
posted by CrankyEastSider at 10:55 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
What did we ever do before government intrusion?
posted by DoknowDocare at 11:13 P.M. EST on Wed May 03, 2006 #
We relied on voluntary kindness and consideration.
posted by CrankyEastSider at 12:19 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Public businesses should be open to all the public, period. Telling those who, for whatever reason, don't wish to be around smoke that they can just go somewhere else doesn't cut it. The right to smoke isn't what's at issue. Rather, it's the notion that there's a right to smoke in public places, even if it infringes on the rights of others.
----------------------------------------------
"We relied om voluntary kinbdness and consideration."
Like yours? So...let's see.......it's ok though if YOU infringe on the rights of others though? Have you ever put one goddamned dime in Jim Avolt's business? Do you you think it's ok for veterans who bled for this country (a fleeting thing called 'freedom') to not be able to enjoy a smoke at their VFW? What about having restaurants just for smokers, where your kind isn't allowed? I could sure as hell go for that! You're too damned LAZY to go down the street to a no-smoker place? Oh, I get it-the world must be remade in your image, and you're ok with taking away everyone elses' freedoms-as long as it's something you disagree with. PRIVATE BUSINESSES ARE PRIVATELY OWNED!!!! Ever seen a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service." Jim's place is NOT the DMV!!
posted by Darkseid at 01:10 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
"Like yours?"
Well, Darkseid, certainly not like *yours* ... I can see this topic brings out the worst in you. I'm sorry to see that because this is a topic that deserves reasonable discussion.
posted by CrankyEastSider at 01:34 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
State constitutional amendment. Not a bad idea to set the law. The problem with state amendments is that they are very difficult to overcome in the future when the future progresses. Look at the whole gay marriage thing. Eventually people might actually accept gay marriage as a way of life (not that I'm promoting it in anyway, just a thought). Regardless, I don't think a smoking ban warrants a constitutional amendment. Smoking is not a fundamental right, nor is the right of business owners to do whatever they want. Could a court interpret the new amendment to mean that state health boards have no business ensuring that restaurants serve food at a healthy standard? Ultimately, it depends how the amendment reads. But I have a gut feeling that this amendment is nothing more than an attempt to usurp the people's right while they're emotional about an issue. Soon people will regret this amendment if passed. I will not sign the petition for it (incidentally, I have signed all petitions in the past to overturn the old Toledo smoking ban, but an amendment is too much).
posted by junta330 at 02:04 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
To clarify, I would support a law if this were merely a law. But this a state constitutional amendment. To me, there is a big difference. In any event, good luck on your quest jim. But I cannot support it in the form of an amendment. Law yes, amendment no.
posted by junta330 at 02:24 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
I'm sorry to see that because this is a topic that deserves reasonable discussion.
-----------------------------------------------
Yeah, as long as the rest of the world agrees with your viewpoint, it's reasonable discussion. I've said this before...I'd give almost anything to be able to turn back time and put a lot of people here on the battlefield...just for five minutes. Then bring you back...IF you lasted that long. It might teach you something about life, yourself, and the freedoms of others to make their own choices. I also noticed, by the way-you didn't respond to a single word I said. Resorting to personal statements in response is another way to say you're incapable of coming up with an answer. Why can YOU not assume personal responsibility, and make the choice to not frequent or enter a place that allows smoking? Is some mafioso coming to your house in the middle of the night, waking you up, and taking you at gunpoint to some rundown warehouse where people take turns torturing you by blowing that hideous smoke in your face? Or could it be that you just don't want the inconvenience of having to drive or walk a bit further down the street, therefore you wish the government and the police to make everyone's decisions for them instead-so you don't have to make yours?
posted by Darkseid at 04:27 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Junta, It's set as an amendment because that's the only way to trump the law that the antismokers already have going through the state. I don't think anyone should have a right to outlaw environemnts they don't like. In our democracy, the group with the biggest voting gang wins, but it doesn't make it fair. You seem fair minded, we could use your support.
Cranky, It's awful that some people have a sudden painful unavoidable reaction when exposed to smoke. That's a tough hand to play. I hope they make choices that limit their exposure to areas where there is smoke. As other posters may know, I have seizures when exposed to flashing lights. I don't wish my condition on anybody and I don't think the world should change to accommodate me. I stay away from areas where there are flashing lights. If exposed, I look away. Problem solved & I solved it.
I feel this sensible proposal because it addresses the preferences of smokers and anti-smokers. Restaurants are no-smoking, but can have enclosed areas where smokers may also dine. Smoking will be allowed in businesses that smokers currently frequent, although an owner may decide not to allow smoking if the customers start to require a smoke-free environment. Some day that may happen, but it's not happening now. 75-80% of my customers still smoke and my business depends on their patronage.
Darkseid - thanks for the support. It's important for voters to realize the long-term implications of these laws. If our proposed law is approved, and this is another reason it is an amendment, it will be legal for Ohioans to smoke outdoors & in their homes and vehicles. Based on recent happenings in California, these will likely be the next targets of the anti-smoking groups. History has proven that their efforts won't stop with a statewide ban. They'll come back with stricter limitations over and over again.
posted by jimavolt at 06:53 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Let us get one thing straight. A restaurant is not a public place. A restaurant is a private place that is open to the public, and a public place is a park. If you have a garage sale, you invite people onto your property to sample your wares. Once they are on your property, does it become a public place? No, it is still your private property, and you have the authority to make the rules on your private property. If you want to smoke on your property, you can. If you want to allow others to smoke, you can. That is the luxury of owning property... you make the rules.
Until the government steps in and suddenly they will be creating the menu for your nightly dinner.
In your privately owned home.
posted by randythomas at 07:18 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Junta, It's set as an amendment because that's the only way to trump the law that the antismokers already have going through the state.
How about failing to pass the law(s) that the antismokers are promoting? That would seem to me to be an effective trump.
This sensible legislation, or amendment as the case may be, mirrors every other piece of sensible crap that legislators pass. The US Constitution, Bill Of Rights and the Constitution of the State of Ohio no longer exist because of sensible legislation. Our government confiscates property, money and holds people without legal counsil all in the name of common sense. The barely hidden agenda is control.
Before and during the WWII era, people went to a smoking area to smoke. Train travel was popular, and every passenger train had a smoking car. I rather like this arrangement.
I detest smoke in restaurants, bars and other places open to the public. I feel the same way about ear shattering music and billboard advertising. I wish the people in the boom cars would go somewhere, such as Checkloslovokia, where they won't be a nusance to anyone. They can take the billboards and smokers with them.
That said, I oppose any legislation that prohibits smoking. It's just another form of governmental control, and we need less of that, not more.
posted by madjack at 08:42 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
NOOOOoooooooooooooo another private/public property issue?
(Runs and hides)
posted by katie82640 at 09:04 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
jimavolt, you may find this article interesting: http://www.restaurantreport.com/Features/ft_smoking2.html
posted by CrankyEastSider at 10:48 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Randythomas, i couldn't agree with you more, and darkseid also.
Junta said Smoking is not a fundamental right, nor is the right of business owners to do whatever they want.
How is it that you think a private business owner has no right to do what he wants with his buisiness, i thought you were a law student? That is the same thing as saying a homeowner cant do whatever he wants to do in his own home, open to the public or not. the public doesn't have to enter if they don't want to. its quite simple acually. we are not living in communist russia.
Hey i got one for you, go to the liquer store in rossford and tell the owner you dont like him smoking in his own store and see what he tells you.
And no offense to the non-smokers but if you don't like smoking don't go into an establishment that allows it, and for us smokers we can just as easily avoid the non-smoking places.
posted by tm at 11:13 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
This discussion has stayed relatively civil. Shocking!
I love the smell of smoke. It reminds me of my grandfather. I would like to open my own tavern where smoking is required. You must have a pipe, cigar or cigarette burning at all times, or you will be asked to leave. Otherwise you will be escorted to the door. If you want to not smoke go home and do it.
posted by nick44 at 11:25 A.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
FIRSTLY ... Darkseid, there is a real problem called "Sick Building Syndrome". Since buildings became tightly enclosed due to the advent of HVAC systems, they also became susceptible to persistent bacteria and virus populations. The article you posted may have related a problem involving SBS. And note well that SBS is too often undetectable; in these cases, your only detection mechanisms which give positive results are your caged canaries (i.e. the building's inhabitants).
The rest of the article you quoted is probably the victim-lawyer dynamic. Lots of government workers were just looking to get paid since they had a financial lever to do so. $800 million -- what a joke.
Darkseid said: "What did we ever do before government intrusion?"
To a certain extent, we just died. We died from unsafe vehicles, pollution, unsafe food, etc. Just the list of diseases, alone, which we don't suffer from anymore due to cultural enforcement (which involves government through regulation) is enough proof that government COULD be a force for good in Human lives.
SECONDLY ...(1) where's the list of businesses who are carrying this petition in Toledo, and (2) where's the text of the petition available online?
posted by GuestZero at 12:13 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Cranky, That's a good article. Many restaurants see an increase in business when they go non-smoking. Good for them. There has yet to be a tavern, nightclub or bowling center where sales increased when they pulled their ashtrays.
One point in the article is pure horseshit. It states that California restaurant sales have increased 4% since the smoking ban went into effect. That may be true, but it's still horseshit. Here's why . . . the ban came into being in 1995. Since that time California has had a legal population increase of 14 million people PLUS who knows how many people running across the boarder from Mexico. The increased sales of 4% was based on sales taxes collected from restaurants, taverns and bars (all together). Surely the 14 + million new residents of California eat a lot of Big Mac's and Whoppers every day. More than enough to offset the hundreds of taverns and bowling centers that had to close because of the law.
As far as How about failing to pass the law(s) that the antismokers are promoting? That would seem to me to be an effective trump.
Good point, but not realistic. The Antismokers will be spending tens of millions of dollars to get their law passed. If all the small businesses pooled their resources, they couldn't combat such a warchest. The radical proposal by the antismokers must be beaten at the poll by voters who see the sense in our approach. Although we fought the Blade and the sntismokers once and won, it was only beacuse the first law the shitheads on council passed was so obviously unfair. Don't you remember what it was like? ? ? 17 businesses closed as a result of that awful law that catered only to the wishes of the anti-smokers. The law we offer is balanced between the demands of the antismokers and the wishes of the smokers.
If we don't get our proposal passed, then the antismokers will win by default and smoking is banned everywhere. We have no option but to proceed with an amendment.
posted by jimavolt at 12:21 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
The problem with freedoms is that they have to be protected. Government is seriously overstepping into a government of strict control. We just need to say no.
A little common sense would help. If you don't want to be bothered in your home - put up a sign that says no solicitation. DON'T ask that the whole state be legislated to your own preferred standard for door knocking in your house.
If you don't like smoke - then visit establishments that are non-smoking. But please don't require that your preferenced be mandated by legislation for every single person because that's what 'you like'.
This is a terrible sense of entitlement some people have come to. That if they want things a certain way and they can't get everyone to kowtow to them - they'll just have it dictated by the legislature.
Tis pure bunk. C'mon over to my house and tell me what to do :-) I got a leeeeetle surprise for ya!
posted by katie82640 at 12:51 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
How is it that you think a private business owner has no right to do what he wants with his buisiness, i thought you were a law student? That is the same thing as saying a homeowner cant do whatever he wants to do in his own home, open to the public or not. the public doesn't have to enter if they don't want to. its quite simple acually. we are not living in communist russia.
Okay, will the health inspector let a restaurant serve undercooked meat? Will the health inspector allow rat droppings on the floor of a bar or restaurant? No. That is how a private business owner can't always do whatever he or she wants. You can't have such sweeping generalizations.
posted by junta330 at 12:52 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
That said, maybe after a little research Jim, I will support your amendment.
posted by junta330 at 12:53 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
(sarcasm on)
Katie- don't you know that government exists to turn individual prejudices into law?
(sarcasm off)
posted by MaggieThurber at 12:59 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
ROFL - Maggie - you don't say?
(leaving sarcasm on for rest of day)
posted by katie82640 at 01:00 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Okay, will the health inspector let a restaurant serve undercooked meat? Will the health inspector allow rat droppings on the floor of a bar or restaurant? No. That is how a private business owner can't always do whatever he or she wants. You can't have such sweeping generalizations.
I agree junta, but the question at hand was smoke, not those other issues. a lot of people like to throw things like that in to confuse the issue. My whole problem is i don't like the government or anyone for that matter to tell me what to do.
Katie, well said!!
posted by tm at 01:08 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
My point was that business owners can't always do what they want.
posted by junta330 at 01:20 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Junta-yes, we have alwayshad health inspectors. But-they go into the kitchen, where you cannot go. Which is why they are there, although sometimes I get p.o.'d when I feel they carry it to the nth degree. Smoking, on the other hand, is quite obvious when you walk in,although personally, I wish that every establishment could just put up a sign on the door stating if this offends you, turn around-but then, you can use the phone for that, also, unless you're too lazy for that, and would rarher just make things easy by outlawing it everywhere. Not saying you personally, by theway, just generalizing here.
Jim-you are 100% correct on the lies spewed forth by the Taliban on the sales. Fast food & take-out orders (ALL food sales)are included in those figures when they announce them-and, also, they include ALL alcohol sales-even those where people take it home to drink. The take-home food/beverage sales increase phenomenally, of course, because most people who smoke don't wish to pay their hard-earned money to go to reform school. And, before someone comes on here and tells me I'm full of it, I got my information about five years ago directly from the head of the food & beverage (hospitality industry) association of the state of california. The cabal is powerful, as Jim said-the Robert Wood Johnson foundation (big pharma), the ACS, the AHA, the ALA, all with millions of dollars to spend-some of it through donations that are used for passing bans, rather than doing research. Many more millions come from the shakedown by the government that was called the tobacco settlement-which the tobacco companies merely passed on to their customers by raising the price. So smokers wind up paying for the bans themselves, unfortunately. Also, the government , although they pass bans everywhere, keep raising taxes on tobacco, simply because they know they are a vilified by the media group, and no one will care about the injustice, as long as someone else is paying the taxes. The Taliban has earmarked SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for Ohio to get their version passed in the state. Jim, how much were you guys outspent here in town during the amendment fiasco? That of course, is the real reason they came back with a statewide ban so quickly-because they were pissed off about getting beaten in toledo, despite the money spent (or rather, wasted).
posted by Darkseid at 01:25 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Darkseid, We were outspend by a factor of 30 to 1 and that doesn't count the thousands of free dollars in advertising the anti-smoking side got from the Blade. Unlike many tavern owners, I had some money to invest in the cause. My heart went out to those who had limited savings and suffered immediately when the first version of the law was passed. Sadly some were forced out off business.
posted by jimavolt at 02:23 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
I was told there was a small bowling alley that went belly up because of the stringent ban, as well. Talked to a guy who knew the owner, but can't remember the name of the place to save me. They had a hall in the basement they rented out, and everybody called to cancel their reservations for that, too, once the ban went in. He couldn't hang on long enough to see if the amendment passed. Do you know the name of it, Jim? I already know most of the bars and restaurants. I think the 4E was one, there was another on the east side off of Oak street. Johnny's on Reynolds shut his doors the day council voted the ban in, because he told me as 99% of his customers smoked, he preferred a quick death rather than one of a thousand cuts. And most know about the Max's Diners.
posted by Darkseid at 03:21 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Lido Lanes on South Ave?
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:25 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Tis pure bunk. C'mon over to my house and tell me what to do :-) I got a leeeeetle surprise for ya!
It’s already been done. Building inspection, building permits, homeowners associations, Department of Health and the ever watchful Toledo Police Department either dictate the way you will keep your home or the way you’ll live in it. I’m certain I’ve missed a few bureaus or departments, but time is short. Oh, yeah, and in the bad old days we used to be able to burn the trash out in the back yard, but that little luxury went the way of the passenger pigeon right along with the right to hang your wash out on a clothes line to dry, instead of sucking up energy with the dryer.
Business owners haven’t been able to do as they felt best for years (cordial nod to Junta for pointing this out in a succinct fashion). Probably the most radical departure from standard operating procedure were the desegregation laws, which I remember very vividly. I was quite young, but I couldn’t understand why anyone would turn away a paying customer. Then there was that business with the Ford Pinto and the gas tank, OSHA was founded (1971) and labor unions decided to take safety seriously. Did anyone mention the Health Department or food poisoning? My thanks to all who did.
I don’t like smoke in restaurants or bars, so I stay out of the places that have a thick atmosphere. They don’t need my business all that badly. I’ll make one observation though. A few days ago I went over to the Sylvania Diner for breakfast, and the non-smoking side was packed, while the smoking side was empty. Well, I think one table was filled, but that was all. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this condition at the Diner, and if I owned the place, I’d take the hint.
I don’t think the smokers are going to win this one. Too bad, but this is likely a loss of freedom. Again. And for that reason, I’m sorry to it happen.
And while I’m at it, Katie, I’ve already offered to come over to your place for happy hour, but I got as much response to that little offer as Junta has on my height.
posted by madjack at 03:50 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
It isn't ok the way it is darksied. Right now, it's hard to find restaurants in Toledo that allow smoking where you aren't banished to high stools/tables, if at all. Most are non-smoking, not necessarily by choise, but they can't afford improvements to meet specifications. I sat with the phone and yellow pages one day, just called local restaurants and asked if they had smoking sections. Most do not. I hate the high stools/tables, many people do, for many reasons.
Yes, there is such a thing as a sick building, but don't try to blame second hand smoke on it. The buildings that are 'sick', are so for deeper reasons (contruction materials, mold, etc.).
posted by starling02 at 06:16 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
I think Lido Lanes survived the JFo / JRB assault on small business.
I was a good friend of Phil Heintschel, who operated the 4E with his wife Deanna and their family. The business dropped when the smoking ban wsa being enforced and they decided to close the restaurant shortly thereafter. RIP Phil.
Here are some places that closed, directly because of the ban:
Ragtime Ricks
Adam's Place
Bait Shop Bar & Grill
Blue Jeans Tavern
Consaul Tavern (open 53 years)
East Broadway Nightclub
End Zone Tavern
Fat Tuesdays Nightclub
Jordan's Place Tavern
Laskey Lounge
Max's Diners (2 locations)
University Lanes
Rack Time Billiards
Rooster Inn
Shamrocks Tavern
My apologies to those I omitted.
We have called a meeting to distribute the petitions to area businesses next week. If you want to sign now, you can go to:
The Distillery,
Arnie's
Delaney's
Chucks on Monroe St.
Twin Oaks Bowling Center,
The Timbers
Interstate Lanes
I think they have petitions available at Southwyck Lanes too. Next week most of the taverns should have them. If you want to help the cause, please ask for the owner for blank petitions and a quick course in how to collect signatures properly. We want to be careful and collect only valid signatures.
I don't know if the text is available online. It's part of the petition and can be read everywhere signatures are being collected.
posted by jimavolt at 06:37 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Jim, is there anyway you can either post or link the exact language of your proposed ammendment? Also, is there anyway you can post or link the language of the bill of the smoking ban being proposed that you oppose because it is overly restrictive? I'd would like to see exactly how the bill is overly restrictive, and I think I could make a better judgment on the amendment if I knew exactly what it said.
posted by junta330 at 08:03 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Junta, and other concerned folks. Here's the full text of the proposed amendment. I didn't write it and can't change it. In some respects it's looser than the Toledo law currently in existence, in some respects it's tighter. This is the full text:
"Be it resolved by the people of the State of Ohio, that Article XV, Section 12 to the Constitution:
Section 12. The General Assembly shall pass laws to limit or prohibit smoking of tobacco or tobacco products in all enclosed, public areas of this state except that no law shall prohibit smoking and/or the use of tobacco or tobacco products in any of the following:
a) Any retail establishment that holds itself out as being devoted primarily to the on-site sale of tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco products and accessories and derives not less than 50% of it’s gross sales from the on-site sale of tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco product accessories;
b) Any private residence or privately owned facility that is not open to the public;
c) Any separate smoking area within an eating establishment that designates an area within the premises that is completely separated from the rest of the premises by walls or doors in which smoking is permitted;
d) Any establishment that sells intoxicating liquor for on-premises consumption in which the annual revenue produced from the sale of food does not exceed 60% of the total annual sales;
e) Any public area where bingo or bowling is played;
f) Any designated areas of any facility leased or rented to the public on a temporary basis for residential use including, but not limited to a hotel, motel, adult day care facility, nursing home or rehabilitation facility;
g) Any facility or business establishment from which minors are prohibited;
h) Any place, track or enclosure where an authorized permit holder conducts live or satellite horse racing.
This amendment supersedes and renders invalid any ordinance or local law in existence as of the date of this amendment to the extent such ordinance or law prohibits smoking and/or the use of tobacco products in an establishment or place exempted by the language set forth in Section 12. This amendment would also prevent such laws from taking effect in the future."
posted by jimavolt at 08:57 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
This is directed at no one in particular.
I have a friend who owns a restaurant that went non-smoking long before there was talk of a ban. He said not only did his business hold steady, it increased.
With all the comments about laziness and being able to simply choose another establishment, it's obvious that many who support smoking in public restaurants and bars, etc., have no inkling what goes into making plans with others if smoke is a consideration. Going out with large parties to celebrate birthdays and other events, going on dates, business meetings, or having meals and/or drinks with a friend -- it's complicated. It's also something a person shouldn't have to worry about, even when planning to go to a restaurant or bar alone.
It's not like smokers are asked to give up their habit; they're merely asked to put their habit on hold while they consume a meal and/or some drinks and/or go bowling. Smokers manage to get through workdays in smokefree businesses, and businesses that serve the public should be no different. When we're all sharing the same air, no one can claim a special right to foul it.
