Too late! Columbia City Council already approved the delay.
Now, to take a step back — it’s wonderful that the decision has finally been made — and look, it was by 5-2, not the expected 4-3…
But it’s bad that the current unconscionable state of affairs will continue for three more months. There’s just no excuse for that.
One of my colleagues disagreed with me on that point this morning, saying that it’s reasonable to wait and implement it at the same time as Richland County. But that’s ridiculous. One would only do so out of an abstract sense of administrative tidiness. There is no advantage to be gained by waiting for the county that is not outweighed by the wrongness of exposing city workers to carcinogens for three more months, after you’ve already decided that it’s right to protect them.
There is NO safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. And since any exposure greater than zero is unsafe, three months of unnecessary exposure is unconscionable.
For that matter, since Richland is expected to have a final vote on the subject by June 17, why can’t that ban go into effect July 1? It took what — three days after the referendum (a far less tidy and less predictable instrument than a council vote) for stores to start selling beer on Sunday in Columbia. If you know you have the votes, and you’re working toward it, how much gearing up is necessary to say smoking is now banned in the county? Why can’t it be in effect immediately? I’ll be told time is necessary for notification, but you know, you don’t have to penalize anyone who wasn’t notified yet (like there’s any bar or restaurant owner who won’t know about it the day of the vote, which seems highly unlikely). Enforcement will never be perfect, any more than enforcement of the law against murder is perfect (I mean direct, overt, immediate and obvious murder, as distinguished from the slow kind of forcing people to breathe smoke day after day). Most of the effectiveness of such an ordinance will result from the voluntary cooperation of law-abiding people. There is no reason not to let that begin immediately.
What next — postpone again to wait for Lexington County, or for Cayce and West Columbia. The town of Lexington is now thinking about discussing a ban. Must Columbia wait for them, too? It would make just as much sense to wait for them — especially for Lexington County — as for Richland. That is, unless you argue that waiting for Richland makes sense because Columbia is located within that county — but if that’s your argument, Columbia’s ban is superfluous, unless incorporated areas were to be exempted.
This delay is ridiculous, and it is wrong.
Related Posts
On to the next crusade to mind the business of other people.
So what is it you’re doing here, Lee, if not that?
No amount of smoking bans or other unconstitutional laws is going to bring down the price of gas or give you free health care. So, go ahead flay the hide off that dead horse, but when the wheel turns don’t squeal to me.
I’m glad to see this pass, but I agree that there really is no excuse for the added delay. As someone with respiratory problems I look forward to being able to go to all restaurants and bars without worrying about being able to breathe smokey air.
I guess I should be grateful because the tax hike on cigarettes will cause me to quit. I won’t go to the bars and restaurants either. Since they are the cowards that allowed this to happen.
No safe level of secondhand smoke? Before you put all the blame on secondhand smoke for spoiling your otherwise wonderful world, don’t forget that the EPA says that radon kills 21,000–possibly 45,000 people each year. Like secondhand smoke, they say there is no safe level of radon…and it’s everywhere. So if you are fearful of secondhand smoke, I presume you will stay at home breathing nothing but air you have at least attempted to make radon-free. It’s for your safety.
I’ll just be glad if it goes into effect by the time it gets cold. I can enjoy outside places at bars during the summer, but in the winter, well, we’ve been doing a lot of going to each others’ homes, but, doggone it, sometimes ya just wanna go to a bar and then out to dinner. And 15-20 minutes in a smoky bar is all I can take. I’m congested, and I feel like I can’t breathe, so, yes, it will be nice to be able to hang with friends. By the way, only one of them smokes, and she’s all for the ban.
Brad, We passed a comprehensive (total ban) No Smoking Ordinance today. Any ordinance of this type would have a three month implementation period. I spoke to the Chairman of Richland County Council to suggest a mutual date of implementation. The County is about one month behind the City. By having the date the same we remove the issue of bars in the City and County having different rules for a period of time. October 1st is a reasonable start date.