Trivializing people's aversion to smoke, or their illnesses that make them unable to tolerate smoke, or even a simple preference not to have the smell of smoke seep into their clothes and hair is lame as a defense for inflicting a smelly, polluting personal habit on others who don't wish to participate in it with you. To dismiss such people as not entitled to feel as they do because smokers are somehow more entitled to see their own wishes carried out is, well, just silly.
My daughter (a smoker) has two children who developed asthma when quite young. Her doctor told her she had to quit smoking in the house or around them because it would damage the development of their lungs and cause one respiratory illness after another. So she did the only thing an addicted person could do: she changed doctors. She continues to suck on cigarettes; her children suck on a breathing machine tube several times a day.
Having seen that stunningly dangerous, selfish, nicotine-driven behavior in a person whom I know to be otherwise a loving and responsible parent tells me just how damaging a smoking addiction is to reason, empathy, kindness, compassion, and common sense.
Nobody wants to see businesses close because of the impact of legislation. That's why I think the best solution is to go smokefree in public places nationwide. With an even playing field for all businesses, perhaps the economic impact would be moot.
Times change, and businesses must keep pace. I'm sure that when something called a car was was being readied for the marketplace, the buggy whip lobby insisted the move must be stopped because it would harm their business. I have a friend whose neighborhood grocery store was stomped by competition from a chain grocery store. It's essential for businesses to stop clnging to old business models when the marketplace changes. If they want to survive, that is.
For bars and restaurants today, the competition is clean air -- a product that a majority of consumers want. Just days ago I saw a poll that showed 52% of Ohioans want a smoking ban. This is a growing preference. Instead of fighting the inevitable, businesses should be thinking of ways to improve business while running a smokefree establishment. Excellent food and beverages and entertainment and decor might be a place to start, rather than fretting because the government wants such establishments to cease making people ill. It's hardly a good business strategy to kill off one's patrons.
posted by CrankyEastSider at 09:36 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Thanks Jim,
That is a rather interesting ammendment. If I were a judge, and I'm not, I would interpret it to mean the following things. And correct me if any of you think I'm wrong: Only the state legislature has the power to pass a new smoking ban after the date this amendment passes. That means local governments could not pass new smoking bans after November (day after election day). And, the only local smoking bans that would remain in effect are those created before the passage, and those that meet the guidelines of the of the amendment. Further, this amendment says that the general assembly shall create a smoking ban law within these guidelines, meaning the the general assembly MUST create a new state-wide smoking ban within these guidelines. That's is all very interesting. So any new smoking ban must be state-wide, and within these guidelines.
I still don't know that this will pass. You'll have three types of voters. You'll have those voters who are against smoking bans altogether and will vote no because this compells the state to create a smoking ban. You'll have those voters who are pro-smoking bans and will vote no because this is not restrictive enough. And you will have a group of voters, some pro-, some anti-smoking ban who will vote yes because they either realize a more strict smoking ban is inevitable, or they are very pro-business/free market, or they simply don't care if people smoke around them. My guess is that more than one-third of the population falls into the first two catagories. Now that I've read this amendment, I kinda like it (although my mind is not made up), but it'll be hard to convince the voters in the first two categories, and it will be hard to get 2/3rds of the state to approve it. Good luck.
posted by junta330 at 09:53 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Yeah, yeah, I've heard all those arguments before. Get some of them off an anti-smoking website? I'll say it again-I wore a uniform for this country, and supposedly defended freedom -for EVERYBODY. You also have no constitutional right to have everyplace smoker-free. What about freedom of association? It isn't about just lighting up after a meal-it's the entire dining experience, of which smoking is but a part. I'm sorry, but I will NOT pay my good money to go to reform school at my age. I'm an adult, and perfectly capable of making my own choices. It's indeed a pity that others are not, and want big government to do people's thinking for them. Takes all the effort out of living, though, once you've got socialism in place. Starling has said many times on here that most places in town are already smoker-free, so I really fail to see why anyone who despises smokers would have a problem finding someplace to eat. And I can tell instantly by this post of yours what I already suspected-it isn't about health with you-you just plain don't like the smell. That's really not surprising, though, as I'd be willing to wager that over 90% of the brainwashed sheep who want it banned entirely feel the same way. If it was about health, why were the government -run casinos in New Jersey exempted from their statewide ban? Sheer hypocrisy in its finest form. Screw smokers and the small businessman, but exempt those cash cows where smokers gamble. I guess those people aren't constructed the same as those who frequented small restaurants and other places in the state, so the government has no reason to be concerned with their 'health'.Oh, and thanks for the info, Jim. I wasn't aware of a few of those places. Knew about the Bait Shop, as that's not far from me. Same with Rick's. People need to be conducting massive demonstrations in the street, before it's too late...oh...wait...I forgot....only illegal aliens have the balls to do that.
posted by Darkseid at 10:03 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Oh, by the way, Kurt, that post wasn't directed at you, you just managed to sneak yours in ahead of mine LOL!
posted by Darkseid at 11:02 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
I figured as much.
posted by junta330 at 11:09 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
And, Jim-better make sure you have plenty of extra signatures, because my guess is the politicos will try to tell you you don't have enough valid signatures, just as they did here in toledo with the first attempt at getting the amendment on the ballot.
posted by Darkseid at 11:12 P.M. EST on Thu May 04, 2006 #
Cranky -
I'll grant you that many restaurants have seen an increase in business since going smoke-free. My focus has, and continues to be, adult destination businesses like taverns, nightclubs and bowling centers. These venues are frequented by adults who choose to smoke.
That being said . . . TGI Fridays didn't take any chances when the first Toledo ban went into effect. This national company with experience on the topic constructed a smoking area around the bar. This corporation made that huge investment so they could cater to smokers in their bar area.
Polls have shown that Ohioans prefer a smoking ban to no smoking ban, but they also prefer a smoking ban with exceptions to a complete smoking ban. There are degrees, but all laws are losely called bans. A ban with exceptions is what we are offering. Restaurants will need to build separately vented rooms to accommodate smokers only if they choose to.
80% of Ohio has no smoking policy at all. The law we propose offers smoke-free restaurants in those areas. It's still a smoking policy - but not a complete smoking ban. That's what Ohioans want.
As for taverns, fully 75% of my customers smoke. If you get your way and smoking is banned everywhere (the extremist position) taverns and nightclubs are the immediate losers.
Businesses like mine will adjust to the market as the market dictates it's perferences by voting with it's dollars. So far, my tavern customers prefer a smoking environment. I'll change if they do.
On a related note, today the Blade ran a letter in the Readers Forum supporting it's position of going smoke free throughout Ohio. I didn't see any "newsatorials" on the topic yet, but I've only finished the first section. What an awful paper.
posted by jimavolt at 06:24 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
I wore a uniform for this country, and supposedly defended freedom -for EVERYBODY.
First darkseid. THANK YOU for serving this country and defending my freedom! (i mean that)
Secondly, this has been an interesting thread. I love how all the anti-smokers are complaining because they may have to think a bit about where to have a party? well you know what, the smokers have to do the same damn thing!!! what makes you more special, preveleged, better, than the smokers! and yes someone else said it, its lazyiness! pure and simple. you are stating that you just want to drive to wherever you fancy knowing that you dont have to deal with smoke, again i will ask what makes you so special? and how long will it take you to start complaining about people smoking in front of the door before you walk in! oh my..how offensive...
Third, i think the rooster inn is still open (i don't know about the smoking though). and i know you can smoke in robies accross the street from the old east braodway.
posted by tm at 07:23 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Maybe you can find smokefree restaurants, but I have still failed to find a smokefree bowling alley or bingo parlor. I would love to do some of these activities, but for health reasons cannot be around smokers.
posted by deere1 at 07:38 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Isn't the bowling alley on starr ave smoke-free? I thought it was because i remember reading an article in the blade a while ago saying that people were going to bowling alleys in rossford, sylvania, etc.. or did they start allowing smoking again there? (honest question)
posted by tm at 08:00 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Junta - there are two conversations going on here.
You're discussing the legislating of future acts of the whole. That's control by legislation.
The health inspectors are in keeping with traditional community mandate enforcement.
In those cases, the community put in a place a health agency so that businesses that had already violated the sacrosanct of the 'common welfare' but offering for sale - dangerous foods, in that very community.
You cannot equate one with the other. You can’t control the freedoms of an entire group of people by legislating on what might happen in the future.
Or you would have - for instance car accidents. Look at those.
You could punish the people who have accidents, through negligence or low skill levels. Or you could take the asinine position that because a small minority of drivers cause most of the accidents that just in case everybody had an accident in the FUTURE - ANYBODY who drives has to have some asinine astronomical level of insured coverage. Who'd ever sign a law like that. puh. Like a hundred thou for every drive................
Uh - wait a minute..
(scratching head)
posted by katie82640 at 09:03 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
I'm going to go have a smoke and try to figure this one out.
posted by katie82640 at 09:04 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Deere1,
Through my last 4 years working on this issue, I've heard from several people who can't be around smoking for one reason or another. I know that smoke-free bingo as required by the first Toledo law was a disaster for the charities that operated Bingo games. Many charities began losing money and simply stopped offering the game.
I'm not too familiar with the bowling center business, but I know that many centers suffered when the Toledo law was first imposed. Maybe if you got a group of non-smokers together for a league on a certain night, an owner would agree to have "Smoke free Wednesday" or some such thing. After all, like me, they are in the hospitality business. Please understand that, also like me, they need to tend to the requirements of their primary customer base and at this time, that customer base wishes to smoke. While it isn't reasonable to expect a business to lose money to cater to your situation, a reasonable business operator will be interested in welcoming you along with your like-minded associates if it will generate money for the business.
posted by jimavolt at 09:36 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Darkseid, I also wore a uniform, and for 3 years during the Reagan era watched the airspace over the North Pole for Soviet missiles, as well as being similarly watchful using the data from many other sites across the world (as was fed into NORAD). Please stop playing the veteran card, in the manner you're doing it. My military service and yours makes us no more or less worthy citizens than the chap down the street who refuses such service himself.
All I'm sayin' here is that I don't want to be thanked, and from projection I don't want any soldier to be thanked. We did our duty voluntarily and then returned to private life. If by watching the skies, Chicago is not now a smoking crater, then that's more than thanks enough. Isn't it?
posted by GuestZero at 10:18 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Sorry Guestzero, i wasn't being patronizing when i said thank you to darkseid,or any/every other military member my point was that i apreciate the efforts of all our military, yes it's voluntary, all the more reason i apreciate them. Some people don't. Maybe i should have saved it for another thread.
posted by tm at 10:30 A.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Just an fyi - my neighbor is 81 and was shot in the war. And I don't mean Vietnam. My Dad served, my Uncle and my brother.
I can tell you all clearly that each of these vets are non-smokers. Can't stand the smell of it. Makes them ill.
Yet if you tried to tell one of them that they COULDN'T smoke - you'd have a hell of a fight on your hands.
Why don't you ask a vet who's been wounded or seen active combat what they think of this topic?
As soon as you pick your sorry controlling ass up off the floor you may want to just let the whole ' a little lost freedom is ok for everybody so long as I get what I want, this time' argument drop.
posted by katie82640 at 12:39 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Why don't you ask a vet who's been wounded or seen active combat what they think of this topic?
--------------------------------------------
You already have. 8^)
posted by Darkseid at 02:13 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
I love how all the anti-smokers are complaining because they may have to think a bit about where to have a party? well you know what, the smokers have to do the same damn thing!!! what makes you more special, preveleged, better, than the smokers! and yes someone else said it, its lazyiness! pure and simple. you are stating that you just want to drive to wherever you fancy knowing that you dont have to deal with smoke, again i will ask what makes you so special? and how long will it take you to start complaining about people smoking in front of the door before you walk in! oh my..how offensive
----------------------------------------------
Very good!! Thanks. Yes, they will then complain about those in the doorway-and then it will be those walking down the street, or other places outside, and then it will be those in thier car, and...last stop-the home. It never stops anywhere, because they'll always bitch as long as they can SEE people having a smoke. One example: A woman wrote a letter to the rag last year complaining about a smoking section in a toledo restaurant=I think it was the star diner? Not sure-but, at any rate, she was from out of town, and said how good the food was, but then said how 'disappointed' she was that they had a smokers section-said she had hoped toledo would be 'more progressive' than that...even though the smokers section was totally walled off & contained, with its own seperate ventilation system. She could see them enjoying themselves while she was eating. They must make smokers miserable, outcasts, and purge them completely from society before they'll be happy.
posted by Darkseid at 02:23 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
by WANDA HAMILTON The Anti Crusade Against The Elderly
The powerful and wealthy Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [RWJF], which receives virtually all its billions from stock ownership in pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, has been a big player and a major source of funding for anti-smoker programs and grants ever since Johnson & Johnson began to market nicotine replacement products. Basically, RWJF funds any study or program that will raise the price of cigarettes and promote the use of "cessation" products (such as J&J's Nicotrol). The foundation is also big on promoting smoking bans, no doubt in the hope that more smokers will try to quit smoking and purchase "nicotine replacement" products.
Not content with attempting to ban smoking in the workplace, in restaurants and bars, and on virtually all modes of public transportation, the anti-tobacco/pharmacological cartel is now campaigning to ban smoking in facilities for the elderly.
In paving the way for local and national smoking bans in nursing homes, retirement homes, and assisted living facilities, the RWJF has awarded a $345,065 "research" grant to attorney James Bergman of The Center for Social Gerontology, Inc. Entitled "Smoking Policies in Elderly Facilities: Assessment of Current Policies & Development of Model Policies," the "study" will sniff out current smoking policies in several facilities for the elderly. It will then develop "model" smoking policies for facilities for the elderly and "stimulate the adoption of the model smoking policies and practices at the federal, state, and local/facility levels."
After the "study" is completed, a "Smoke-free Older Americans Report" will be sent out to the Aging Network and "the tobacco control community" in order to "stimulate the adoption of smoke-free policies in these key facilities serving the elderly." The results "will also be broadly disseminated to the media and general public." Of course they will.
In short, the foundation is paying a lawyer big bucks to write "model" laws to force nursing homes, assisted living facilities and retirement homes to ban all smoking by their elderly residents and then to work at the national, state, and local levels to make sure these inhumane laws pass.
Apparently it matters not that such laws will impose a devastating hardship on elderly smokers and endanger their health.
Some facilities for the elderly have already banned smoking indoors, and as a result of these draconian bans, elderly smokers have died or been injured because they were forced to go out in the elements to have a cigarette.
Just a week before Christmas in l998, a 78-year-old woman froze to death when she went outside her apartment in a Canadian senior center to have a cigarette and the door locked behind her. Her pitiful cries for help were not heard, and she died alone in the 18 degree below zero Winnipeg night.
In the Brentwood Care Centre in Calgary, elderly smokers must go outdoors to a trailer to have a cigarette. Several have fallen or been injured when they attempted to roll their wheelchairs up or down the ramp to the trailer. One 84 year-old woman fell into a snowdrift in her wheelchair. Several have fallen inside the trailer and could not get help.
The Greater Victoria Hospice, a unit in the Royal Jubilees Hospital which prepares patients for immanent death, was forced by the regional medical health officer for Greater Victoria (Canada) to ban smoking indoors entirely, even though some of the dying patients were too weak to be moved from their beds and wheeled outdoors in the elements to have a cigarette.
Baptist Terrace, a senior living facility in Orlando, Florida, banned smoking not only indoors but outside as well, even in the parking lot. Smokers at the facility were told in a newsletter they would have three choices: "(1) stop smoking; (2) smoke away from Baptist Terrace property, and [sic] (3) leave and live somewhere else."
Most smoking bans are unnecessary and unfair, but none are so inhumane as those imposed on the elderly. For many elderly smokers, having a cigarette is one of the few joys they have left. To force them to go outside no matter what the weather, no matter how disabled they might be, no matter even if they are dying, is despicable beyond belief.
What kind of people would do this to our senior citizens? Among others, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, eager to make more money for itself and its pharmaceutical partner Johnson & Johnson. After all, instead of smoking, the old and the dying can slap on a patch for comfort and solace. Cold comfort, indeed.
posted by Darkseid at 02:48 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-T.S. Elliot
posted by Darkseid at 03:05 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
is this the same foundation that now "owns" Mothers Against Drunk Driving? as per a separate topic???
posted by MaggieThurber at 04:06 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Yes.
posted by Darkseid at 04:21 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Time to find more "liberal" toiletries.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 08:07 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
Oh,who needs clean air in bars, taverns, billard parlors, bingo halls, bowling alleys? Isn't it part of the experience? Ya got everybody drinking, and doing God knows what anyway, a good time had by all. Like I said, most restaurants in the yellow pages in Toledo, are non-smoking, very few have smoking sections. Seems to me the non-smokers don't have much to whine about. It is much easier for them to find places to go to than smokers. As to the idea that smokers can go an hour or so without a cig at dinner, sure they could. But why do we have to? And often, it's much longer than an hour. Am I supposed to step outside (in cold, dark, rain, alone) while my husband waits at the table? Or he can come stand outside with me, leaving our waitress to think we left and she'll dump our meals. Just so silly. Any non-smokers who want to eat out can pick and choose. Smokers really have to work hard to find someplace new,that's actually in Toledo. As it is, we go to Sylvania, Oregon, Maumee, Michigan a lot more to eat now than we do in Toledo.
As to the non-smokers wanting to have a party without smokers, one suggestion is Angelo's Northwood Inn on Dixie Highway. Not in Toledo. But they have a smoking section still in a beautiful setting, white linens, candles, crystal, romantic. However one night they turned the entire restaurant to non-smoking due to a party there. Imagine our surprise. We made do that night in the bar, high table/stools. But normally they have a nice smoking section. Perfect example of the non-smokers setting the rules for everybody.
Well said, katie. Jimavolt, is it possible to get the petitions in more areas to sign than those you mentioned? I am close to Delaneys, and of course we'll go sign it. But seems to me it needs to be available at more locations. A lot of people would sign it, but don't go to bars, or bowling alleys.
posted by starling02 at 08:43 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
:-) Dark.
And tm - the armed forces haven't always been voluntary. They weren't when I was growing up. Little nasty episode called Nam.
See the thing about liberty is that alot of folks don't like that. You have to defend them. Thankfully we're not having to do it with force here. Not now - but we did.
And I'll do it again if need be. The Constitution was simply written. There are three branches of government. The Bill of Rights was written for the COMMON man - in common language. We all need to read it before the lawyers on the wrong side of the fence brainwash us out of the last of them.
It's easy reading. Really it is :-) If you go here and read this simple document your life will change.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Takes you about three minutes. After you get done being mad - you will have a new sense of empowerment. Which the founders wished for us.
That's the long and the short story. 98% of the people I've talked to don't know what this document says.
posted by katie82640 at 08:47 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
You have to defend them
Uh - against them. You have to defend AGAINST them.
And you have to proof
posted by katie82640 at 08:48 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
As it is, we go to Sylvania, Oregon, Maumee, Michigan a lot more to eat now than we do in Toledo.
-------------------------------------------
As do I. 8^D Although I confess, I still go to Frisch's about three times a month. Just always liked the food and the atmosphere, such as it is. can't help it. Been going there since the '50's.
posted by Darkseid at 11:13 P.M. EST on Fri May 05, 2006 #
I'm with ya katie!
I am an adult. I make my own choices. I make a concerted effort not to hurt other people. I try to be respectful of other peoples' wishes/customs/desires/dreams. In return....please do the same for me.
It's simple actually. We (generally speaking) have become too lazy to retain control of our own lives. It's easier to let the government tell us what to do, when to do it, and how to do it.
NOT
You don't smoke, but you like to drink till your head hits the toilet bowl? It's not my thing, but more power to ya. Just please don't drive.
You don't smoke (cigs) or drink but you like to toke on a joint? That's cool. Just don't give it to our kids. Do your own thing.
You like to crossdress and then go out in public thinking you're fooling folks? Knock yourself out.
It's about CHOICE. CHOICE!!! If you don't smoke, don't like smoke, get ill from smoke, etc., I understand. Just refrain from going to those places that bother you. In return I will seek out and enjoy those places that allow me to have my cigarette after my dessert instead of treating me like a second class citizen.
I don't try to brainwash you into starting smoking. Please stop trying to brainwash me into quitting. When I am ready, I will. My CHOICE.
At this point in time living near the Michigan border is VERY convenient.
>>>>> steps quietly down from soapbox
posted by DoknowDocare at 12:36 A.M. EST on Sat May 06, 2006 #
well put. Very well put doknow. The issue here is that a select few think that they can force everyone to do what they want them to do by legislation. Just removing the choice of others so that theirs will be the only choice that matters.
Who was the guy who sued to have the Pledge changed? Newman -Newton - he decided that HE didn't like it being said in America THAT way so he and the UCLA set out to control religious speech. I hafta look that up and see what's the current status - anybody know if this guy was successful in getting the government to say that we can't say "God" anymore?
posted by katie82640 at 10:03 A.M. EST on Sat May 06, 2006 #
Katie,
The way I heard it, it was over a domestic situation where the ex-husband being agnostic was getting back at his ex-wife, a God-fearing woman, and dragging their daughter and the school system thru the middle by having the Pledge removed altogether BECAUSE of the use of God within.
I want to say Oregon or Northern California, but it's been a while.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 10:23 A.M. EST on Sat May 06, 2006 #
Oh, sorry, and I support any business that allows smoking.
Thank you.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 10:23 A.M. EST on Sat May 06, 2006 #
Starling -
Right now it's a short list of places where the petition is available. We're having a meeting this upcoming week to distribute to more businesses. I'll advise after that get-together.
I hope we can get the petition to privately held carry-outs that rely on dollars from cig sales. Maybe the cigarette wholesalers can help . . .
posted by jimavolt at 06:58 A.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
Don't forget the tobacco and cigar shops, Jim, but I imagine you've got them covered.
posted by Darkseid at 07:17 A.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
I bet the Anchor Inn would let you put a petition there, and The Oar House. My daughter goes to both places, I could ask her, to ask the owners if they'd allow a petition. I think the Anchor Inn had a petition last time. Also a few bars on Summitt St. Hit up the Mancy's. You can smoke in Mancys, but not the Mancy's Italian. I don't know if it's by choise or not, but they aren't phobic about smoking.
posted by starling02 at 03:10 P.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
Sorry double post: Just make sure that people sign the petition properly so the votes aren't thrown out. (and no double or fake signatures). The anti smoking nazi's just had about 40,000 votes thrown out, maybe too late to salvage them, due to improperly filled out petitions. (Yeah!!!!!!!!) A few years ago my daughter got paid to register people to vote. They got so much per signature. But they had to throw out a lot of them due to double signatures, or improperly done ones. None of my daughter's got thrown out fortunately. (I don't remember what ballot they were working on that they had to register people to vote first for). Point is, do it right, and don't end up looking like you tried to cheat your way through it, and worse, get signatures thrown out.
posted by starling02 at 03:15 P.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
Starling wrote . . .The anti smoking nazi's just had about 40,000 votes thrown out, maybe too late to salvage them, due to improperly filled out petitions. (Yeah!!!!!!!!)
I hope it's from the current petition drive. I Googled "invalid ohio smoking petitions" and got no significant results. Please provide a link to a related story.
Junta - - - - here is a link to the anti-smokers law. Notice 3794.04, where they off handedly mention that ETS has conclusively shown to cause illness and disease (sic). If this law passes, that will officially become Ohio's policy on the matter. It will be a short step to outlaw smoking in cars, private residences, etc. Sneaky bastards.
http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/documents/SFOlaw.pdf
posted by jimavolt at 05:37 P.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
This was in the Blade on Sat. May 6. Got this from the archives on the Blade.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060506/NEWS09/605060371&SearchID=73243870061365
Article published Saturday, May 6, 2006
Some smoking ban petitions nixed
Signature gatherers erred in how they listed their employer's name
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - An effort to place a strict statewide ban on smoking in virtually all indoor public places on the November ballot was dealt a blow yesterday by a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge.
But whether the blow will be fatal or merely an irritant is unclear.
Judge David Cain invalidated a number of petitions circulated on behalf of a coalition of health organizations calling itself SmokeFreeOhio. Those petitions placed a proposed smoking ban before the Ohio General Assembly as an initiated statute at the beginning of the year with the long-term goal of putting the issue directly to voters on Nov. 7.
Jacob Evans, lobbyist for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, estimated that the decision invalidates 44,000 signatures.
"The court decision [yesterday] clearly indicates they were well below the number of signatures needed to even send this to the General Assembly," said Mr. Evans. The petition needed 100,000 signatures.
But Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell had already certified the petitions as valid and forwarded them to the General Assembly, starting the four-month clock for legislative action at the beginning of the year. The deadline passed earlier this week without legislative action, and supporters of the ban have already launched the next round of signature gathering to put the issue on the ballot.
"Ohioans shouldn't be denied the opportunity to vote on this because we followed the rules that the secretary of state put forward to us," said Tracy Sabetta, spokesman for SmokeFreeOhio. "They shouldn't be denied the opportunity to make this decision because the tobacco industry keeps funding multiple lawsuits."
Judge Cain ruled that paid signature gatherers should have noted as their employer on their petitions the name of the professional firm that hired them, not the American Cancer Society that was paying the firm. Ms. Sabetta said SmokeFreeOhio was following the secretary of state's advice when it listed the Cancer Society as the employer.
"ACS made a mistake, but this court cannot wholesale ignore the law in order to let that mistake slide," wrote Judge Cain.
Blackwell spokesman James Lee said attorneys are studying the decision and will have a better idea what impact it will have next week. Meanwhile, Ms. Sabetta said the court decision will be appealed.
Ms. Sabetta said SmokeFreeOhio is prepared to gather more signatures.
In the event the strict smoking ban fails to make the ballot, Mr. Evans said the coalition of bars, restaurants, retailers, nursing homes, and tobacco companies, calling itself Smoke Less Ohio, will proceed with its own proposed constitutional amendment in the fall. That would ask voters to approve a weaker ban exempting bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, restaurants with separate smoking areas, and some other sites from the ban.
While ruling against SmokeFreeOhio on the petition employer issue, Judge Cain rejected the challenge of the opponents of the strict ban to the use of paid non-Ohioans to circulate the petitions. Lawmakers have since enacted a law that requires circulators of petitions to be state residents
ALSO:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/NEWS02/601040426&SearchID=73243869634322
Lawsuit wants smoking-ban petitions nixed
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - A coalition of Ohio bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and private clubs fighting an attempt to enact a broad indoor smoking ban in public places filed suit yesterday to invalidate Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's certification of the petitions.
"It's our belief that the secretary of state overstepped his authority in certifying the petitions while protests were still pending," said Jacob Evans, lobbyist for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association. "In Franklin County, for example, it certainly appears there were several hundred, if not thousands, of fraudulent signatures submitted."
The suit was filed in the 10th District Court of Appeals in Columbus.
Yesterday marked the start of the four-month clock for lawmakers to consider a proposed law submitted by SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of health groups.
Mr. Blackwell last week certified the petitions as containing about 117,000 valid signatures of registered voters, more than the necessary 96,870. He forwarded the proposed law to lawmakers.
The law, which would supercede Toledo's weaker ban, would enact one of the strongest statewide bans in the nation, making it illegal to light up in virtually all enclosed places where the public congregates.
Mr. Blackwell's spokesman, Carlo LoParo, said the secretary of state's office had yet to see the suit.
"Our interpretation of the law is quite simple," he said. "Once the secretary is notified that a sufficient number of signatures has been filed, which he was by the county boards of election, he has no choice but to forward that information to the General Assembly, beginning the initiated statute process."
Opponents of the ban say they have filed court challenges in 31 counties challenging nearly 41,000 signatures.
Both sides count Lucas, Wood, Seneca, Hancock, Erie, Defiance, and Allen among the northwestern Ohio counties where challenges have been filed. No such suit, however, could be located as of yesterday in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.
The common thread running through the suits is a challenge to the practice of using non-Ohioans to circulate petitions.
posted by starling02 at 06:30 P.M. EST on Sun May 07, 2006 #
Hey group, Im from Columbus. First of all the smoking ban here has been terrible. Lots of bars have closed. Most are empty all week except saturdays. People get harrased outside by hookers, bumbs,and discriminating folk that go around and throw eggs at gays, latinos, blacks, and smokers. Its terrible smoking outside when its really cold and many bars dont have smoking patios. The new ban is looking to eliminate the smoking patio. They have added a clause that if there is a door or window that leads to the smoking patio, if smoke enters the indoor space, the outdoor space will be deemed non smoking. Please join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ohiosmokersrights/ and download our petition. Its fair, it allows for smoking in bingo halls, bars, and patios. It does not allow for smoking in restaurants unless the smoking section is completely seperated by walls and doors. You dont want this smoking ban. Bars here are always empty.
posted by hgomez03 at 08:09 P.M. EST on Mon May 08, 2006 #
gomez - the voice of reason. I was also in Col's recently and observed the same thing. I bet the cops are missing the good old days.
posted by katie82640 at 08:46 P.M. EST on Mon May 08, 2006 #
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b251/Foolkiller/smokerhaters.gif
posted by Darkseid at 04:14 A.M. EST on Tue May 09, 2006 #
Ok, that's funny
posted by katie82640 at 04:22 P.M. EST on Tue May 09, 2006 #
I know, been said before, but just in case somebody missed it-
Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.
posted by Darkseid at 04:44 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
oh geesh dark - move with extreme caution. There have been postings here that lead me to think that some people believe there is no right to private property and the bill of rights is useless.
You may get inundated if you state the obvious re: private property rights.
posted by katie82640 at 10:18 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
Katie, the existence of property taxes has destroyed the fundamental definition of private property. Property taxes mean that you're renting "your" property from the state. This rent may be a lot cheaper than renting the property from another "owner" first (who also has to make that state-rental payment from your own payment to him), but it's still a force that denies ownership. After all, don't pay those property taxes, and eventually the state will use real force to evict you from "your" property and use a sale to settle the charges. This methodology only gets the property into the hands of another state-renter.
I spoke with a friend of mine on this topic just the other day. She holds the opinion that barring outright revolution, Americans will eventually wise up and pass draconian "homestead" acts across the nation, which will make their properties sacrosanct against government seizure. Necessarily, property taxes will become illegal, or they will be allowed to run up huge arrears and must then be collected in some other fashion than taxed-property seizure (say, income and account garnishment).
posted by GuestZero at 11:07 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
It'll be interesting. In high school one of my teachers introduced me to the concept of an illodial title. It's an outdated concept but used to be an 'absolute' title to property. No taxes (because no usary).
You can't do that in America I don't think. I had always thought in the back of my head growing up - well when I buy a house I'll buy all the land rights and get an illodial title.
No one's ever heard of it. I hadn't thought about homesteading. I'll research.
posted by katie82640 at 11:16 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
I am curious to know from the smokers here what limits on smoking they consider to be reasonable (if any)? There are several points about public vs. private property. Should private property owners have the right to tell people they can't smoke on the property (assuming there was no law in place to back them up)? I work in an office building where the property owner recently modified the rules for where smoking is permitted. Smokers must be at least 25 feet away from any building entrance. Of course this got some of the smokers fuming.
posted by Matt at 11:25 A.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
Well - forgive me I'm putting on my Miss Manners hat here.
I'm a smoker. Not much - I am discreet with a little ashtray secreted by my back door but I indulge. So to answer your question:
Smoking, like all other things, can have an impact on other people. Some people do not have any consideration of others. Those are the people you traditionally have seen lighting a cigarette up in the middle of a restaurant or a grocery store. They started the problem we are discussing.
If you have any manners whatsoever, you simply do not smoke around non-smokers. You certainly do not smoke indoors where others (and yourself) will be affected by second-hand smoke which is more dangerous than the act of smoking itself.
If you cannot refrain from smoking around others, or from causing contamination inside buildings, then you probably need some psychological help, because that can not be related to nicotine withdrawal. That's referred to as a behavioral addiction. Not a physical addiction.
Nicotine withdrawal is a well documented event. Once exposure occurs and ceases nicotine remains in the blood system for a remarkably long time. Not until after 3-4 hours have passed since the last introduction of nicotine to the blood stream is a physical response to a lack of nicotine in the system experienced. There are few people who have to go that long without being able to break at work or at home and retreat for a smoke.
If a smoker is outside smoking – simple manners would dictate that the non-smokers who are being accommodated would use a main door or simply walk quickly out of the exit. Common courtesy would PRECLUDE one from making obnoxious noises and rude comments to a smoker who is indulging in a courteous manner. But again, not everyone has had this class. Respect for the freedoms of others would PRECLUDE anyone from trying to legislate away the rights of others merely because one doesn’t approve of the actions of others.
Again these are all simple matters of common courtesy. Common courtesy and respect for others are topics generally taught to small children – but obviously not all as exampled by this topic.
So to answer your question - how would you go about legislating that people behave themselves and learn how to be polite?
Ok - I'm done. Feel better :-)
posted by katie82640 at 03:32 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
sorry Matt:
"Should private property owners have the right to tell people they can't smoke on the property..."
Yes.
posted by katie82640 at 03:38 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
But if a restaurant/bar/bowling alley (take your pick) has a smoking section, then there is nothing wrong, or inconsiderate about lighting a cigarette, as long as you are in the smoking section. That, is the point of a smoking section. Anybody doesn't want to be around smokers, then simply do not sit in the smoking section, or go to another restaurant, of which Toledo has dozens, and dozens of non-smoking restaurants to choose from, and a pissy small handful of restaurants that do have a smoking section; my point being, non-smokers have WAY more options/choises of restaurants in Toledo, than smokers do and I am weary of hearing them whine 'not good enough'. I know a woman who smokes like crazy, but won't light up in the smoking section. That is absurd, and being over sensitive to non-smokers who dont have to be in that section any freaking way if they don't want to.
Businesses can choose to be non-smoking, restaurants or not. Personally, I would much rather see a designated inner area to smoke with ashtrays, than to see a bunch of employees standing outside the doorway smoking. If a business is non smoking, I do not smoke or whine about it. But this is getting old, bending over backwards for non smokers who won't be happy till the entire country is smoke free. Want to make that happen? Ban the production, sale and use of tobacco. Won't happen, too much money being made on it. But then, prohibition didn't work, either. People find ways. Legal, or illegal.
posted by starling02 at 06:24 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
Kudos Starling! I sat in the smoking section of an Applebees (glassed in lounge area) and there was a woman in the next booth (non smoker) who immediately started making faces and comments when I lit my cig. I simply smiled at her, pointed to the sign that said smoking section and kept smiling. She got mad and asked for the manager. I was waiting for this little weasel to come tell me to put it out and I was gonna dunk his head in the bar sink. Instead he offered to locate her to another booth. Good grief! Will it never end??????
posted by DoknowDocare at 06:51 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
We had a meeting of interested businesses today in West Toledo, giving instructions and petitions to representatives from 35 additional taverns, bowling centers, and local representatives from VFW and American Legion. I also spoke with a fellow with three retail/wholesale cigarette businesses. He'll be an asset to our cause.
I learned that so far our group has collected a little more than 55,000 valid signatures. I hope that soon the petitions will be everywhere. Please remember to sign only one time !
Thanks for your support.
posted by jimavolt at 07:53 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
Great news jimavolt. More places to find the petitions the better. Some people don't go to bars and bowling alleys. jimavolt is also right on target about not getting overzealous and signing more than one time. When people do that (or use fake or deceased, or children's names) all it does is make them void them out, and possibly gets THEM overzealous about throwing out signatures.
doknow, I know exactly what you mean, the glares, sneers, even when the non smokers are far enough away from you. They are fanatical. Most Toledo restaurants are non smoking as it is, and yet they still whine 'not good enough'. And if I ever run into one of those "standup.org" tv commercial brats in person, I will smack them across their pompous little faces and tell them to sit the F___ down and shut the hell up. Any other organization that uses children to further their purposes would be read the riot act.
posted by starling02 at 10:28 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
kudos starling, doknow AND jimavolt. After some careful thought about this issue and unnamed parties have, once again, overstepped its legal boundaries with regard to control of private property. I know they miss the Third Reich but they're not going to raise that party here in Toledo.
Why are you not surprised to see this? I thought mouths would be dropping open?
However, in light of the fact that I do not believe good manners and consideration of others can be legislated, I find that there is, oh yet one more time again, an unreasonable legislative act that needs to be corrected. Legislatively of course :-)
Therefore I will throw my ward behind this endeavor. :-)
Where do I get a petition?
posted by katie82640 at 10:37 P.M. EST on Wed May 10, 2006 #
know a woman who smokes like crazy, but won't light up in the smoking section. That is absurd, and being over sensitive to non-smokers who dont have to be in that section any freaking way if they don't want to.
---------------------------------------------
Unfortunate, Star, as smokers like her who have been slowly brainwashed into being on a guilt trip are part of the problem. When are smokers (and non-smokers who agree on freedom) going to grow some balls and come out of their foxholes??? And those commercials aren't for smokers any more, Star-notice? They're now all geared at continuing to brainwash the nonsmokers into becoming rabid smoker-haters. It's all about the demonization & denormalization of millions of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.
posted by Darkseid at 12:27 A.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
Can't we all just get along? Why do people have to take things so hard. Smoking is a nasty habit like it or not. I personally do not care if one smokes or not. However, when I am eating or having a pint at the local pub, I would hope that a smoker would have the manners to take his stink stick outside. I have plenty of friends here in California that smoke and cannot even stand the thought of smoking inside, and most of them relocated from the midwest/east coast.
I know...it snows there in the winter and its too damn cold to go outside during that time. You could always move here to Cali and pay a hefty Sun Tax!
I think that the "Smoke Free Ohio Organization" has it right. You want to smoke...take it outside...this is not a ban...just a relocation from inside to outside.
You have to admit that technology and studies get better as more research is done. Why would doctors be telling us now more than ever that second hand smoke is a pollutant?
If you want to smoke and increase your chances of lung cancer and other diseases, please do...But don't include me.
Cheers,
DiegoDude (No I am not an illegal Alien!)
posted by DiegoDude at 03:35 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
I am from Columbus, too and it really is bad.
I have been a musician for over 20 years in this town and night club life is just dying.
I welcome the SmokeLess Ohio ban as I know my business will improve immediately.
My business lost 50% immmediately concerning gigs in the clubs.
Many places went to DJs or just play the jukebox.
All stuff you already know.
I enjoy reading this forum. I can understand why Toledo wants nothing to do with SmokeFree Ohio. You lived through the dark hours we still have in Columbus.
Hopefully 2007 will be the end of the Columbus ban and SmokeFree Ohio.
posted by Musician at 04:53 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
Now we hear from Diego Dude, some wing-nut from the vacuum of personal freedom called California. So deluded is he that he completely buys into the rantings of professional anti-smoking Doctors like California's own Stanton Glance. Glance is the idiot that generates daily press releases on the dangers of second hand smoke.
As far as your suggestion to take-it-outside . . . it's bullshit and you know it. The next target will be outdoors, then vehicles then our homes. Ask the smokers in Calabassis (sp?) where outdoor smoking is now illegal. Glance was especially proud he was able to get smoking banned there.
Smoke Less Ohio offers a reasonable compromise position that should make the antismokers happy. Apparently it doesn't. He wants to be able to go everythere without experiencing smoking. He doesn't like smoking and I don't care at all. Let's all hope he stays in California with the other shit heads.
posted by sergey at 07:15 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
Pardon the pun, but Musician knows the score. As we learned her in Toledo, some businesses fold, others just lay-off workers and make due with less. A venue can't afford a band when it's customer's stop coming because of government mandating majority preferences. Worst part is that the people banning smoking are as likely to come into the taverns they affect as that dude from Diego is.
Musician, I hope people in Columbus are working hard with this petition drive. How is it going so far?
posted by jimavolt at 07:37 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
I think it's a little frightening to be hearing a rationalization about why it's ok to legislate people's rights away when you don't like what they do with them.
Correction - it's a lot frightening. How many little Hitlers have we actually bred?
Now we have this law on the books. What is the resolution? Do we get new legislation to correct the first set of legislation? I was prepared to work for that goal.
It's almost like now that we've decided that we don't have civil rights if a tree hugger tells us we don't and we have to negotiate to what level we've actually lost them, retroactively.
If people had had decent manners to start with this would not have happened I tell you.
(backs away slowly)
posted by katie82640 at 08:56 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
It had nothing whatsoever to do with manners, Katie. It has everything to do with Stanton Glantz (as sergy said)and another clown (lawyer) named John Banzahf (sp?), Robert Wood Johnson, and the ACS, the AHA, and the ALA spending milions and millions of dollars for ads and campaigns in the war on smokers. I never knew a smoker personally who didn't ask someone if they minded if they lit up. I also grew up visiting people who didn't smoke who set one room in their house aside for smokers when they visited. My Aunt Dorothy was one of them. Never smoked and lived to be almost ninety, but when you went to visit her in McClure, she'd always let you smoke in the den. In warm weather, we just went out on the front porch , which was humoungous. Back in the early nineties, when Billary (my code name for the 'co-presidency') took office, the study on ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) had came out just before they were sworn in. Their first act was to ban snoking anywhere in the White House (later rescinded by Bush). They began their war on 'big tobacco' (picked up and ran with to this day by the media), which was REALLY a war on smokers. Think about it. Do you think for one minute that the tobacco companies pay one red cent toward the tobacco settlement? They just raised their prices, and their customers pay it. That money was supposed to go toward medicaid recipients in the states that joined the lawsuit (like Ohio). It doesn't. It's been robbed by each state's politicians for the general fund. Another BIG share of it goes for campaigns to pass smoking bans. Bet you weren't aware of that one. People like Stu Kerr, Stanton Glantz, Banzahf, etc; across the country have become well-off financially while imposing their rule on others, and destroying small family businesses in the wake. Banzahf-the scum behind the tobacco settlement, became a millionaire through that suit, and is now spearheading the drive to sue the restaurants and food processors throughout the country, using the tobacco hysteria as the model for the next crusade (which will, of course, make them all richer). Nothing like being a lawyer or a well-paid lobbyist. That's what's always pissed me off the most about the war on smokers-they're persecuted, demonized, humiliated, and dehumanized daily by the media, politicians who want to pretend they're doing something, and the smoke poliece, yet they are at the same time paying for that abuse out of their own pockets. Grrrr.
posted by Darkseid at 10:56 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
Regarding that town in Karloffornia-yeas, they did ban it outside.The ordinance bans smoking virtually everywhere outside in the city, including streets, sidewalks, and parking lots. Smoking is banned in all of these areas any time there is someone within 20 feet who is not themselves smoking or who has not specifically consented to the individual smoking.