Richard –
Funny you should mention free healthcare here. If you take all of the requirements of all the “free” healthcare systems in the world, mix in America’s demographics, and stir gently, you’ll get free healthcare only for thin non-smokers at a cost of 14% of payroll (7% employee, 7% employer).
So Columbia and Richland County are simply preparing us for the inevitable. The next bit of help should be a surtax on fatty foods both at restaurants and grocery stores, just to encourage good eating habits. Probably ought to extend it to candy and any other item with a high caloric content for its size. Starches — carbs — too, a potato tax would get folks to substitute locally grown foods like peaches and okra. Don’t worry, the do-gooder will figure out the perfect life for all of us.
At what point has it become okay for the government to dictate what a private business owner can have smoking or non smoking? This is getting ridiculous. I am a non-smoker but I believe in the right of a private citizen to allow or not allow smoking in his/her business. I will remember the ones that voted for this socialist action and I will also not patron businesses in Columbia or else where that patron this type of socialist liberal behavior. It is not like these idiots in the legislative body have anything better to do…. do nothing congress comes to mind.
people seem to forget smokers are relied on for taxes and to line the belly’s of all the pork spending in this state and nation. Go ahead tax us out of smoking and force us not to smoke. the non-smokers can pick up the bill then. what a bunch of morons in south Carolina
i dont care. I will smoke where I want. i just got back from Charleston that has a smoking ban. I SMOKED ANYWAY just to piss non smokers off. the owners of the bars and restaurants asked me to put it out and I told them they can go to H%LL. then blew it in there face. I will do the same here in Columbia. or i will stand beside the door and smoke my little heart out and blow it in the face of all that enter. try me. i will win every time.
So you’re a jackass in H%LL now? Where exactly is that anyway? A big part of a smoking ban is for employees, not just patrons or business owners. Why should someone have to endure a dangerous environment just to get a paycheck?
It looks like Jay is unaware of the extensive medical, FAA, FTC, FDA, and OSHA studies in the 1960s and 1970s of employees subjected to smokers all day, which found they had no more health problems than non-smokers who were not around smokers.
It’s all about some people wanting to feel good about themselves by telling other people what to do. Then these reactionary bigots call themselves, “liberal”.
Yeah, you know, I’m really not up on scientific studies from the 60’s. Color me current-information-biased, but it doesn’t take much more than common sense to see that second-hand smoke is dangerous. If you need some actual facts, you don’t need to go back more than a couple years.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
Ok, I’ll try some html in there for that link. Turns out, cigarette smoke is bad. Who knew?
From the surgeon general’s report: “The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
Once upon a time, the world was flat, and the sun and planets revolved around our Earth, too, as did the stars.
The surgeon general’s statement is pure, unadulterated political propaganda. It doesn’t say “no safe level,” per Mr. Warthen’s misquote. It says “no risk-free level.”
Driving 55 mph in the right lane of a South Carolina superhighway is pretty safe, but it’s not risk-free. Neither is walking into the kitchen or leaning over to tie your shoes.
That’s not to say second-hand smoke is a harmless thing at any level, nor that some measures to limit non-smokers’ exposure to recreational smoke aren’t appropriate.
But banning smoking where liquor is served is a joke.
I think I figured it out where some of you are coming from. To most people, government has an interest in protecting people who can’t, or don’t have the power to protect themselves. That’s why we have things like social services and the minimum wage. It also has an interest in staying out of people’s business and not infringing on their rights. Sometimes those two things might tug at each other, but the Lee’s and penultimo’s of the world only think the government has in interest in staying out of their business. Therefore anything that the government does that affects them someway adversely or negatively is solely for the purpose of infringing their rights. Is that right?
Jay –
To some “protecting” is the issue. To them government’s primary role is national defense, so even a public health service should be constrained so as to operate within narrow bounds and not create a scold that seeks to protect the nation from all that’s unhealthy.
So when it comes to protecting people who can’t, or don’t have the power to protect themselves, why does that include employees and patrons of bars and restaurants? Why can’t the owner decide whether or not to allow smoking? Then potential employees and patrons can decide how lucky they feel. Let them protect themselves, or not, on their own.