However, the broad smoking ban, designed not only to protect people from 'secondhand smoke exposure' but to reduce "the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle" and to affirm and promote "the family-friendly atmosphere of the City'’s public places," allows smoking in designated areas at all the city's shopping malls, including the "open-air" Calabasas Commons shopping mall.It seems clear that secondhand smoke is a vital concern to the Calabasas City Council, but not quite as important as the revenue that comes in to the city from shoppers.On an isolated street somewhere, secondhand smoke is apparently a devastating health hazard and smoking needs to be banned, but in the crowded shopping mall, no way the Council wants to touch it. God forbid they should lose some retail business due to a concern over people's health!
posted by Darkseid at 11:13 P.M. EST on Thu May 11, 2006 #
Easy for somebody from California to say 'smoke outside'. In the midwest, it is horrible outside most of the time; cold, rain, etc. And when it's dark I do not want to stand outside. Seems to me, I heard CA has a horrible smog problem, perhaps they'd do better to focus on that. Toledo has a horrible micropolution problem, that is far worse breathing than second hand smoke. If you are IN THE SMOKING SECTION DO NOT GRIPE ABOUT PEOPLE SMOKING. At the risk of repeating myself (and I am), it's been my observation that a large number of these anti smoking nuts would do better for their health by watching their weight. And the ones who drink too much, and act like idiots, and/or drive, are far more dangerous to your health. Choose your battles carefully.
posted by starling02 at 12:19 A.M. EST on Fri May 12, 2006 #
You know, now that you mention it....I noticed a few visits to Frisch's ago....the smoking section had about ten-twelve people in it. Every one was fairly slender. The non-smoking side had exactly two people in it-two women who were wolfing down buffet items-and each probably tipped the scale at 300 pounds. I've noticed the same thing since then, as well. Always grossly overweight people in the non-smoking side( And only a few customers there). Don't worry, the fat police are starting to gear up. It'll be their turn in the barrel shortly, and the fat people can't hide.
posted by Darkseid at 04:23 A.M. EST on Fri May 12, 2006 #
If you are IN THE SMOKING SECTION DO NOT GRIPE ABOUT PEOPLE SMOKING. - starling. That's worth repeating. A couple of times.
well dark - you've just described a well funded cottage industry. sad ain't it.
I called about sending out my corp' newsletter via fax for the company that I work for. I use prepaid legal so I have unlimited consulting and the Ohio firm is the (I think or 2nd) biggest firm in the state. They have all these specialty lawyers. I got a commerce one who called me back.
I asked if what I had heard was true that I could be sued for sending my customer a fax that I send to them and had been sending for years. Some new law? He said no new law - but really stringent enforcement of an existing one. He explained I needed written authorization from my customer including his fax numbers. WHich I'm in the process of gathering those up. Customers don't appreciate it - but they want the newsletter. And I don't want to get sued.
The link to this discussion? There's a whole bunch of these mini-laydown lawsuits. You send a fax with only a verbal request? You get hit for 1700-5000.00. And you will get fined. And the lawyers - guess what they've termed this? Their boating industry. Because they're taking these little easy to perform lawsuits and using the proceeds to buy a new boats.
Another cottage industry.
posted by katie82640 at 11:56 A.M. EST on Fri May 12, 2006 #
I probably should have said 'overweight', rather than fat. I refuse to be PC & say the new terms, obese or 'weight challenged', but fat was pretty cruel, i guess. And we have more lawyers in the U.S. than any other country in the world!
posted by Darkseid at 05:02 P.M. EST on Fri May 12, 2006 #
Katie - you nailed it when you said this was about manners. I don't agree with the smoking ban laws, but I am truly annoyed with the "world is my ashtray" smokers out there. They have ruined it for the considerate ones. Do I want to ban them from smoking? No. Might I (when confronted with a rude smoker) offer a suggestion to them or more indirectly roll my eyes in their general direction? Probably.
posted by Matt at 07:03 P.M. EST on Fri May 12, 2006 #
dark - call them as you see them. Some are addicted to nicotine - some to food. We all have our own addictions. Even coffee.
Matt thank you. I think that if we'd had the shirttail smokers in some kind of class where they had been given a clue there were OTHER people in the world - this lawyer heyday wouldn't be happening.
I agree w/starling. If you sit in a smoking section - makes sense folks might smoke. (how do I drip sarcasm here). If you sit in a non-smoking area - you might want to think about NOT SMOKING. Hello? How hard is this?
If you're in your house - do as you like. Just don't affect anybody else (or you) with second hand smoke. Nice outside? Go outside. Bad outside - what about the garage? Or the porch with the overhang. Takes three minutes to smoke. You can't even freeze to death in the Antarctic in three minutes.
posted by katie82640 at 11:46 P.M. EST on Fri May 12, 2006 #
Anybody see 20/20 last night, dispelling "Myths"? They debunked the myth of second hand smoke. I missed it, but they mention it on that smoker rights site. Somebody wrote a letter to the editor (don't recall which paper) using the excuse of cars not being equipped with ashtrays as an excuse for sloppy smokers. It's easy to buy, or find an ashtray that fits your car. They make them to fit in the little drink holder. Even a pop can works in a pinch. I don't throw litter out, butts are litter.
posted by starling02 at 04:40 P.M. EST on Sat May 13, 2006 #
on 20/20 last night
May 12, 2006 — Secondhand smoke — even a little is a killer. It's why more of you smokers are banned from bars, restaurants, now even building entrances.
One public service announcement proclaims, "When you smoke, you're not the only one being harmed."
That's not a myth. Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease. But they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere.
And now Calabasas, Calif., has banned smoking everywhere outdoors where a nonsmoker could get within 20 feet of a smoker. The former mayor, Barry Groveman, said, "It's about public safety."
"This is by every standard a public health law," Groveman said.
But if they limit people's choices in the name of public health, we should know if walking past a smoker can really hurt you. I fell for the alarmists' claims years ago when I interviewed activist Stanton Glantz about secondhand smoke.
"And if I were to walk up to you and have an aerosol can filled with 4,000 chemicals and say, 'Excuse me, do you mind if I spray this in your face,' you'd think I was out of my mind, but when somebody smokes a cigarette, that's what they're doing," Glantz said.
Glantz and other activists now say just 20 or 30 minutes of smoke puts you on the road to a deadly heart attack.
Dr. Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke, says the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous.
"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said.
Siegel, who helped ban smoking in restaurants and bars, now says his movement is distorting science.
"It has turned into more of a crusade," Siegel said. "The cause has kind of taken over."
Some anti-smoking advocates want it banned even inside apartments.
"Now people are complaining about smoke going from one apartment to another apartment," Glantz said.
Glantz said the people in other apartments could be harmed since the "level of toxicity in the smoke is very very high."
Frankly, I like the smoke-free zones, but the science behind them may be a myth.
"I think the documented health effects of secondhand smoke are enough. I don't think we need to be stretching the truth," Siegel said.
posted by hgomez03 at 08:38 P.M. EST on Sun May 14, 2006 #
New Smoking Ban looking to elimate out door patios..
Per Smoke Free
"If there is a door or window that is connected to the indoor space, if smoke can enter the indoor space, the outdoor space will be held to the prohibition"...
Be careful what you vote for.
posted by hgomez03 at 11:25 P.M. EST on Sun May 14, 2006 #
jimvolt, The petition drive seems to be moving along well. All of the bars I visited around here have the petitions and I personally was not able to get many signatures because of that, but I don't need a feather in my cap for "most signatures collected".
I think we will finally send SmokeFree Ohio packing. I am so tired of these nannies who do not come to the bars anyway. According to the antis, Columbus should be hopping and the clubs should be so full that you can't get into them.
I used to remember when things were like that. It was before 02/01/05. Now we have tumbleweeds at best rolling across the floors of the bars.
I am fully convinced that other Prohibition organzations have their hands in this. I learned recently that Ohio's answer to Stanton Glantz (Rob Crane) is also on the boards for MADD in both Ohio and West Virginia.
Coincidence? You decide.
That 20/20 show the other night was great on Myths...second hand smoke was one of the features. Dr. Michael Siegel easily made Stanton Glantz look like the pompous ass he is. And I refuse to call him doctor as he is not a medical doctor whatsoever. Simply as we say in the music business, a poseur.
posted by Musician at 08:31 A.M. EST on Mon May 15, 2006 #
BRAVO!! You're RIGHT, he ISN'T a Doctor!! Too bad more people don't realize he's a total fraud.
posted by Darkseid at 06:47 A.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
I am fully convinced that other Prohibition organzations have their hands in this. I learned recently that Ohio's answer to Stanton Glantz (Rob Crane) is also on the boards for MADD in both Ohio and West Virginia.
----------------------------------------------
That's part of the package. They want bars to go under,too, because they're also anti-drinker. And they don't go to them, just as they'll never be caught dead in a small , family-owned local diner or restaurant. Read up on the primary funder for MADD-Robert Wood Johnson, one of the biggest smoker and alcohol-haters on the planet.
posted by Darkseid at 06:53 A.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
Sure seems to be a lot of paranoia, hystery, misinformation and magical thinking being thrown around on this issue.
Since the publication of the 1986 Report of the Surgeon General entitled The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking any debate
has really been moot.
No one is suggesting prohibition, but because ventilation can not protect the public, the simplist solution is to keep tobacco smoke outside of any workplace.
Those that seek support at Forces and other anti this and that websites are refusing to deal with this issue in a responsible matter.
posted by stukerr at 09:53 A.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
Still getting that good money from your employer -the AHA-for your 'citizen's group' crusade?
posted by Darkseid at 04:28 P.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
How do I get a cushy job as a paid lobbyist?
posted by Darkseid at 04:29 P.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
Much like Chicken Little, Mr. Kerr doesn’t like the way sensible non-alarmists deal with a situation that makes him run through the streets screaming.
The simplest solution, Mr. Kerr, is to live and let live. If you don't like something, stay away from it.
By the way Mr. Kerr, I saw a TV interview where you admitted that you regularly have drinks at a tavern that allows smoking. Does that mean A) you don't believe the outrageous claims you make, B) that you drink to excess and make poor decisions while drunk, or C) that you're an idiot? Maybe A, B & C?
posted by sergey at 08:09 P.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
The Stuka only came here, Sergy, because either he checked the site out, or he got word from one of his minions that his dream plan was being discussed here, and his ilk have no room for other opinions or dissension in 'the master race's' ultimate plan. Many smokers and intelligent non-smokers are slowly starting to wake up, due to the fact they make even more and more outrageous demands -like banning it in your own car in one state now-Arkansas-and it's been proposed in another state-Louisiana. The peasants are finally beginning to revolt, and they don't like it. They see themselves as God, since they have the media in their pocket, and millions upon millions of dollars to get these things passed. And they simply can't understand, after about 16 years of brainwashing and having their way, why they are finally beginning to have some organized resistance in some states.
posted by Darkseid at 09:05 P.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
A Blast From The Past.
"Hey, why are you getting so upset? we're only asking to ban it on airplane flights that last for more than two hours. What's the big deal? It'll never go any farther than that-we promise."
posted by Darkseid at 09:07 P.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 #
"Those that seek support at Forces and other anti this and that websites are refusing to deal with this issue in a responsible matter.
posted by stukerr at 10:53 A.M. EST on Tue May 16, 2006 "
Wellll you can make it a health issue if you like - strange that you would try to deflect a civil rights into what you acknowledge is a matter settled by the Surgeon General in 1986? Why did you do that? There's no credible argument that smoking's healthy. That's not what is under discussion. So start another thread if you'd like to raise a different topic.
THIS here one,,,yessirreee,,,,this here one is about civil liberties. It's about you and yours NOT having the right to legislate what I and others can and cannot do merely to cater to your own personal preferences.
I mean seriously if anyone wants to be catered to on a national level - maybe they'd ought to go buy and island somewhere. But this is America and you cannot legislate a law that will stand to challenge that I am not allowed to smoke. The only thing you've got in your favor right now is that the right person hasn't been infringed enough and this hasn't been challenged through the court system.
You will NOT like everything ALL people do with their civil liberties. Does not mean you have either the right OR ABILITY to remove them because you don't like their choices.
Oh yeah - time for a smoke.....
walking away and shaking my head - bunch of tree hugging control freaks.....
posted by katie82640 at 05:45 P.M. EST on Wed May 17, 2006 #
ok,,,spelling is very bad. Frustration level high :-)
posted by katie82640 at 05:46 P.M. EST on Wed May 17, 2006 #
Understandable. This issue, probably more than any other, really gets me infuriated.
posted by Darkseid at 06:07 P.M. EST on Wed May 17, 2006 #
Groups to Claim that 30 Minutes of Secondhand Smoke Exposure Causes Athe
Source: The Rest of the Story-Tobacco Analasys and Commentary (Michael Siegel blog), 2006-05-17
Intro:
It turns out that three major anti-smoking organizations - the American Cancer Society, the International Union Against Cancer, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids - urged anti-smoking groups to increase the emotional appeal of the secondhand smoke health hazard message by communicating to the public that secondhand smoke can virtually instantly cause hardening of the arteries and heart disease (a point which is clinically impossible - since it takes years for atherosclerosis and heart disease to develop).
In an internal strategy document entitled "Building Public Awareness About Passive Smoking Hazards," the American Cancer Society and International Union Against Cancer offer suggestions to anti-smoking advocates about how to increase the emotional appeal of secondhand smoke health hazard claims. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids appears to also have been a part of this strategy guide, although it is not listed as a primary author but instead, referred to in the document's introduction:
"On behalf of the American Cancer Society, The International Union Against Cancer, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the many wise and experienced colleagues who contributed to this lengthy project, we are deeply pleased to offer this series of guides, Tobacco Control Strategy Planning to the global tobacco control community."
The guide was designed "to help advocates develop practical strategies to overcome specific barriers to effective tobacco control policies."
One strategy put forward to help advocates overcome barriers to the adoption of smoking bans is to convey to the public that some of the effects of secondhand smoke are "virtually instant" because "these messages convey the issue's urgency." Specifically, the strategy urges advocates to emphasize the following two messages:. . . .
The claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure activates platelets and causes endothelial damage "which leads to heart disease" and results in clot formation that results in heart attacks and strokes is also false, or at least misleading. While it is true that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes platelet activation and endothelial dysfunction, these changes cannot result in heart disease from just a single exposure. Chronic exposure over long periods of time is necessary. . . .
it makes it more difficult to rationalize this fiasco by arguing that it was simply a series of innocent mistakes made by anti-smoking groups. Instead, it argues for an impression that there was an intentional, centralized effort to make the hazards of secondhand smoke seem more emotionally stimulating by over-stating the acute cardiovascular effects of exposure in order to garner greater support for smoking bans.
This appears not to be simply an innocent misinterpretation of scientific evidence. Instead, it appears to be an intentional manipulation of people's emotions through the manipulation of scientific findings in order to make public claims that are more startling than they would otherwise be, in an effort to promote a desired public policy outcome.
Jump to full article »
Pattern
Edition Id
Media Id
Posted By
Items:
Home | News | Quotes | Subscribe | Info Pages | Printable
News Articles Copyright by their respective owners.
Other material © 1995-2006 Tobacco.org, may be reprinted in non-commercial venues with appropriate attribution.
posted by hgomez03 at 06:59 P.M. EST on Wed May 17, 2006 #
This appears not to be simply an innocent misinterpretation of scientific evidence. Instead, it appears to be an intentional manipulation of people's emotions through the manipulation of scientific findings in order to make public claims that are more startling than they would otherwise be, in an effort to promote a desired public policy outcome.
--------------------------------------------
That's all its ever been about. By the way, I disagree with the three major anti-smoker groups listed. For my money, it's the ACS, the ALA, and the AHA.
posted by Darkseid at 09:32 P.M. EST on Wed May 17, 2006 #
And Robert Wood Johnson makes four.
posted by Darkseid at 09:32 P.M. EST on Wed May 17, 2006 #
This is such an age-old tactic.
This cannot be debated the issue on a civil rights footing so the ones who wish to legislate to their personal preference DEFLECT to a secondary issue. Which is the ill health effects of smoking.
You know what? I think you would be very hard pressed to come up with ONE name who thinks smoking is healthy. That is not what this debate is about. If we debate on the red herring level - instead of what it is really about - we will lose.
This debate, at its core, is about whether one group of people should be able to control what another segment is allowed to choose to do with their freedoms. In effect, negating those very freedoms.
This is America. You, with the limitation of harming others, can do as you like.
The only way that the health issue can even be cited - is that people in public places do have the right not to have cigarette smoke mixed in their air. That has already been settled - cannot be part of this debate.
This next step to take it to the private property forum is a very serious step. It is, clearly, an infringement of civil liberties. We do not need to debate with them whether it is healthy to smoke. That is not their business - you can be as stupid as you want in America. Or as smart. But to say that one group controls the behavior of another on private property is not just a step onto a slippery slope - rather think of it as though we were lemmings, off a cliff. Really want to defend the health effects of smoking? How about not allowing the deflection. Just keep bringing it back to the real point. This is a test balloon for these groups.
So keep the debate on the real issue and do not be sidetracked while they walk this things through.
The real issue is this: “The American people do not have a right to (fill in the blank – in THIS case it is smoking – but put in here any other freedom) in their private homes or in their businesses”.
That’s the issue – to see if we will accept this premise. I'm just saying that no, I won’t. I'm also saying if they get this kind of legislation through regarding PRIVATE property - I'll undo it. Give it your best shot :-)
posted by katie82640 at 08:58 A.M. EST on Thu May 18, 2006 #
I've argued the point for years-why can't we have places that are no-smoking AND-places that are only smoking? Every business should have the right to decide on their own (and not just the hospitality industry). I offered the idea once on another board-if you propose this for a privately owned business, the Nazis will always respond with the pat answer-"Ah-but then, there are the employees-who deserve to be smokefree." I suggested that if a business only wanted to hire all smokers, what then? After all, some businesses are firing people because they happen to smoke. How about the other way around? What if a business wanted to only hire smokers? They swiftly changed the subject.
posted by Darkseid at 04:24 P.M. EST on Thu May 18, 2006 #
It is also about freedom of association as well.
posted by Darkseid at 04:25 P.M. EST on Thu May 18, 2006 #
Health is the issue...
posted by deere1 at 06:03 P.M. EST on Thu May 18, 2006 #
Dear Darkseid
Jacob Evans is the lobbyist.
Dear Sergey
Live and let live means helping the 85% of smokers who Philip Morris found in 1984 wished they had never started to quit. Certainly higher taxes and smoke free workplaces play a part.
Tobacco is nothing more than an addictive drug. There is no way to glamorize it any more.
Dear Katie.
This a civil rights issue and all people deserve the same protections. There is no right to smoke. Smokers are not a protected class. And the courts have already found this is not a property rights issue.
The basis of our common law is that no one can intentionally harm another. That is also a very libertarian position.
posted by stukerr at 06:13 P.M. EST on Thu May 18, 2006 #
Dear Stukerr,
Live and let live MEANS you do live however you choose and let others do the same. Instead you reference some 22 year old bullshit statistic to justify your absurd, yet well paying philosophy.
Your version of "helping people" is a form of terrorism where you force people to your way of thinking. Lucky for me, my thoughts don't match yours.
Don't save me from your big fear, chicken little, I don't want to be saved. Your sky might be falling, but mine isn't.
Your second hand smoke arguements and statistics are horseshit and you know it. You still go into smoking places, don't you ? Please answer my earlier question.
posted by sergey at 08:13 P.M. EST on Thu May 18, 2006 #
Dear Stukerr
You say smokers aren't a protected class. Quite a twisted logic. If you are correct then any and all freedoms are only available to a protected class.
Incorrect and thankfully the authors of the original Bill of Rights saw forward to predict this kind of authoritarian idealism.
I am at my home. I will smoke here today. Call it what you like - but you can't stop it.
If I am successful - tomorrow I won't be smoking at my house. You can have no part in that decision making process. These are my decisions to make.
Tonight I will go out and dine in an establishment where I will choose what I eat. Afterwards I'll do what I enjoy - I'll sit at the bar with a full stomach and smoke a cigarette.
You don't own that establishment it is private property. I go to it because it is in an area that authoritarian personalities have not selected as a test ground to see how far they can go in legislating their personal preferences out as law.
Have a great day - I know that I will. God bless ya - fume as ye might, no stopping me.
Most Sincerely;
Kate
posted by katie82640 at 11:12 A.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
In America, while your home may not be a castle, unless you're harming other people or animals, being a nusiance, or ignoring the zoaning regulations, or not paying your taxes, or playing loud music, or . . . you're pretty much left alone.
Our concerns with exposure to tobacco smoke are not the home, but workplaces and where ever the public is invited in. But there are several exemptions. Please read our petition. The one of most interest to you may be the one for private clubs.
Just be careful though, cigarettes are the number one cause of fire deaths.
posted by stukerr at 06:05 P.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
That's a lie, Stukerr.
If the private club has but one employee, say a part-time bookkeeper, or day-time bartender on payroll, then they get no exemption and cannot smoke. Almost every private club has several employees. I pray the VFW's learn that you are trying to take away their rights.
You've told so many lies for so long, I don't think you can even tell the difference anymore.
Don't forget that next will come banning smoking out of doors, then in cars, just like your groups have done / are doing in California.
You're a terrorist.
posted by sergey at 06:15 P.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
Actually Stukerr in America stupidity is the #1 cause of death. Smoking is merely one of it's milder symptoms.
And your comment of people in their private homes are 'pretty much left alone'....I laughed till I cried.
That is not a philosophy you would want to test at my house cause I'll hand you an ass whipping that you cannot comprehend.
Now I'm a good Christian woman so I don't kill :-)
But you want to try being an authoritarian on somebody's private property at any point in time, make sure it's not a tall auburn haired woman in south Toledo - or you'll be telling that story for the rest of your days.
Still laughing here.....pretty much. HAHAHA haw haw ha
posted by katie82640 at 07:14 P.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
Ok, it's about 11:45 and I'm still laughing. Just shaking my head at the mental image of some little guy showing up at my house with a clipboard of do's and don'ts. Ohmygosh.
posted by katie82640 at 09:44 P.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
Katie said:
Dear Stukerr
You say smokers aren't a protected class. Quite a twisted logic. If you are correct then any and all freedoms are only available to a protected class.
Stukerr is right on that, smokers aren't a protected class. That's a fact, that's the law, and that's the bottom line. There is no twisted logic there. You're playing with words.
That said, as much as you feel you have a right to do whatever you want, and I agree with you, I think it should be a more free society, the people continue to elect those that want to take away our freedoms. Further, the law, at this point, benefits those that want to take away our freedoms so long as there is a legitimate state purpose in the action. In this case, for instance, a court would likely find that preventing exposure to second hand smoke is a legitimate state purpose, because pretty much anything qualifies as a legitimate state purpose because it requires such a light burden of proof.
As much as I agree with you on personal rights Katie, the law is on Mr. Kerr's side, and you should really stop laughing because laughing isn't gonna change the law.
posted by junta330 at 09:49 P.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
stukerr said: "In America, while your home may not be a castle, unless you're harming other people or animals, being a nusiance, or ignoring the zoaning regulations, or not paying your taxes, or playing loud music, or . . . you're pretty much left alone."
But that's not true from what all you've said. The smoking bans in public and public-private places are being expanded into people's cars, and from there it's a negligible distance to expand the bans into homes ON THE SAME LOGICAL BASIS.
That "logical basis" is the same flaw that has been used time and time again in America, that being:
Safety, security and health are enough justification for violating various civil rights, primarily the right to be left alone.
(Gun owners are probably shuddering right now, having seen this kind of crap for many years.)
The specific subset of this flawed reasoning for cars is that "you threaten your kids". Well, this leads directly into external banning of smoking in homes with children. Duh fucking DUH.
Smoking bans are implemented upon the flawed logic that health issues trump the civil liberty of smoking. Anti-smoking Nazis like Szollosi refuse to admit that (which I know directly since I've debated him directly on such a topic in his blog). So how do YOU feel about it, Stukerr?
Liberty is dangerous, but it is a necessary condition for the American Republic. The dangers of liberty can't be fought with bans and force. Such dangers can only be handled with education and persuasion. This means in DIRECT TERMS that the full extent of anti-smoking behavior is:
· refusal to smoke yourself
· banning smoking in your own home
· banning smoking in a public-private place like your own bar (i.e. you OWN it -- you're not just a patron or employee)
· publishing and bannering of ads and anti-smoking information
And that's IT, jack.
FURTHERMORE, attempts to ban smoking in public-private places like bars are easily countered by making said bars into private clubs with highly liberal enrollment policies. I can shop at Sam's Club with equal ease of "enrolled participation". Literally, this can happen at the stroke of a pen. Hence, such bans should never have been enacted by thinking men.
stukerr said: "Just be careful though, cigarettes are the number one cause of fire deaths."
Like Katie said, stupidity remains the Number One reason for home fires, as it is for most accidents. I've been in a home fire from someone leaving a candle lit in their room while they went to sleep. Using cigarettes near combustible materials like bedding is just a matter of stupidity. Ban THAT all you like; you won't make a dent in the number of fires caused by such.
P.S. One more mention of "tobacco is an addictive drug" and we'll have to toss you into the library's Prohibition History section for a little educational process. Illegalizing social substances has never worked, isn't working, and it takes little imagination to see that it won't work in the future. Switzerland at least treats addicts as having a medical problem, not a legal problem, which makes it hand-over-fist a more advanced society than the USA. The War on Drugs is the modern Prohibition event, and it's long proven itself equally disasterous to health, the economy and lovely Lady Liberty herself. TIME TO WAKE UP, STUKERR.
posted by GuestZero at 10:45 P.M. EST on Fri May 19, 2006 #
You will all notice that not one Nazi on the thread ever responded to my suggestion/question-namely-how about businesses that hire only smokers and cater only to smokers? Nope, and they never will answer-because their goal is to take smokers completely out of aociety by demonization and denormanalization-period.
posted by Darkseid at 06:58 A.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 07:11 A.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
Good post GZ, but don't give the pricks any credit for their private club exemption.
A bar like mine cannot become an exempted private club as defined by the law Stukerr and his groups are trying to get passed. In order to qualify for the private club exemption, my 18 year-old business would need to re-create iteself to (among other things):
1. Have no employees, only volunteers.
2. Be organized as a 501(c)3, non-profit institution.
3. Possess a D4 liquor ticket that is available to charities only.
No business can convert to a private club under these terms. Why wasn't it enough to just make me have a membership list and not to allow non-members entry? Obvious answer: because that would be a compromise and they don't do that; they ban smoking.
Worst part is that Kerr knows it's impossible for a business to satisfy those requirements. The exemption was written so my complaints could be dismissed with him saying "well then become a private club".
Those not familiar with the requirements of Kerr's law think it's possible to become a private club. In reality it isn't possible.
How about a comment on that Stu? In fact, why don't you post the text of your law here for folks to read and decide for themselves?
posted by jimavolt at 07:19 A.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
I'm still smiling this morning. You know this is the same type of effort like those my folks and their folks faced. The founding fathers were staring down this same barrel in 1776 following the Intolerable Acts. This is why we had a declaration that we would be independent and we now have the documents and freedoms that we do to protect us from those types of people. And today we are having almost identical dialogues with the same tired authoritarians challenging the rights of others.
Because they believe that only THEY matter. They believe that freedom is only for them and no one else has any rights.
Want to know why a segment of the populace thinks like this? And what's actually occurring mentally? Go here for a good brief analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
It's no wonder that the term Nazi pops into mainstream minds when they see this behavior. The event of the Holocaust boggled the minds of the civilized world. Curious to understand how humans could have so little regard for other human's rights - this is when the Authoritarian Personality Dysfunction was finally able to be defined.
An example - I didn't read junta's post but I can predict from past postings that he/she made a post to the effect that I have no rights at the home I own.
And truly - that's probably what this person believes at their core. If you read the Wiki entry you can get a handle on how this mindset occurs. I don't reason with them because you cannot have a reasonable dialogue with an unreasonable person.
But I can clearly and loudly say if one was to show up at my house and try strong arming me - as soon as I got done laughing they'd have an official problem on their hands.
posted by katie82640 at 10:17 A.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
"The Smoke Free Workplace Act" may be read at the SmokeFreeOhio website. Just click on "About" to read both the proposed law under "Our Law" and under "Learn More" our fact sheets.
Another excellent website is TobaccoScam. It was founded by Toledo's own Whitmer grad, Stan Glantz.
Just a reminder Katie, each year tobacco use is now responsible for a worldwide holocaust. It took the real Nazis 12 years to kill that many folks.
posted by stukerr at 11:05 A.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
I think you are in a position to make that statement stukerr.
Have a nice day...
posted by katie82640 at 11:20 A.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
Dear Jim,
Please read two of the sections in the Ohio Revised Code under Chapter 4101 entitled "Safety in the Workplace".
ORC 4101.12 is entitled "Duty of Employer to protect employees and frequenters".
ORC 4101.13 is entitled "Duty of Employer to
furnish safe place of employment"
Once the dangers of exposure to tobacco smoke became known and once ventilation systems were proven ineffective, keeping tobacco smoke outside made the only sense for all businesses.
posted by stukerr at 12:20 P.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
Stu,
Please advise if you think it's possible for any current enterprise to qualify for the exemption in the law you are promoting and still provide income to it's staff and owners.
As you avoid dealing with these important questions, you seem incapable of addressing the concerns of others, unless of course they are in complete support of the perspective you are paid to present.
posted by jimavolt at 12:25 P.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
Stu,
Sorry for the foggy question above. Of course I was asking if you think it's possible for an enterprise like mine to become a private club and qualify for the exemption in your law while still providing income to it's staff and owners.
Whether you like it or not, many people still choose to smoke. I may even start again, just because you disapprove.
posted by jimavolt at 01:04 P.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
Hey gusy..dont belive the hype of the antis. They drive cars that pollute the air with their windows rolled up. Its funny How they can fill the outside air with smog but complain about smoking. Many of these folk want you to belive their hype but cant practice what they preach. Today in Columbus..Long Street Live..Closed, Club Seven..Closed.. These are major clubs that cant keep it going. With the bars and nighclubs so empty the bars are all on the brink of bankrupcy. Whats funny is that most of these NON SMOKERS dont go out and support. THere is even talk that MADD is also involved in this effort because it keeps people from going to the bars. Although I am not really sure thats just talk. Going out here is usually just Saturdays now because everything is pretty dead until then. Whats even funnier is that its warm outside and the bars are still pretty dad..I dont get that one. Lets put this on the ballot and let the state decide. There is no evidence that is credible that supports their case. Its all hearsay. Did you watch the 20/20...myths show about second hand smoke. Even the guy that started the movement admits..its gone way to far without credible evidence. They are using FEAR tactics to get these bans passed.
posted by hgomez03 at 07:46 P.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
well it's important to keep the basics straight. Some would like you to believe that property (business and home) owners don't have any rights because they aren't a 'protected' class. Which is pure bunk. It would make sense if one was suing for discriminatory cause but that's not really the case here. Another unsuccessful deflection. Such a tired old tactic.
The simple bottom line question is does one group of people have the right to decide what another group of people do and do not have a right to do? It's a very simple matter - and I today am making my own choices unhindered.
Now if I owned a business and I was experiencing controls to the degree that my business was fleeing - I'd move it to another jurisdiction. Which is of course only going exacerbate the economic issues that Toledo businesses are already dealing with.
But the people you are dealing with just simply do not care. They only care that they achieve the ability to dictate what freedoms they will and will not allow others to have.
I'm back to refencing my neighbor. An 81 year old man who fought in two wars. He says while he doesn't smoke - it wouldn't ever cross his mind that he's such an elevated and important being that he should dictate that choice to others. "After all - we went to war to protect our freedom" That's his answer.
Happy Veterans' Day. While I think there's something mentally wrong with these people and I disagree with what they have to say - I thank God we live in a country where people can still be as ignorant and full of themselves as those are. :-) That's freedom.
posted by katie82640 at 07:57 P.M. EST on Sat May 20, 2006 #
Theater Objects To Smell Of Popcorn
CBS2CHICAGO ^ | 17 May 2006 | CBS2CHICAGO
(CBS) CHICAGO The smell of popcorn may bring a whiff of excitement to many people, but not everyone appreciates it.
That could keep Garrett’s Popcorn from opening at a new location downtown.
Published reports say the owners of the Oriental Theatre Building at 24 W. Randolph St., has filed a lawsuit to block the popcorn maker from opening in the building, which houses the Ford Center for the Performing Arts.
The theater planned to sublease a storefront to Garrett’s, but the owners of the building fear the smell of popcorn will invade other offices and cause people to cancel their leases.
They want a judge to stop the store from opening, or else install a ventilation system.
The Oriental Theatre opened in 1926 as a cinema, and has housed the Ford Center since 1998.
Garrett’s Popcorn is a local chain which already operates three stores downtown and one on the Magnificent Mile.
posted by Darkseid at 03:45 A.M. EST on Sun May 21, 2006 #
Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06
Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.
Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.
Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.
The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.
For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.
In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."
Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.
A note of disclosure: Our organization has no ties to the tobacco industry nor do we speak on the behalf of the hospitality industry.
Audrey Silk
FOUNDER
NYC CITIZENS LOBBYING
AGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENT
BROOKLYN
posted by Darkseid at 05:19 A.M. EST on Sun May 21, 2006 #
Excellent, Dark! Excellent! Thanks.
Now, to make this absurd picture a little more irritating....
There are many smells I don't like - and they will trigger my asthma just like being hit on the head with a brick! How about...
perfumes/colognes - you know, the ones women bathe in in hopes of attracting a man
after shave/cologne - the ones men bathe in in hopes of attracting women
old fryer grease in restaurants - it permeates the air, clothes, hair...
some candles - the ones with 90% fragrance oil that smell like burning tires on a bed of magnolias!
diesel fumes - now that's a problem!
exhaust fumes from the '88 Escort - looks like a mosquito fogger going down the road...
the dead fish laying on the lake edge...
some of those public restrooms....
What's my point? ALL are offensive to ME. MY choice? Leave the area where the odor is offensive. It's simple really. The world does not revolve around me. Nor should my world revolve around the zealots.
Now the argument would be that these are not life-threatening issues. I beg to differ. Folks with asthma and other chronic respiratory disorders may well be effected by these odors. Effected to the point of requiring hospitalization or emergency treatment. If you have never experienced an asthma attack or witnessed the immediate panic on the face of a emphysemic patient when they can't breathe, then you should. Just to acquaint yourself with the results of those situations. They usually require a hospital visit when severe, that visit costs money, sometimes taxpayer money due to high insurance costs....It's a round robin. It's not ALL due to smoking or second hand smoke. In fact, probably very little, if any, of it is due to smoke/second hand smoke.
These zealots are stating that they want to protect me. If you want to protect me then concentrate on corporate polluters, concentrate on drug pushers, concentrate on muggers, car jackers, murderers, rapists, etc. I'll feel a lot safer if those folks are off the streets. Then I wouldn't have any reservations about going out and having a good time - smoking or not!
Bottom line - if I own a business (any kind of business) and I wish to allow smoking, then so be it. As for the employees? When they hire on they know that smoking is permitted and that there will be exposure. If they have issues with that then they should choose employment elsewhere. There are lots of folks that will work and won't take offense with it. We, as Americans, should not have our liberties dictated to us by a group that manipulates public response by using children and the elderly to further their cause. I see this as they don't have a REAL case so they will appeal to the 'softer' side of Americans.
I'm done rambling - for now.
posted by DoknowDocare at 08:06 A.M. EST on Sun May 21, 2006 #
doknow - I'll bet that many of the items you mention are also dangerous inhalants. :-) I also notice that some people don't bath regularly - maybe we should start taking signatures?
Not too much cologne - mandatory bath days and outlaw deep fryers and semi's.
posted by katie82640 at 12:17 P.M. EST on Sun May 21, 2006 #
The unfortunate thing stukerr and his kind are fighting for is the unofficial illegalization of a legal vice, that being the smoking of tobacco. We gun owners recognize all these tactics since we've been subject to the same unofficial illegalizations of our legal but dangerous tools.
The point cannot be sensibly made that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Even if it is, it's still a legal emission from smokers. Liberty is dangerous and no amount of hand-waving gets around the hard injustice of bans.
Anyone who harps on safety and security is largely trying to oppress you. Remember that. The individual secures himself, also in accordance to his own tolerance for levels of danger.
posted by GuestZero at 01:59 A.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
Largely my point is this:
As a society/culture we have managed to survive GENERATIONS of smokers/drinkers/gun owners, etc. WITHOUT the involvement of 'do gooders' and Big Brother.
I am 100% AGAINST a select group of folks that want to tell me how to live my life, spend my money, act, walk, talk, etc. I am 100% AGAINST gun control, too! On that topic I can only say that gun control legislation only effects law abiding citizens. A criminal will ALWAYS have access to a weapon, even if he/she has to break into your home to get it!
I am an adult. I make conscious decisions with the knowledge that if I make the wrong decision I will have to face the consequences. I don't need Stu Kerr or his band of merry misfits legislating my actions. It's called personal responsibilty.
As for the 'safe' workplace? If I apply for a job in a business that allows smoking, then I am the one responsible for making the decision whether or not I want to work in that environment. If I choose to take the job, then so be it. If I feel it's going to be a detriment to me, then I decline the job and move on to the next application. It's really not hard. It's common sense.
I hope the anti-smoking gestapo is defeated with gusto. I PRAY (yep - PRAY, another one of those liberties that is up for personal inerpretation and public legislation!) that this country will wake up and realize that we are headed for a system that will allow a FEW to legislate the actions of MANY.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:32 A.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
The funny thing is that something like this may well get passed. It's been happening over and over with gun control - till you get to the Supreme Court and they say 'whu....?' Ummm...no you can't rewrite the Constitution but -hey! Nice try.
Same thing here....
posted by katie82640 at 10:06 A.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
The only direction "gun control" SHOULD HAVE gone into was the direction of education. Bans, background checks, waiting periods and registrations don't educate the gun buyer about the safe handling of weaponry. The only gun control that makes sense under the clear allowances of the 2nd Amendment is attempting to ensure the gun is controlled by educated hands. So, gun ownership should have been welded to gun education. We did it for cars, so what's the reluctance?
(My personal theory is that the culture of gun grabbers can't allow gun education to be part of the process since that will imply guns are valid in the first place. For example, we used to have rifle teams and shooting clubs in our high schools. Just imagine the Liberal squawking that would take place if you tried to start such clubs today.)
The current concealed-carry law in Ohio makes some provision for education, by mandating attending some hours of a gun safety course. Finally, Ohio starts to make sense.
Smoking itself is not so fortunate. We've been subjected to safety education about smoking for many, many years, and anyone who gets a pack of cigarettes can find a dire warning label clearly applied to the package. What the Anti-Smoking Nazis can't stand is that people are still smoking despite this deep education campaign. The smokers are a minority but for some reason that still irks them. So, they don't respect education, public choice and the presence of minorities ... which is why we call 'em "Anti-Smoking Nazis".
posted by GuestZero at 11:04 A.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
Why are words like "gestapo" and "anti-smoking nazis" being flung about?
Now if you read Robert N. Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer (1999, Princeton University Press)you'd learn that because of an aging population, a world famous chemical industry and a rising death rate, apolitical German scientists were very mucn concerned with occupational disease causation and prevention.
My main point now is that in any society with rights come responsibilities. Just ask the folks driving those cars with the yellow plates.
posted by stukerr at 01:06 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
My main point now is that in any society with rights come responsibilities
How does that give you the RIGHT to legislate what other people can and cannot do? Tell me how that is ok, how about if i tell you i dont like your cologne and im alergic to it and i want it law that says you cannot wear it in public?
Its not the health issue of smoking that is the issue here. EVERYONE knows smoking is bad for you. the whole point to this is that people are tired of other people trying to say what they can and cannot do. ITS THAT SIMPLE, you are simply trying to complicate it with the health issues. Well you know what, candy bars are fateing and arent good for you either! are you going to ban that too. GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!!!
posted by tm at 01:21 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
"Why are words like "gestapo" and "anti-smoking nazis" being flung about?" stukerr
Asked and answered above. It's a psychological phenomena that allows people to seek control and unlimited access for abuse of others. I repost that info for you here. The mental association between behavior such as yours and the Nazi's is so prevalent because the Nazi's were also authoritarian personalities.
Repost: "....And today we are having almost identical dialogues with the same tired authoritarians challenging the rights of others.
Because they believe that only THEY matter. They believe that freedom is only for them and no one else has any rights.
Want to know why a segment of the populace thinks like this? And what's actually occurring mentally? Go here for a good brief analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality "
posted by katie82640 at 01:34 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
And by now, everyone should know that tobacco smoke is bad for nonsmokers too.
We live in a democracy. We are asking the people of Ohio to listen to our position and agree or disagree. They will make the decision based on the facts.
Clearly, those that refuse to accept the obvious often seek to change the subject.
That might have worked in 1954 when the tobacco industry issued "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers".
Now asking those who continue to smoke to simply step outside makes a lot of sense.
posted by stukerr at 02:11 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
And by now, everyone should know that tobacco smoke is bad for nonsmokers too.
DUH...
Now asking those who continue to smoke to simply step outside makes a lot of sense
now asking those who don't like to be around smoke to go somewhere else.
posted by tm at 02:34 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
We already had a largely workable and mostly mutually respectful solution which allowed businesses to accomodate both those who wished to smoke to do so and those who did not wish to smoke had a section also.
But was that good enough? Oh nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooo and yes I'm throwing alot of sarcasm on the ohhhhhhhh no - because it was not acceptable. It couldn't be decided by the community and the business owners - no it had to be LEGISLATED. Control = authoritarianism. And that's not a change of topic - that is the topic.
posted by katie82640 at 03:31 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
You don't want to accomodate both sides. I can still not find a bowling alley or bingo place that has a non-smoking section. Therefore I will be voting for a total ban.
posted by deere1 at 06:22 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
oh well that makes perfect sense. Thanks for explaining it to me deere.
posted by katie82640 at 07:09 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
Katie
As long as smoking was permitted within any enclosed structure we never had a "largely workable and mutually respectful solution"
Where is the "respect" of providing a hazardous environment for your staff and patrons?
The idea of "accomodation" was a public relations campaign by the tobacco industry
to try to con those who weren't paying attention.
posted by stukerr at 07:12 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
"The idea of "accomodation" was a public relations campaign by the tobacco industry
to try to con those who weren't paying attention.
posted by stukerr at 08:12 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 "
And you are currently doing - ?
posted by katie82640 at 08:53 P.M. EST on Mon May 22, 2006 #
Blah blah blah SHS blah blah blah SHS.
SHS blah blah blah SHS blah blah blah.
John Britton, chairman of the tobacco advisory group at the Royal College of Physicians, said that even though the levels of carcinogens detected in exposed infants were low, they were still a concern.
"There are no safe levels for carcinogens - the greater your exposure, the higher your risk of developing cancer. So someone born into a home where people smoke is going to have a higher risk of developing all the cancers smokers are at risk from," he said. "Most passive smoking happens in the home and we need ways of addressing that, and the best way is to strongly encourage people to quit."
Dear Dr. Britton,
I read in terrifying horror what you said about there are no safe levels for carcinogens. I'm scared to death now. Could you help me protect myself? If you could answer a few questions for me about your daily regimen I'd appreciate it.
1. Do you put on sunscreen before you walk to your car to go to/from work?
2. Do you wear some sort of breathing device while in traffic? (I'm thinking maybe something like a WWI gas mask?)
3. Oh geez. Could you just tell me how to avoid all these things? I don't even know what most of them are. Thank you.
A-alpha-C (2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole)
Acetaldehyde
Acetamide
Acetochlor
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acifluorfen
Acridine
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Actinomycin D
Adriamycin (Doxorubicin hydrochloride)
AF-2;[2-(2-furyl)-3-(5-nitro-2-furyl)]acrylamide
Aflatoxins
Agaritine
Alachlor
Aldrin
Allyl chloride
Allyl glycidyl ether
Allyl isothiocyanate
Allyl isovalerate
Aluminium products
2-Aminoanthraquinone
p-Aminoazobenzene
o-Aminoazotoluene [solvent yellow 3]
4-Aminobiphenyl (4-aminodiphenyl)
3-Amino-9-ethylcarbazole hydrochloride
1-Amino-2-methylanthraquinone
Amitrole
Ammonium dichromate
Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin
Androgenic (anabolic) steroids
Aniline
ortho-Anisidine
ortho-Anisidine hydrochloride
para-anisidine
anthanthrene
Antimony oxide (antimony trioxide)
Aramite
Arsenic (inorganic arsenic compounds)
Asbestos
Auramine
Azaserine
Azathioprine
Azacitidine
Azobenzene
Azathioprine
B
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine [and its salts]
Benzidine-based dyes
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzofuran
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl violet 4B
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-2- naphthylamine (Chlornapazine)
Bischloroethyl nitrosourea (BCNU) (Carmustine)
Bis(chloromethyl)ether and technical-grade chloromethyl methyl ether
Bitumens, extracts of steam-refined and air refined
Bleomycins
Bracken fern
Bromodichloromethane
2-bromoethyl ether
Bromoform
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Butanediol dimethanesulfonate (Busulfan, myleran)
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
t-butyl methyl ether
beta-Butyrolactone
C
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
Caffeic acid
Captafol
Captan
Carbazole
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon-black extracts
Carrageenan, degraded
Ceramic fibers (airborne particles of respirable size)
Chlorambucil
Chloramphenicol
chlorbenzilat
Chlordane
Chlordecone (Kepone)
Chlordimeform
Chlorendic acid
Chlorinated Parrafins
alpha-Chlorinated toluenes
p-Chloroaniline
Chlormadinone aceate
Chlornaphazine[n,n-bis(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine]
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU)
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
3-Chloro-2-methylpropene
4-Chloro-ortho-phenylenediamine
p-Chloro-o-toluidine
Chlorophenols
Chlorophenoxy herbicides
Cloroprene
Chlorothalonil
Chlorozotocin
Chromium
Chromium (hexavalent compounds)
Chrysene
C.I. Acid Red 114
C.I. Basic Red 9 monohydrochloride
Ciclosporin (Cyclosporin A; Cyclosporine)
Cinnamyl anthranilate
Cisplatin
Citrus Red No. 2
Clofibrate
Coal gasification products
Coal-tars and pitches
Cobalt metal powder
Cobalt [II] oxide
Conjugated estrogens
Copper acetoarsenite
Creosotes
Crystal violet
para-Cresidine
Cupferron
Cycasin
Cyclamates
1,4-cyclohexadiene
Cyclophosphamide (anhydrous)
Cyclophosphamide (hydrated)
D
D&C Orange No. 17
D&C Red No. 8
D&C Red No. 9
D&C Red No. 19
Dacarbazine
Daminozide
Dantron (Chrysazin; 1,8-Dihydroxyanthraquinone)
dapsone
Daunomycin
DCM
DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
DDVP (Dichlorvos)
Decabromodiphenyl ether
N,N'-Diacetylbenzidine
2,4-Diaminoanisole
2,4-Diaminoanisole sulfate
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl ether (4,4'-Oxydianiline)
2,4-Diaminotoluene
Diaminotoluene (mixed)
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-Dibromoethane
2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Dienestrol
Diepoxybutane
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
Diethyl sulfate
DES, Diethylstilbestrol
Diglycidyl resorcinol ether (DGRE)
Dihydrosafrole
Diisopropyl sulfate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine (ortho-Dianisidine)
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine dihydrochloride (ortho-dianisidine dihydrochloride)
para-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
trans-2-[(Dimethylamino)methylimino]-5-[2-(5-nitro-2-furyl)vinyl]-1,3,4- oxadiazole
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine (ortho-Tolidine)
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine dihydrochloride
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethyl sulfate
Dimethylvinyl Chloride
2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene
1,6-Dinitropyrene
1,8-Dinitropyrene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,4-Dioxane
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (hydrazobenzene)
Diphenylhydantoin (Phenytoin)
Diphenylhydantoin (Phenytoin), sodium salt
Direct Black 38
Direct Blue 6
Direct Brown 95
Disperse Blue 1
E
Epichlorohydrin
Erionite
Estradiol 17B
Estrogens (not conjugated)
Estradiol-17
Estrone
Ethinylestradiol
Mestranol
Estrone
Ethinylestradiol
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
N-Ethyl-N-nitrosourea
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyleneimine
F
Folpet
Formaldehyde (gas or aqueous solution)
2-(2-Formylhydrazino)-4-(5-nitro-2-furyl) thiazole
Furan
Furazolidone
Furmecyclox
Fusarin C
G
Glasswool fibers (airborne particles of respirable size)
Glu-P-1 (2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2- a:3', 2'-d]imidazole)
Glu-P-2 (2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole)
Glycidaldehyde
Glycidol
Griseofulvin
Gyromitrin (Acetaldehyde methylformylhydrazone)
H
HC Blue 1
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Hydrazine
Hydrazine dihydrobromide
Hydrazine sulfate
Hydroquinone
Hydroxybutyric acid lactone
I
Indeno [1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Indium trichloride
IQ (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
Iron dextran complex
Isosafrole
K
Kepone (Chlordecone)
L
Lactofen
Lasiocarpine
Lead
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lindane and other hexachlorocyclohexane isomers
M
Mancozeb
Maneb
Me-A-alpha-C (2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2, 3-b]indole)
Medroxyprogesterone acetate
MeIQ(2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
MeIQx(2-Amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline)
Melphalan
Merphalan
Mestranol
2-Methylaziridine (Propyleneimine)
Methylazoxymethanol
Methylazoxymethanol acetate
3-Methylcholanthrene
5-Methylchrysene
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA)
4,4'-Methylene bis(N,N-dimethyl)benzenamine
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-methylaniline)
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
4,4'-Methylenedianiline dihydrochloride
Methylhydrazine and its salts
Methyl chloromethyl ether
Methyl-CCNU
Methyl iodide
Methyl methanesulfonate
2-Methyl-1-nitroanthraquinone
N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG)
N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea
N-Methylolacrylamide
Methylthiouracil
Metiram
Metronidazole
Michler's ketone
Mineral Oils, untreated and mildly treated
Mirex
Mitomycin C
MOPP
Monocrotaline
5-(Morpholinomethyl)-3-[(5-nitro-fufurylidene)-amino]-2-oxazolidinone
Mustard gas
N
Nafenopin
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
3-Naphthylamine
Nickel and certain nickel compounds
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel subsulfide
Niridazole
Nitrilotriacetic acid
Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt monohydrate
5-Nitroacenaphthene
5-Nitro-o-anisidine
o-Nitroanisole
4-Nitrobiphenyl
6-Nitrochrysene
Nitrofen
2-Nitrofluorene
Nitrofurazone
1-[(5-Nitrofurfurylidene)amino]-2-imidazollidinone
1-[(5-Nitrofurfurylidene)-N-[4-(5-Nitro-2-furyl)-2 thiazolyl]acetamide
Nitrogen mustard (Mechlorethamine)
Nitrogen mustard hydrochloride (Mechlorethamine hydrochloride)
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide hydrochloride
2-Nitropropane
4-Nitropyrene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
p-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
3-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)propionitrile
4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitrososarcosine
Norethisterone (Norethindrone)
O
Ochratoxin A
Oestrogen, nonstreoidal
Oestrogen, steroidal
Oil Orange SS
4,4'-Oxydianiline
Oxadiazon
Oxymetholone
Oxazepam
P
Panfuran S
Pentachlorophenol
Perylene
Phenacetin
Phenazopyridine hydrochloride
Phenesterin
Phenobarbital
Phenolphthalein
Phenoxybenzamine
Phenoxybenzamine hydrochloride
Phenyl glycidyl ether
Phenylhydrazine and its salts
o-Phenylphenate, sodium
2-phenylphenol
Phenytoin
PhiP(2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine)
Polybrominated biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Polygeenan
Ponceau MX
Ponceau 3R
Potassium bromate
Potassium dichromate
Procarbazine
Procarbazine hydrochloride
Procymidone
Progesterone
Progestins
1,3-Propane sultone
Progargite
beta-Propiolactone
Propylene oxide
Propylthiouracil
Pyridinium chlorochromate
R
Radionuclides
Radon
Reserpine
Residual (heavy) fuel oils
Rhodamine 101
S
Saccharin
Saccharin, sodium
Safrole
Selenium sulfide
Shale-oils
Silica, crystalline (airborne particles of respirable size)
Sodium chromate tetrahydrate
Sodium dichromate
Sodium hexafluoroarsenate(V)
Sodium ortho-phenylphenate
Sterigmatocystin
Streptozotocin
Strontium chromate
Styrene
Styrene oxide
Sulfallate
Sulfur trioxide
Sulphur trioxide N,N-dimethylformamide complex
T
Talc containing asbestiform fibers
Terrazole
Testosterone and its esters
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
p-a,a,a-Tetrachlorotoluene
3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine
Tetranitromethane
Thioacetamide
4,4'-Thiodianiline
Thiourea
Thorium dioxide
Tobacco, oral use of smokeless products
Toluene diisocyanate
p-toluenesulphonic acid
ortho-Toluidine
ortho-Toluidine hydrochloride
para-Toluidine
Toxaphene
Treosulfan (Tresoluphan)
Trichlormethine (Trimustine hydrochloride)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Triphenyltin hydroxide
Trichloroethylene
Tris(aziridinyl)-para-benzoquinone (Triaziquone)
Tris(1-aziridinyl)phosphine sulfide (Thiotepa)
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
TRIZMA base
Trp-P-1 (Tryptophan-P-1) (3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole)
Trp-P-2 (Tryptophan-P-2) (3-Amino-1-methyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole)
Trypan blue
U
Uracil mustard
Urethane (Ethyl carbamate)
V
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene diepoxide (Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide)
n-vinyl pyrollidone
Vinyl pivalate
Vinyl trichloride (1,1,2-Trichloroethane)
X
2,6-Xylidine (2,6-Dimethylaniline)
Z
Zineb
posted by Darkseid at 01:16 A.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Dark - some days I just adore you!
Ever think about taking up professional boxing? :)
posted by DoknowDocare at 06:50 A.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
:-)
posted by katie82640 at 11:46 A.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Anti-smoking spokeswoman Heather Crowe succumbs to lung cancer
Source: Canadian Press, 2006-05-22
Author: Canadian Press
Intro:
Heather Crowe, known as the face of Canada's anti-smoking movement, has succumbed to lung cancer in Ottawa at the age of 61.
The long-time waitress, who never smoked, is widely known for television ads in which she describes how she contracted cancer from second-hand smoke at the restaurant where she worked for 40 years. She was diagnosed in 2002, fighting the cancer with chemotherapy, radiation and steroids before it went into remission. However, she learned last August that the cancer had spread and she was losing her battle with the disease.
Crowe's passing comes just one week before the Smoke Free Ontario Act comes into effect in Ontario. . . .
Jim Watson, the Liberal MPP for Ottawa-West-Nepean, was a frequent customer at the restaurant where Crowe worked and called her the "matriarch of the anti-smoking movement."
He said on Monday that Crowe told him she really wanted to live to see the anti-smoking legislation come into effect.
"It's very sad that she's not going to be here to see it, but she should be very happy that because of her influence, Ontarians will be able to breathe easier as a result of the legislation on May 31," said Watson. . . .
Crowe was the first person to win a claim with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board for full compensation because her cancer was caused by occupational exposure to cigarette smoke.
"'If I'd lost my hand at work they'd have paid me," she once said of the compensation award. "So if they're going to take chunks out of my lungs, why wouldn't I be entitled (to benefits)?"
posted by stukerr at 02:06 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Stukerr says: We live in a democracy. We are asking the people of Ohio to listen to our position and agree or disagree. They will make the decision based on the facts.
Thanks for the civics lesson. I'm aware of the shady tactics the out-of-state folks you paid to collect signatures used. They'd go up to mothers at grocery stores and ask "Do you want your children exposed to toxic chemicals?" You call that a presentation of facts? They're scare tactics through and through and that're based on junk science.
You are asking people to vote on my rights as a business owner and the rightsof a minority to enjoy a legal product. Your well funded and hard to stop, but I pray our grass-roots movement of sensible people beat you at the poles.
Look back in this very thread, Deere1 used to suffer from allergies - now he's a victim of bowling centers and bingo halls. Your movement has him so upset that he is willing to risk the futures of hundreds of viable businesses, livelihood of owners, employees and dependants. You've turned this allergy suffer into a victim of businesses that are only catering to their customers. Shame on you.
posted by jimavolt at 02:14 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Jim, i thought the bowling centers in toledo did ban smoke. (forgive me if its a stupid question) but i remember reading an article about how the east side bowling alley lost a lot of its business to the oregon/rossford bowling alleys. or did this get repealed or did they get an exemption or is it smoke free?
posted by tm at 02:21 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Jim
I continue to be amazed at the way a minority of the restaurants (with and without liquor permits) in Toledo keep looking through the wrong end of their telescopes and cry the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
1). Washington Post, 030906, "Smoking in U.S.
Declines Sharply"
Cigarette Sales At a 54-Year Low
2). CDC's BRFSS 2005 Smokin Prevalence (Toledo)
% of population that smoke everyday 18.0%
former smokers 19.0%
never smokers 57.7%
3). "Smoke-free Ordinances Increase Restaurant Profit and Value" (Contemporary Economic Policy, 2004)
The "Taverns for Tots" mindset seems to be let's waste money on lawsuits, fight for the same shrinking pool and alienate
the majority of folks who could grow our business.
You have been listening to the wrong people for too long.
posted by stukerr at 04:03 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Stu Kerr--- You spout lies and half truths. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jimavolt --- Thanks for fighting for freedom of choice, I'm behind you 110%!!!!!!!
posted by bogeylola at 04:05 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
TM, right you are, ALL THE TOLEDO BOWLING CENTERS lost a lot of money business when Toledo passed the smoking ban. We were able to amend the ban to exempt the adult destination businesses that were crushed by the original law; taverns, nightclubs, bowling centers and bingo halls. Friends in the bowling centers tell me that some, but not all of the business they once had has returned.
We, the people changed the law. We gathered enough signatures and got the issue on the November ballot adn we actually won. The Blade lost, Stu Kerr and his groups spend tens of thousands of dollars and lost - (how much did you guys spend Stu?) and JFo lost the next election.
17 Toledo businesses went under while Stu's law was imposed on Toledo. Toledo lost millions to the suburbs - Stu didn't care then and he doesn't care now. I pray they lose again.
posted by jimavolt at 04:08 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Stu - polls have no credibility with the American public any longer. Case in point Zogby (formerly one of, if not THE, primary credible resource for poll information in America) - who called the 2000 election for Gore and the 2004 election for Kerry.
How did exit polls start avalanche of inaccuracy? (Zogby used exit polls to pick Kerry Tuesday)
Newhouse News Service and Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 11/4/04
Posted on 11/04/2004 2:28:54 PM PST by Cableguy
It was America's worst-kept secret. The information even was powerful enough to move financial markets.
And, as it turns out, it wasn't true.
John Kerry was not beating President Bush in Ohio and Florida and on the cusp of becoming the new leader of the free world — despite what confidential exit-poll results widely distributed on the Internet on Tuesday seemed to indicate.
In the 2000 election, scoop-hungry TV networks used exit polls to call the key state of Florida for eventual loser Al Gore.
This year, it was the bloggers' turn to be led astray. A few influential Web sites got hold of poll results showing Kerry with a small lead in key battleground states, word spread at hyper-speed, and soon political insiders were convinced that Kerry was going to be the president-elect. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270860/posts
You might need to try formulation a simple logical argument.
posted by katie82640 at 04:40 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
formulation OF a simple logical argument.
I'm considering a typing class......
posted by katie82640 at 04:41 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Jim
I don't know why you folks keep making up these shameful stories. Of course, maybe you just repeat someone else's propaganda.
I already did research with the Bowling Propriators Association. And what your proclaming just isn't so.
Probably because of the loss of 14,500 manufacturing jobs in Toledo over the prior 5 years, the bowlers simply disappeared. They didn't go anywhere. Not to Michigan and not to the surrounding suburbs. I also learned why two of the bowling centers closed.
I would think that its also hard to commit to 30 plus weeks if you now have to work multiple jobs and also want to spend time with your family.
As for the often repeated 17 busineses, I tracked the data on licensed businesses within the city of Toledo from 1999 to the present.
Surprise, the hospitality industry always comes and goes and changes names and owners.
Clearing the clean indoor air ordinance was not a factor.
Did you ever think that the long standing trend of people and their money moving to the suburbs just might have some effect on Toledo business?
For some folks change is not easy, but change will happen none the less. Smart folks prepare.
posted by stukerr at 06:45 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Stu,
You've been telling lies for so long, you don't know the truth anymore.
Talk to business owners. Larry Ducat at Miracle, Tom Manton from Westland, Sharon Kuhnle at Twin Oakes, Sherry from Southwyck. They'll tell you what happened. The law went into effect and reveues dropped 25% overnight.
Your tainted research doesn't mean shit to me or any other person with enough sense to see through your lies.
Go ahead - call those folks - - see how great your smoke free world was for their businesses. Then publish those results. I dare you.
posted by jimavolt at 07:52 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Jim - thanks for grabbing that bull by the horns. Mr. Kerr is delusional at this point.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:07 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Stu - you have a point here "Did you ever think that the long standing trend of people and their money moving to the suburbs just might have some effect on Toledo business? "
We do have an exodus of families leaving Toledo. It's not an unprecedented rate - but its close.
However - it is not acceptable for you to attempt to legitimate an attempt to remove personal liberties from others simply because you do not approve of what people do with them.
This is America. We have fought wars - the first was with a poorly formed militia standing against the wealthiest and best armed military force in the world.
If you think that all of these people have sacrificed, fought wars and buried their dead so that you and your ilk could become dictators at this late date - you are just simply wrong.
Those people’s children and the children of those children are still here.
And that's why you are meeting resistance. And that's why, even though you may win some battles, you'll damn sure skippy lose this war.
It does not matter how pure your motivations may be - it is your goal that is rotten.
posted by katie82640 at 09:16 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Oh yeah - I forgot to tell you Stu. That war we fought primarily with pitchforks and wool wrapped around raw feet in the winter?
Yeah - um like - we won :-)
Bring it.
posted by katie82640 at 09:19 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 11:05 P.M. EST on Tue May 23, 2006 #
Stu Kerr references, as Gospel Truth, "Smoke-free Ordinances Increase Restaurant Profit and Value" (Contemporary Economic Policy, 2004).
The article he references was written by none other than militant smoke hater / lunatic Stanton Glantz.
How's that for presentation of the truth? Especially on this thread, after being accused of deceit and telling half-truths, he deceives and tells half-truths. You cite an article written by possibly the most biased author on the topic to support of a position, hoping no one would notice. That's just foolish.
Stu, there are still several questions waiting to be answered:
1. Do you still go into facilities that allow smoking? If yes, why?
2. How much did you and your allies spend to win the last election that you lost?
3. Have you contacted the owners of Toledo bowling centers yet so you can give a report of their profitability? I dared you to do that, remember . . . .
posted by jimavolt at 01:05 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
watching intently....(this kind of sounds like the old 'put up or shut up' where I come from)
posted by katie82640 at 01:49 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
stukerr said: "The "Taverns for Tots" mindset seems to be let's waste money on lawsuits, fight for the same shrinking pool and alienate the majority of folks who could grow our business."
Stu, listen to me VERY carefully:
Accomodating a minority is NOT alienating the majority.
If the majority are offended by the actions of the minority (note: these actions I speak of are ENTIRELY LEGAL), then they should recall that America is not a land of "majority rules". America is a land where a Constitution established a Republic, by which certain things cannot be done no matter what majority, supermajority or even a unanimity seek to do them. This rule of law is also based upon certain cultural assumptions, the primary one being that minorities have rights.
Smokers, being a minority indulging in a legal act, have the right to smoke. PERIOD.
Liberty is built on a foundation of tolerance. You are not tolerating smokers. Hence you are against a very fundamental form of social liberty.
The phrase "Nazi" therefore fits you quite well. Please stop ... before we shoot you, and people like you, who think that Fascism invoked through the ballot box is not worthy of self defense by a free people. Please stop before your blood waters the tree of Liberty ... not as a threat, but as a rational prediction of a likely outcome.
posted by GuestZero at 01:49 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
someone sent me the new bill of rights via email, very comical and I enjoyed it - but this has bearing on the situation at hand:
"ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone...not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be."
posted by katie82640 at 01:59 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
{katie look around in surprise}. You know I like it when gz goes after somebody else :-) Fickle ain't I
posted by katie82640 at 02:02 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
WOW! Katie! I like that!!! Will have to make a note.....
;)
posted by DoknowDocare at 03:12 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
world's a small place after all. :-)
posted by katie82640 at 03:22 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
Ive always liked the article Katie referred to. It's called the Bill of NO Rights...
Enjoy - http://www.keelynet.com/humor/norights.htm
posted by billy at 03:51 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
That's it Billy :-) Some people don't get it at all. They think that freedoms really are - only for them. And that there's no inconvenience associated with the HUGE freedoms that we enjoy. No effort to maintain them. They just are.
Bunk. It's hard work and it's never going to stop. But if groups like this begin to dictate controls on what business owners and home owners and people on public property are allowed to do - we'll lose those freedoms.
Take the 10 Commandments at the courthouse. Does this mean that everyone in the courthouse is a Christian? No - it's reflective of the history of law in the US and the 10 commandments played a large role in that history. People who are NOT Christians that I know have no argument with the principals of not stealing, not committing adultry etc. They think these are fine ideals to strive for. For them it is merely a monument of 10 basic principals people can aim for to live peacably together.
And these are historical monuments. But some have decided that a community that built the courthouse, wrote the laws, hired police and elected judges have no right to decide what to put on the lawn of the courthouse that they own.
This kind of thinking deserves a boot straight to the ass.
Ok - I gotta go dig my boots out.
Night :-)
posted by katie82640 at 06:55 P.M. EST on Wed May 24, 2006 #
Just a few last comments:
Jim,
I already read the two phoney surveys that were done by the opposition during the earlier effort.
Remember the good old days when the Toledo-Lucas Co BofH created a level playing field for all of Lucas Co on June 28, 2001?
You and I both know that after the ordinance was passed by city council (July 8, 2003)and signed by Mayor Ford two days later and had two effective dates. For those folks simply going smokefree the date was August 24th. For those that chose to build the smoking area that date was December 22nd.
I believe all the bowling center opted for the delay, so to say they lost 25% of their business overnight is a stretch. As I remember less than half actually built them.
Of course, when the nonsmokers showed up with their familes to bowl and found the same stinch and toxic clouds I'm sure they didn't stay. I still have my old ABC card and look forward to bowling in a league again next year.
This time around we will create the level playing field you and Arnie and Bill aksed for statewide.
Katie,
As a Viet Nam era vet, I disagree with your explanation as to why we fight wars.
I still remeber the three pack of cigarettes in each k-ration. I quit smoking while in the Army.
In fact the Army did a major study of their training facilities several years ago and learned that smokers have one and one half times the injury rates on nonsmokers. Those facilities are smokefree.
GuestZero,
Smokers are not a minority in the legal sense.
Liberty and addiction to not equate.
It's been fun.
posted by stukerr at 11:02 A.M. EST on Thu May 25, 2006 #
Katie,
As a Viet Nam era vet, I disagree with your explanation as to why we fight wars.
I still remeber the three pack of cigarettes in each k-ration. I quit smoking while in the Army. says Stukerr.
Well thank you for that observation. You think you were in the Army because of a smoking issue. Well...okey dokey.
Nobody I know went to war so you could decide what they were and were not allowed to do stateside, pal.
If this thread was a test of the community sentiment in response to your discussing the merits of YOUR controlling our freedoms - I think you should be able to realize that you failed.
My wish for you is that you could learn to be passionate about freedoms rather than expend your life energy trying to steal them.
Good bye - adding stukerr to the list. Guy makes me nuts. All nazi's make katie nuts :-)
posted by katie82640 at 11:45 A.M. EST on Thu May 25, 2006 #
My wish for you is that you could learn to be passionate about freedoms rather than expend your life energy trying to steal them.
AMEN TO THAT!
posted by tm at 11:53 A.M. EST on Thu May 25, 2006 #
Katie - most eloquent, as usual.
**Reminder to self: If in need of point on point speech material, contact katie82640...
Good job, missy! :)
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:42 P.M. EST on Thu May 25, 2006 #
Thank you ma'am :-) Sorry about the whole boot in the ass thing. I'll - ahem, clean things up a bit
posted by katie82640 at 11:15 P.M. EST on Thu May 25, 2006 #
Oh Stu, you worthless P.O.S.
Stu, you represent what "mainstream America" despises, and that is "one crybaby trying to change the world to suit themselves".
You're a failure, Stu. Your pathetic crusade is full of misinformation and lies that it's amazing that you haven't been run out of town. Oh wait, that's right, you don't even live in the community you want to force your agenda upon.
There's nothing I would like more, personally, than watching you weep with another failure is to impose my freedom upon you, and that to blow my tax-paid smoke in your face.
Do something more creative, Stu. Outlaw cigarettes. Oh wait, you don't have the balls to do that. You'll take the easy way out and jump on a bandwagon.
Here's to hoping you don't get killed in a traffic accident by an alcoholic stuffing his face full of french fries.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 03:24 A.M. EST on Fri May 26, 2006 #
Brian,,,tell me how you really feel :-)
posted by katie82640 at 08:04 A.M. EST on Fri May 26, 2006 #
LOL 8^D
posted by Darkseid at 09:02 A.M. EST on Fri May 26, 2006 #
I think Stukerr may move on to see if he can find someone who isn't willing to discuss the real issue. Sadly we kept coming back to the core issue and didn't follow his distractions.
posted by katie82640 at 12:38 P.M. EST on Fri May 26, 2006 #
Katie,
Everyone reads this site, including Larry Sykes and Stu Kerr. This site is the core spot for all news Toledo. They all "claim" someone told me my name was on this site, my ass. You took the time to open your posting account, so give me a break.
But it's attention deprived (censored) Stu Kerr that reminds me of that one asshole condo commando that throws the community into a tizzy because the flora landscape clashes with his interior paint job.
So instead of re-painting his room or just not look out the window, he wants the community to remove every plant and replace it with a seasonal with color that matches his "room with a view of the tennis courts".
In this case, it's the community across the street, because he knows if he pulled that stunt in his own community, he'd have got his family's ass beat upon.
Maumee is a tad smaller than Toledo, ain't it Stu, you lying, fact manipulating fraud?
posted by BrianInFlorida at 04:29 P.M. EST on Fri May 26, 2006 #
Wow - there's alot of history here methinks.
I've stuck my head out - into the political goings on - one time since I've lived in Toledo. That was on Monday. I found skunks. That's not a coincidence.
When I moved to Toledo, my grandpa - God rest his soul - said there was alot of corruption here. Actually he said 'rotten souls'. "Has been since the Purple gang".
I just kind of agreed - but, you know, while there are some things in Toledo that are beautiful. Great people that accomplished great things with great hearts, around them are some things that just smell like necrotic tissue.
Brian - keep it coming. Sounds like you've earned a good airing.
I don't think any of the people read this - they're too important to care what the people think once they're in office.
I know of 2 exceptions and they're out there doing what they are supposed to be - today. And that's about all we can do, isn't it? The best we can do - right now. Today :-)
Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has enough worries of its own. Live today.
Anybody know the author of that thought?
posted by katie82640 at 08:07 P.M. EST on Fri May 26, 2006 #
I really do not know where some of you are from. I am from Columbus. I will say the smoking ban has not affected restaurants that much, but the bars within the restaurants...usually dead. As far as nightlife, Longstreet, Club Seven, Bryan Baroos, Downtown Connection, Global..and many other have gone out of business. I dont thing smokers mind the restaurant ban, but a compromise on bars is acceptable. The bars plain simply SUCK. They are usually dead all week until Saturday. On that day they are usually dead till about 12:00 ..then fill up for an hour..then empty by 1:30p. The bars that have patios are doing ok..usually the patio is busier than the inside space. The new SMOKING BAN wants to eliminate the patios by putting a clause that if there is a window or door that lead to the inside door space, then the patio shall be deemened non smoking. The same group now wants to prohibit drinking in an oudoor event if children are around. It wont stop. This is only the beginning. Prove me wrong..but I doubt you will. YOu can try to make the indoor space cleaner but A smog alert was just issued for monday. Shall we ban people from living in this state then? You say second hand smoke is so bad, but then in your car and pollute the air with worst chemicals than cigarette smoke. ITs silly and I hope it fails. People should be left to be accountable to themselves not being forced to behave in a different way because the STATE says so. Here people are harrased outside, robbed, some people have fallen on ice and hurt themselves outside, hate groups target groups. ITs STUPID and RIDICULUS. Oh..and the new trend..kids at the bar past 10pm. Saw this and was outraged..but it seemed it was me the only one outraged. What a hypocracy.
Oh and they mention Florida. Florida has a smoking ban in places where food is served. But bars and nighclubs where left alone. In NY you can smoke in a lot of bars..people just dont say anything and now they have an underground club scene problem. Washington DC..congress Banned smokning bans from themselves and nightclubs. Puerto Rico passed a smoking ban (without public vote) but theres no legal merit or money to enforce. Here in Columbus..there are many bars that let you smoke despite the smoking ban. Guess what..they are the ones that are usually packed and many NON SMOKERS go. I say let people live and live people alone. Theres enough bullshit in life than to add this heapin dump onto it.
posted by hgomez03 at 11:00 P.M. EST on Sat May 27, 2006 #
Not one word in the media about THIS, other than ONE paper-but then, they're too busy demonizing smokers to worry about things such as this.
May 25th 2006 | ATLANTA, GEORGIA
From The Economist print edition
A new superbug is stalking the world
IF YOU are unfortunate enough to catch it, you will suffer from intractable diarrhoea with gut-searing pain and fever. If you are frail, you may die. Should you survive, you may be stricken by repeated bouts of sickness. The disease is so debilitating that some turn to a treatment that is stomach-churning in its own right: enemas containing the faeces of a healthy donor, often a spouse. Although methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is more famous, Clostridium difficile is a superbug to be reckoned with. Like many other infections caught in hospital, it is increasingly becoming resistant to treatment with antibiotics.
Ordinarily, the human colon harbours very few of the rod-shaped bacteria that cause Clostridium difficile associated disease or CDAD. But the guts of those people who are given antibiotics to prevent or treat infection during a stay in hospital are different. Antibiotics may rid the colon not only of harmful bacteria, but also of the beneficial ones that normally live there. This, in turn, can give C. difficile the chance to take hold.
Rates of the disease among patients in, or recently discharged from, American short-stay hospitals seem to have doubled between 2000 and 2003 and risen another 25% in 2004, the most recent year for which estimates are available. That translates into at least 225,000 new cases a year, according to the Centres for Disease Control, a government agency based in Atlanta, Georgia. As this number does not capture all of America's hospitals and ignores its nursing homes, the real figure is probably at least 500,000 cases a year.
What lies beneath
The full extent of the illness is unclear because American hospitals are not required to report it. Even when someone with the disease dies, his death certificate may not say he had it. Whatever the true numbers, about 20% of people infected have repeated bouts of the illness and some 1-2% of the stricken die; chiefly, but not exclusively, the victims are elderly people who are already in frail health.
Worryingly, the disorder is now being found in people who have not stayed in hospital. This new sort of case includes 48 pregnant women, one of whom died along with her fetus; others miscarried. Some of the people who seem to have caught the disease outside hospital had recently been on antibiotics; early studies suggest that others may have picked up the disease from eating infected animals or by taking medicines to combat heartburn and indigestion.
Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada and Japan have been grappling with the problem, too. In Britain since January 2004, all health-care facilities in National Health Service trusts—not just hospitals—have to report every case in a person aged 65 and older. Acute-care hospitals in Quebec, in Canada, must report every case that strikes within a month of a patient's being discharged, regardless of his age.
Three American federal agencies—the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centres for Disease Control—are so alarmed that they recently convened a workshop in Atlanta to determine what research is needed to tackle the disease. Unlike many bacteria, C. difficile makes poison-forming spores. These spores are, in effect, reservoirs for infection. Only when they hatch in the intestines do they produce their toxins. About half the hospital patients infected after taking antibiotics have no symptoms of CDAD. But they still shed spores and so are carriers.
The spores can survive for months on virtually everything they touch: toilets, bedpans, bathroom floors, sheets, bed rails, call buttons, telephones and door-knobs. The spores cling to the hands of hospital staff, lurking under fingernails and rings. A good defence is for doctors and nurses to wash their hands meticulously with soap and water between seeing each patient, but that is not easy to enforce. Alcohol-gel hand-cleaners are more convenient than hand-washing, but are less effective. Household bleach is the most efficient killer of C. difficile spores, but most hospitals do not routinely apply it to every patient's room, let alone to communal areas.
What else can be done to combat C. difficile? Dale Gerding of the Loyola Stritch Medical School in Maywood, Illinois, wants a sensitive, rapid and affordable test for the diagnosis of CDAD and the prompt identification of carriers. Such a test could rely on a technique known as “polymerase chain reaction” to magnify a small sample to the point where testing becomes relatively easy. Several companies are developing such tests but none is ready for widespread use.
Moreover, there is a problem: C. difficile grows poorly in the laboratory—which is why it was named “difficile” when it was discovered in the 1930s. The name is still well deserved. Molecular biologists are still struggling to pin down the bacteria's genes and their behaviour—in order, among other things, to verify the apparent emergence of more virulent strains of the bacterium. Fortunately, there are other kinds of bacteria that form spores in much the same way as C. difficile does. These are being used to understand exactly how the genes responsible for making spores work, which in turn may make it possible to switch them off.
Can you get better?
Patients also need treatments to cure sudden, severe cases of the disease. Two drugs, metronidazole and vancomycin, are commonly prescribed for C. difficile, but both are antibiotics that can themselves predispose patients to relapses. Ciaran Kelly, a Harvard Medical School researcher, says that broad-spectrum antibiotics—used to treat many different kinds of bacteria—tend to make many species of bacteria resistant to them, and limit the treatments available for CDAD. Antibiotics designed especially to act against C. difficile would be far less likely to affect other bacteria: some in late-stage clinical trials give cause for hope.
Another advance could come from inactivating the spores. Two drugs that could have been useful—cholestyramine and colestipol—are already on the market. Unfortunately, their effects have, to date, been modest. Neither was developed for C. difficile, and they do not bind well to its spores. At least one newer candidate—tolevamer—could, in principle, do a better job by binding not to the spores but to the toxins they produce. It, too, is in late-stage clinical trials. Because it is a synthetic polymer, not an antibiotic, it should not destroy the good, protective bacteria along with the bad ones in the gut. At the very least it would be more pleasant than some of the treatments patients turn to today.
posted by Darkseid at 03:53 A.M. EST on Sun May 28, 2006 #
Did Kerr ever answer the question on why he frequents bars that allow smoking in your lucky town?
Didn't think so.
I saw this in his post:
StuKerr deluded smoke-nazi wrote:
"In America, while your home may not be a castle, unless you're harming other people or ANIMALS, being a nusiance, or ignoring the zoaning regulations, or not paying your taxes, or playing loud music, or . . . you're pretty much left alone."
Bringing pets into this in a very subtle way. These antis give themselves away like any crusader. I have read some sites addressed to smoking pet owners saying they are killing their pets.
I wonder if Mr. Kerr has ever asked a pitbull what he thinks of his smoking owner....
I would like to see that conversation myself:-)
Plus the SOB would have to get past the alligators in my moat......because my home is my castle.
I played this weekend for a crowded private block party AND a very empty bar this weekend in Columbus.
The antis only go out "in droves" to rent that DVD at Hollywood Video and then park their self-righteous asses on their couches for the evening.
They like the remote control especially....as they try to control the Columbus bars from their little lairs.....
That is....for the time being........;-)
posted by Musician at 09:48 P.M. EST on Mon May 29, 2006 #
I like the way the smokers rights people on here speak the truth from their gut.
I have seen the likes of Kerr clones on many sites.
Parrots.
posted by Musician at 09:53 P.M. EST on Mon May 29, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 05:22 A.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
this statement from stukerr identified him clearly for me - he believes himself to be in a position of authority over my rights at my home.
"In America, while your home may not be a castle, unless you're harming other people or ANIMALS, being a nusiance, or ignoring the zoaning regulations, or not paying your taxes, or playing loud music, or . . . you're pretty much left alone." stukerr.
I say again stu - if you ever feel like testing that theory out - come on over :-)
posted by katie82640 at 10:32 A.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
In America, while your home may not be a castle, unless you're harming other people or ANIMALS, being a nusiance, or ignoring the zoaning regulations, or not paying your taxes, or playing loud music, or . . . you're pretty much left alone
well hey, im having a wild party with drinking and smoking and a band and the menu will consist of our nieghborhhod wild rabit. (although i heard rabit was greasy). Think i could get stu to come.
heheheh 8-)
posted by tm at 10:45 A.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
:-)
Funny thing is - if he kept his crusade to public places - he'd be right.
posted by katie82640 at 10:49 A.M. EST on Tue May 30, 2006 #
Don't believe the taliban's statistics about smoking bans not hurting the bar business. In Austin, Texas, State liquor tax reports clearly show a substantial financial hit to many bars. The anti-smokers used the same old lies down here, citing their "studies". It turned out the non-smokers did not come out in droves to hit the bars. Pool halls and neighborhood bars are hit the worse. For these bars, count yourself lucky if you only have a 10% drop in reveune. Chain bars, like Bennigan's and Applebee's benefit because they have the deep pockets to handle it. Austin bars rushed to build smoking patios to survive. New bars that open often are now "Patio" bars that are more patio than they are building. Drink prices and cover charges have gone up all over town as bar owners try to make up the difference in revenue.
The taliban go too far when they ban smoking in bars. I have never heard of a resturant flaunting the smoking ban, but I can name 10 bars off the top of my head that flaunt the ban. Does that remind you of anything, like maybe Prohibition? Like Prohibition, smoking bans just breed contempt for the law.
You know what? Whether you smoke or not, the bars that do not enforce the ban are more fun places. Everybody has a lot more fun when the self-righteous and the do-gooders are not present. Going to a smoke-free bar is like going to a Starbucks that serves alcohol. It may be healthier, but it's boring.
Frequenting bars is not part of a health lifestyle, not in anyone's book. If smoking discourages anybody from entering a bar, that's probably a good thing, because it discourages drinking, another vice that causes a long list of illnesses,including cancer, not mention a host of social ills and crimes. Google "secondhand effects of alcohol" if you don't believe me. Maybe we should ban alcohol in bars, too. We could justify it in terms of protecting the workers. After all, studies prove that 40% of assaults are alcohol induced. Where do you feel safer, Starbucks or a bar? Why shouldn't I be just as safe in a bar as I am in Starbucks?
Forcing everyone to be healthy is Fascism. Plain and simple.
posted by spyglass at 02:14 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 01, 2006 #
another good perspective. You know that I read nearly all spousal abuse is committed by - uh - spouses. Maybe outlaw marriage as well?
That's very bad for one's health as well as the children in the home.
Oh - we could outlaw children in homes as well as marriage.
posted by katie82640 at 03:35 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 01, 2006 #
Anything not good for you is bad. Hence, it should be illegal. Cigarttes, Alcohol, caffeine,
contact sports, meat, fattening foods, candy, Twinkies, gasoline, noneducational toys
and anything too spicy.
Stole that from the movie Demolition Man.
posted by spyglass at 04:07 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 01, 2006 #
Hey folks..here a year history of the IRELAND SMOKING BAN
Compliance rate falls (slightly)
This section features stories of particular interest to smokers in Ireland where the government has now introduced a complete ban on smoking in the workplace, including bars and restaurants (but not prisons) ... FOREST in Ireland
NEW figures from Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control show a slight reduction in the level of compliance with the workplace smoking ban in recent months. In a report published today the office said the level of compliance with the ban in September was 94%, compared to 97% in April, the month after the measure was introduced. The report said a total of 11 premises had been prosecuted for breaching the smoking ban, while almost 1,500 complaints had been received by a special hotline set up to allow the public to report breaches.
Source: Ireland Online (10 December 2004)
*********************
Smoking ban prompts fire alert
THE Irish government issued a Christmas fire alert yesterday following a number of recent tragedies. A government minister said that early indications suggested an alarming increase in the number of domestic fire deaths caused by cigarettes since the smoking ban in public places was introduced eight months ago. The move has apparently persuaded many smokers to stay at home and drink in their own houses rather than go out to pubs.
Batt O'Keefe, a junior environment minister, warned the public of the dangers of smoking and drinking alcohol at home. He revealed that initial indications were that the percentage of fire fatalities where the confirmed cause is cigarettes was expected to rise this year and he said he wanted this trend halted as quickly as possible.
Source: Scotsman (7 December 2004)
*********************
Smoking ban hits sale of beer
IRISH pubgoers have drunk 23m fewer pints since the smoking ban was introduced at the end of March, according to new figures. There were 339m pints of beer sold in pubs from the beginning of April to the end of September, compared with 362m during the same period last year. The fall of 23m represents a 6% decrease, according to the survey by the Irish Brewers' Association (IBA).
Publicans say the breweries are only now understanding what the pub trade had been saying months ago. "We said this from day one although the breweries did contradict us at that stage," said Seamus O'Donoghue, the president of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland. "The smoking ban is a significant player in this because it accelerated a downturn which began last Christmas. At our last meeting trade was down 30% in 'landlocked' pubs, that is those that had no room to put facilities outside for smokers."
O'Donoghue's own bar in Portlaoise is one such premises. "I would have an older age group coming into my pub and they are not coming out until later at night and they are not staying as long when they do. Whereas they wouldn't mind going out the back to smoke during the summer they are not as inclined to go out at this time of year. I have taken 20% to 25% of a hit in turnover."
Source: Sunday Times (31 October 2004)
********************
Cafe where smoking ban was launched to close
THE Dublin cafe where the Minister for Health launched the Irish smoking ban is to close by the end of the year. The owners of the famous Bewley's cafes at Grafton Street and Westmorland Street blame major increases in rent, rates and insurance. They say the cafes have also been hit by increasing competition, changes in dietary habits, difficult trading conditions in Dublin city centre and, most recently, the smoking ban.
Bewley's began a coffee and tea importation business in the early 1800s and opened its first Oriental Cafe at Georges Street 110 years ago. The closure will mean redundancy for 234 staff.
*********************
Rebel rebel
A SILENT rebellion against the smoking ban is taking place along the south-western seaboard. Despite the threat of a €3,000 fine, many publicans are allowing their customers to light up in the hope they will not be detected by the country's 'smoke police'. The rebellion is particularly strong in Co Kerry with some bars in Killarney, Dingle and Tralee - as well as rural areas - turning a blind eye to smoking.
"There are quite a few places that locals know of where smoking is permitted," said Kerryman journalist Aidan O'Connor. "There's a well-known pub in Tralee where people can smoke after closing time. There's a prominent hotel in Killarney where people are allowed to smoke in the toilet and there's a GAA pub in Killarney where they turn a blind eye."
Source: Irish Independent (16 October 2004)
*********************
Anger over 'paltry' fine
IRISH health officials have expressed disappointment after a Waterford publican escaped with a €100 fine for breaching the smoking ban. Mullanes Public House was found to have flouted the anti-smoking laws and licensee Robert Cunningham was fined €100.
Mullanes is the ninth pub in the country to be prosecuted for flouting the six-month-old law. Cunningham was given two months to pay the nominal fine or risk facing one month in prison.
A spokeswoman for the South Eastern Health Board said health chiefs were disappointed with the minimal fine, but pleased with a successful prosecution. The board was awarded costs of €1,500.
Source: Ireland Online (15 October 2004)
*********************
Irish politicians face the 'cage'
A NEW outdoor smoking area due to be unveiled next week at Ireland's national parliament will allow politicians to puff away in a glass-roofed shelter lined with vertical black metal bars. Some however say the structure is cramped and undignified. "It's a cage," complained Finian McGrath, who noted that the structure was about the size of a bus-stop shelter and had no heating. "Come December, people will freeze." Another TD, Noel Davern, said he planned to wear long underwear to cope. "So long as I can get my fix without getting wet, it'll keep me happy," he said.
Source: Independent Online (9 October 2004)
*********************
Rebel pubs flout the law
SIX MONTHS into the Irish smoking ban, the Daily Telegraph reports that as trade in rural pubs plunges many are flouting the law. "In a town in Co Kerry at least half a dozen pubs are operating secret smoking rooms. In one traditional bar packed with locals and several tourists, people who asked where they could go for a cigarette were shown to a back room. Pints of Guinness sat on a wooden table and the room was filled with laughter and clouds of smoke ..."
Source: Daily Telegraph (9 October 2004)
*********************
Galway pub owners fined
THE owners of the Galway pub which openly defied the smoking ban last July have been fined €6,400 and ordered to pay costs of €3,000 after they were convicted of breaching the legislation. Owner Ronan Lawless, the bar's manager Kieran Levanzin, and Cliplaw Limited were all charged with breaking the smoking ban on 6 and 7 July this year.
Passing sentence at Galway District Court, Judge Mary Fahy said that if the health board and the gardaí had not intervened, the incident could have undermined the legislation to a very detrimental degree. Outside the court, Mr Lawless said he would take time to consider appealing the verdict, but said that he did not regret what happened as his business was gone.
Source: RTE News (4 October 2004)
*********************
Rebels with a cause ...
A COURT case involving the first pub in Ireland to be accused of breaking smoking regulations was adjourned yesterday - to allow a legal team more time to prepare its defence.
Publicans Ronan Lawless and Kieran Levanzin of Fibber Magee's public house on Galway's Eyre Square are charged with smoking in a specified place contrary to the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Act of 2004. They are also charged with being the person in charge and occupier of a specified premises where smoking was taking place on July 6/7.
Judge Mary Fahy was told that the health board was ready to proceed with the case against all three defendants. All of the witnesses had been assembled in court. However the court was told that the defence had not yet received all the information it required and was not in a position to proceed. The judge adjourned the case to 4 October.
Source: Irish Independent (21 September 2004)
*********************
"Utter madness" hits Blanchardstown
DRINKERS at a Dublin bar banned from smoking outside the premises were openly defying the order last night. Men and women happily lit up outside the Hartstown House, Blanchardstown, in the face of an injunction on the publican, Tom Magher, by a neighbouring supermarket owner on the grounds that they are causing a nuisance.
Magher heard the news of the injunction as he arrived home from holiday. He said: "I got no chance to defend this case. But I'm going to fight this to the bitter end. This is absolute madness. If this injunction was made permanent, we might as well all shut up shop. The smoking ban has hit us hard enough."
Source: Belfast Telegraph (9 August 2004)
*********************
Hotel flouts smoking ban
A POPULAR Irish hotel, owned by Donegal football manager Brian McEniff, has been consistently flouting the smoking ban, it emerged tonight. The hotel was filmed by Sky News Ireland over a period of three weeks in July. The footage reveals customers in the Holyrood Hotel nightclub smoking in an adjacent room on a number of occasions.
McEniff, chief executive, said he was annoyed by the revelations but claimed it was out of his control. Group chairman, his brother Sean McEniff, is vice-chair of Donegal County Council and chairman of the North West Tourism Authority.
Source: Ireland Online (3 August 2004)
*********************
Waterford pubs to challenge smoking ban
SEVENTEEN Waterford publicans are to be backed by Europe's leading constitutional lawyers to mount a constitutional challenge to a blanket smoking ban in the workplace. A group calling themselves European Smokers Against Discrimination is to lodge documentation in the High Court, within the next two weeks.
In order to fund their campaign, ESAD have designed lighters
which are available in all of the participating bars at a cost of
€1.70. Proceeds from the sale of lighters will go towards legal fees f a top constitutional barrister in Dublin, who has given his full upport to the challenge and is confident the group have a case.
By way of compromise they are proposing that a designated area of the br is reserved for smokers and that proper ventilation is installed n each bar. hey would also be willing to comply, in full, with the ecommendations and on the spot checks from a health inspector.
Meanwhile, Smokers Against Discrimination or SAD Ireland, based in Waterford, have also taken up the battle, but smoking is not the main ssue for them. They believe that freedom of choice should not be compromised in a democratic country.
Source: Waterford News and Star (16 July 2004)
*********************
posted by hgomez03 at 07:20 P.M. EST on Fri Jun 02, 2006 #
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/12/three-independent-air-quality-test.html
Hmmmm.....wonder why this was never anywhere in the media?
posted by Darkseid at 01:25 A.M. EST on Sat Jun 03, 2006 #
Petitions For SmokeFree Ohio Ruled Invalid
Organization To Appeal Decision
UPDATED: 3:23 pm EDT June 2, 2006
Email This Story | Print This Story
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- SmokeFree Ohio experienced a setback on Thursday after a local judge ruled a number of petitions submitted by the organization are invalid.
The county Board of Elections will now need to determine the exact number of signatures on those petitions that are affected, NBC 4 reported.
http://story.cincinnatisun.com/p.x/ct/9/id/952a07819e9de600/cid/d3350bca3cdaf0d1/
http://feeds.columbusnews.net/?rid=19266be260dcdc83&cat=a605ff6512fa302c&f=1
posted by katie82640 at 11:57 A.M. EST on Mon Jun 05, 2006 #
musicman54 06-08-2006, 5:23 PM Add to the Discussion
One can claim that cigarette smoke does not make the air dirty, but voters can figure that out for themselves, and denial is not an argument.
The important thing, again, is that people have the right to breathe clean air.
Less gig $ 06-08-2006, 12:30 PM Add to the Discussion
Hi Moontan, I had read something about DB levels being considered as another thing "for the greater good".
I kind of had to laugh because the only anti-smoking "musicians" I ever had to tangle with on this issue were a small handful of garage punk rockers who play a gig once in a blue moon and most times for free or for monetary amounts that would not pay for a couple of drinks. "I hate my smokey t-shirt at the end of the night" were among some of the mindless complaints from those who were not forward thinking enough to see down the road. Some of the gloating after the ban went into effect included,"I can now wear this same shirt the next day".
Um...excuse me, I do not care for second hand BO, thank you very much. Still I see it as a 'freedom of expression" and will not petition for a BO ban because of my personal preference on this matter. To each their own.
Over the next few months the topics changed to...."why can't I get people to come out to the clubs?"!!!
Well, that one certainly takes the no-brainer award.
Working musicians with steady engagements (prior to 02/01/05, I might add as many of these live music opportunities DRIED up IMMEDIATELY upon implementation of the Columbus ban) are NOT in agreement with the Columbus smoking ban as is, whether they smoke or not.
"Second hand" smoke must make all those facial piercings itch a bit on the anti smoking punks. I had mentioned something about DB levels being "the next thing" to these particular noizemakers...and then a few months later read that this was .......actually being considered with studies in the works. It was almost as ridiculous as the 20 minute heart attack scare from "second hand smoke" that SmokefreeOhio is pushing...that goes beyond the usual junk science claim of 30 minutes.
In fact the potential for heart attacks from loud noise was the main subject for this particular DB study that I read.
(Maybe I do need to hang out that"Reader/Advisor" shingle. Actually, I prefer honest work.....but then again.....well..... I will wait until the winning lottery numbers come to mind to seriously consider that. Wink...)
As another matter of personal preference,I will say there is nothing more annoying than out of tune, out of time playing no matter if the volume level is much less than 110 DB, the usual loudness of a disco DJ/Karaoke gig.
The 110 DB DJ music pumped through those bass bins on band break, however, is enough to send the handful of people in the club the to smoker's "back of of the bus" for absolute relief from the noise pollution.
I know before the ban, many of my clientele would go outside just to get away from that DJ crap just so we could have a conversation in clubs that insisted on that kind of nonsense on band breaks. I was right with them.
LIVE music is best.
I would like to add that the lack of available live music work in Columbus currently is not just a problem for those who are weathering the storm of these terrible situations of low attendance in the clubs.
With the requirement of smoke free rooms for corporative events in the Columbus hotels, the result has been a bite into private engagement work, and that type of playing was always separate and immune from any up and downs in the club scene prior to the Columbus smoking ban.
The availibility of private engagement work for live bands has also gone down to a level I have never seen in 20 years of working this town. It's nice work when you can get it, but even so, many of the events I have played in the last year end up to an hour early due to the sterile environment. I just wonder how long this can go on with these current smoking restrictions on private corporate events, also.
Agents I have spoken to have said most of the work they contract now are for.....you guessed it...the cheap alternative.....DJs.
I see that SmokeLESS Ohio addresses this issue of private room rentals and will solve this current problem also for working musicians.
iopener200 06-08-2006, 1:44 AM Add to the Discussion
musicman54;
But the fundamental principle is that people have the right to breathe clean air.
Me:
Removing tobacco smoke WILL NOT clean the air!
http://www.speakohio.com/viewtopic.php?t=1150&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1425
quote iopener200 on SpeakOhio;
When have I ever said that indoor air pollution is not a threat? What I have said is if you eliminate tobacco use from inside a bar or restaurant you are not going to improve the air or public health.
In fact, for a limited time as the patrons traipse in and out to use their legal product before they quit going to these places all together, the air is GOING TO GET WORSE INSIDE and THOSE PEOPLE AND ANY THAT GO OUTSIDE WITH THEM "FOR SAFETY'S SAKE" ARE GOING TO BE EXPOSED TO "MORE" DANGEROUS OUTSIDE POLLUTION; PUTTING THEM AT "MORE" RISK FOR HEALTH PROBLEMS. Let's not forget the people who will lose both a means to pay for their living expenses as well as their families health care when many of these businesses close, or experience financial hardships because of the loss of customers due to the bans.
Tobacco smoke is NOT THE PROBLEM.
You can see the ?smoke" from a burning candle too does that mean that it is dangerous to your health. How about incense? Tobacco is a "legal" product, if all these things that you say about it and it's users could be proven "beyond a doubt" it would not be legal and there would be no one using it in public AT ALL. As the scientists that did the study for OSHA put it...
Littlewood & Fennel wrote: We find continuing evidence that energy-efficient building techniques and increasingly limited ventilation - not ETS - adversely influence asthma and other upper respiratory problems - especially in children.
a list of chemicals in tobacco smoke is listed below and how many cigarettes burning at the same time it would take to reach the lower threshold of danger in a room 20x20 with 9 foot ceilings at standard temperature and air pressure with no ventilation.
2-Toluidine................229,000 Benzene.......................1290 Acetone...................118,700 Benzo {a} Pyrene......222,000 Cadmium......................1430 Formic acid...................1790 Methylchloride.............11170 Phenol..........................7600
it is entirely possible that buildings ventilated to a level to comfortably accommodate smokers would promote higher indoor air quality overall
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm
Do you honestly believe; because you can "see" smoke in a dimly lit bar it is dangerous "air pollution?" Do they have you so confused that the obvious is unattainable?
Go to one of these non smoking establishments and light 20-30 candles or incense sticks. (I bet you will "see" the smoke from them too, you can go home smelling like vanilla, a pine tree, or cinnamon; does that mean it is "air pollution" and we should ban candles or incense? While you're at it open the door to allow this smoke from the candles/incense to escape for about an hour or two and take a reading with the handy dandy TSI SidePack to see if what I am saying is true... Then again, you may "blame" the candle/incense users for the reading and attack them.)
How about spraying a can of air neutralizer/freshener to cover all the perfume and cologne used in these places? (I bet you will see that floating in the air. There are many fragrances here; from cotton candy to jasmine. According to musicman54's way of thinking; ban those too they are "air pollution" because you can "see" it floating in the air. Who wants to smell like a damp forest, anyway?) LOL
Just because in your "OPINION" a legal product does not own up to your "smelling" standards doesn't give you the right to ban it or it's users who bought and paid for them to use, from other people's businesses!
It gives you ONLY the right to go and enjoy yourself regardless of "ANY" SMELLS or stay at home and not go AT ALL.
If the ventilation in these places are not adequate enough to accommodate both smokers and non smokers alike; then you can bet that they are not adequate enough to protect you from "TRULY" DANGEROUS POLLUTIONS. That is what we should be focusing on to improve public health!
Quote: The main source of carbon monoxide in our air is vehicle emissions. As much as 95 percent of the carbon monoxide in typical U.S. cities comes from mobile sources, according to EPA studies.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/carbonmon.htm
Quote: Carbon monoxide, or CO, is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas. The incomplete combustion of solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels produce carbon monoxide. Appliances fueled with gas, oil, kerosene, or wood may produce CO. If such appliances are not installed, maintained, and used properly, CO may accumulate to dangerous and even deadly levels in cars, homes, or poorly ventilated areas.
Who is at Risk of CO Poisoning?
Any person or animal in space shared with a device capable of generating CO should be considered at risk of CO poisoning. CO exposures especially affect unborn babies, infants, and people with anemia or a history of heart disease. Breathing low levels of the chemical can cause fatigue and increase chest pain in people with chronic heart disease.
http://www.safety.com/articles/carbon-monoxide-the-silent-cold-weather-killer.html
If nothing else, musicman54 you should take into consideration that the fact you can "see" tobacco smoke, candle smoke, and air freshener in some of these places "floating in the air and sticking to your clothes" common sense should tell you that the ventilation systems are not up to adequate standards to remove what YOU CAN'T SEE!
I would take a room full of tobacco smoke I could "see" for 4-5 hours a night over a room full of CO I "couldn't see" for 4-5 hours any day.
But, the FACT IS RIGHT NOW WE HAVE BOTH IN SOME PLACES, DON'T WE; as well as a little more!
By banning what we "CAN SEE AND PROMOTING DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROCESS," you claim that this will "improve public health."
I DON'T THINK SO, musicman54! IN FACT; I "KNOW" IT IS NOT TRUE!
Will you ignore the obvious "HERE" TOO?
Tobacco Doesn't Destroy Lives; Anti Tobacco People Destroy Lives!
"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." - Thomas Paine
Less gig $ 06-08-2006, 1:40 AM Add to the Discussion
"Musicman"(until forum handle is changed) wrote: "in the final section, the tobacco industry's constitutional amendment would OVERTURN clean indoor air laws where voters or their lawmakers have affirmatively chosen to enact them. Examples include Columbus (passed three times, by the Columbus City Council, then twice by voters, 54 percent and 55 percent respectively)"
I do have to laugh at your constant referral to the "tobacco industry's constitutional amendment". Shall I call yours the "pharmecudical industry's" to keep things on the "level playing field"?
There is tobacco money involved in part with SmokeLESS Ohio in conjunction with THE OHIO LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION.
(Also keep in mind Ohio smokefree organizations are funded in part by money from the tobacco industry....just to keep this again all "on the level playing field".)
Now who would know better how bar business takes a nose dive for the worse in cities and towns with smoking bans other than THE OHIO LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION.
Columbus is my concern. The overturning of the current bans is one of the better parts of the SmokeLESS Ohio amendment. OVERTURN is used in such a negative way by "musicman" when it is a very positive thing concerning this amendment. It will provide a uniform policy for Ohio, while allowing business owner choices in their private businesses on smoking policies.
It is what is known as reasonable compromise.
Also keep in mind that "musicman" is using extreme exaggerations to dodge the fact that a separate smoking room in restaurants is clearly provided by the SmokeLESS Ohio amendment.
Reasonable compromise.
If a separate room cannot be provided, then the restaurant will have to remain or (in the case of cities and towns in Ohio without any current bans) BECOME non- smoking.
All of these details are always left out when attempting to have a "discussion" with an antismoking activist. It is just to be expected and is of no surprise.
Restaurants are THE factor in getting the bans passed. This has been provided for by SmokeLESS Ohio quite clearly. The personal preference of the non-smoker to not smell smoke during dining has clearly been provided for.
Only the staunchest antismoker will continue to fight this now NON- issue. The fact is, if non-smokers are not disturbed by smoking when they dine, they do not care about smoking going on inside in an ISOLATED smoking section within the building. The antismoker is the only one up in arms about not getting their way in this to banish the smoker to the streets.
("Concern of the inhalation of "second hand smoke" by waitstaff will be the next point brought up by "musicman". It is interesting how these arguments are like the parroting of a telemarketer reading from a script in regards to objections. A good deal of waitstaff I have spoken with are smokers and laugh the MOST at this particular part of the antismoking agenda..which is brought out as a last resort when all the other antismoking arguments have been exhausted.)
A little history on the Columbus ban.
1) Smoking ban was quickly passed by city council without voter representation.
2) Public OUTRAGE forced it to the November vote. (Can the Ban)
3) The vote was close in the November election as stated in "musicman's" quote. (Toledo however relaxed their ban at this very same time)
4)BarPac was formed because of the negative impact of smoking bans on these particular venues.
5) SmokeFree Columbus loads the media with commericals of deception....the infamous "kids in a bar" commercial, which was not grounded on any facts that exist in Columbus. Bars in Columbus are 21 and over.
6) Ban vote was again close in the May primary. It was not passed by an "overwhelming majority" by any stretch.
7) Columbus being the current "guinea pig" prompts the formation of SmokeFree Ohio.
(a side note...Toledo's partial overturning of their ban was totally unexpected by the smokefree organizations. This guniea pig escaped the cage.....)
8) Crusade begins for "clean indoor air act", a PC term used to describe the smoking ban (as stated on the SmokeFree Ohio site)
As I have stated before........California's current outdoor bans were enabled by California's "clean indoor act".
Something to keep in mind.
If you think SmokeFree Ohio will stop if they are "victorious" in November, welcome to pseudo California in a very short amount of time .......without even the benefit of nice California weather.
posted by hgomez03 at 07:19 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 08, 2006 #
Hey..heres a perfect example of why this bans are dangerous..this is from California. They already have a smoking ban, then now this
Dublin wants smokers indoors
By Sophia Kazmi
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Blow secondhand smoke in Dublin and you might find yourself hauled into court.
Joining a handful of cities around the country, Dublin is making life tougher for smokers by creating an ordinance that declares tobacco smoke to be a public nuisance.
The city does not plan to spend money on enforcement, but with a 3-2 vote Tuesday the City Council agreed to create an ordinance to make it easier for residents with complaints against neighbors to take their cases to small claims court.
Councilwoman Kasie Hildenbrand said new homes are being built closer together, and residents should have some way to resolve disputes if talking things out does not work.
"Why can't (nonsmokers) enjoy their backyards?" Hildenbrand said. "Why can't they enjoy their windows open?"
She said nonsmokers have the same right to enjoy the air as smokers have to smoke on their property.
The declaration will come back for council approval in the next few weeks. It will not be a ban on smoking but will allow residents having trouble with smokers who refuse to work with them to have less burden to prove when taking the neighbor to small claims court.
The approval was hailed as "forward thinking" by Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of the East Bay. She said she believes Dublin's ordinance, if approved, will be one of the first, if not the first, in the greater Bay Area.
Chen said her agency gets complaints from all over the Bay Area, from property managers and tenants alike.
"Right now there is no last resort except for people moving," Chen said. "Right now they have little options for when smoke moves into their homes."
Some Marin County communities have considered such a declaration, said Bronson Frick, associate director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.
Calabasas, in Southern California, adopted a similar ordinance in March, and a number of cities around the country are considering it, Frick said. He believes more California cities will follow suit, especially because earlier this year the state Air Resources Board called secondhand cigarette smoke a toxic air pollutant.
Tuesday night's vote split down gender lines. Mayor Janet Lockhart, and councilmembers Claudia McCormick and Hildenbrand voted in favor of creating the ordinance. Councilmembers George Zika and Tony Oravetz opposed it
Zika said such an ordinance creates a "slippery slope."
"My wife is extremely allergic to cats and perfume. ... Should we make those a nuisance?" Zika asked. "Where do we stop? Where do we stop? People have to be responsible."
Hildenbrand asked the city staff to look at the options of creating the ordinance after resident Shirley Wassom told her she has been having ongoing problems with a neighbor.
Wassom has a medical condition aggravated by cigarette smoke. She said in a letter to Hildenbrand that she repeatedly asked the neighbor to stop smoking near the property line, but to no avail.
Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Wassom, said the ordinance is needed.
"I had tobacco smoke in my house because she didn't want it in her house," Wassom said. "And we felt like we may have to move. That's how detrimental it was to us."
Oravetz wondered how big of a problem secondhand smoke is, if there has not been that many complaints to the city.
"We haven't received any except for the one Councilwoman Hildenbrand (received) ... That's one complaint in 23 years," Oravetz said.
Dublin resident Patricia Peters told the council Tuesday night that an ordinance is unnecessary. Neighbors should be able to take care of private matters on their own and government "cannot legislate civility," she said.
Sophia Kazmi covers Dublin and Castro Valley. Reach her at 925-847-2122 or skazmi@cctimes.com.
posted by hgomez03 at 07:34 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 08, 2006 #
Yikes, I think this is a record for toledotalk? 222 comments.
And now we have the final answer.
June 14th starting 5:00 pm - toledotalk night at the Distillery.
Come and join us!!!!
posted by katie82640 at 08:21 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 08, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