This is indeed a slippery slope. Even smoking-ban supporters acknowledge that as they argue that the health of others is their primary concern, not denying liberty to bar-owners and patrons. So the next step may be to ban or tax unhealthy food. I’m not sure what follows that, but I’m sure I’ll find that fascist too.
It is interesting that the controlled press devoid of reason, logic and common sense chooses to resort to lies, distortion, fear mongering, sensation and hypocrisy to push it’s agenda driven “news.”
I use to work at M.U.S.C. and TRIDENT REGIONAL HOSPITAL in my early twenties. I worked in what was called Central Supply. This department issued supplies to all areas of the hospital. I had access to all areas of the hospital. I can truthfully tell you that I never saw anyone come in on a stretcher as a result of smoking. You print letters from readers who describe in graph detail their bouts or their loved ones suffering with cancer.
Perhaps you will allow me to describe the victims of alcohol or abortion in the same graphic detail. The ambulance pulls up with two EMT.’s pushing a victim of a head on collision with a drunk driver. The first thing you notice is what was a white sheet is now almost completely red. Sometimes, a third technician is carrying what was once an arm or foot that was once attached to the victim. The paramedics would often describe splattered brains on the windshield, broken teeth on the dashboard, and fragmented bones in the carpet.
You never hear the sobs of women beaten to a bloody pulp while their terrified children are huddled in the corner witnessing a traumatic scene that will remain with them for the rest of their lives. This just the victims of alcoholics. It would take thousands of words to describe in detail what the alcoholics do to themselves because of their “socially accepted habit.”
I actually retched when I was told that glob of medical waste was once a fetus. No one hears or cares when a psychologically scarred women wakes up in the middle of the night screaming “ where is my baby.” I will stop here. I think you get the picture. The closest you can come to this with cigarettes is the word “ related.” The words you would have to use with the scenes I described are actual, real and epidemic.
Mike, the difference with cigarette smoke is that actions taken by one individual adversely affect the health of another person. An individual who eats large quantities of unhealthy food is only harming his or her own body.
Richard, the fact that the harm caused by cigarette smoke is gradual rather than immediate is entirely irrelevant.
And to Brad, I say “chill out”. We’ve waited years for a smoking ban; we can wait an extra three months.
So Wally immediate death from drunk drivers or abortion is no problem, while gradual ( your words ) death requires dracanian measures ?
I didn’t say it was no problem. There is no rule that says you can only fix one thing at a time. You are arguing that, since we can’t stop drunk drivers or abortions, we shouldn’t attempt to reduce secondhand smoke exposure. The issues are totally unrelated.
I’ll try again, Jay, since you obviously didn’t read what I wrote, or, if you read it, you didn’t understand it.
Banning smoking where liquor is served is like requiring those who gambling at a Las Vegas casino to wear insect repellent.
The surgeon general’s statement, “There is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke,” makes no common sense, much less scientific sense. Likewise the assertion in the report that second-hand smoke is more harmful than first-hand smoke to smokers themselves.
The document is political propaganda loosely based on science to buy votes.
Because I smoke, I have been branded the enemy, and, yes, I resent that Columbia would ostracize me, make no allowance for me whatsoever, because it has become politically popular, and The State’s editorial page editor has lifelong respiratory ills.
I was mainly responding to what you seem to think are the motivations, as evidenced by statements like this. “The document is political propaganda loosely based on science to buy votes.” And I was genuinely asking if I was on the right track as far your thoughts.
If you think that the government has no role in protecting it’s citizenry (other than defense, apparently), then logically, i can see where it follows that they’re doing it because it’s propaganda, nanny-state, socialism, or whatever motivation you want to ascribe to it. Believe it or not, I’m trying to understand why this smoking ban is so anathema to you and others.
The Surgeon General, or a bus driver, or a waitress, can declare that “secondhand smoke” is dangerous at any level, without any evidence to support their assertion.
The bogus links posted to the surgeon general are another example of the lies used in this moralistic propaganda campaign against tobacco.
As Mike Cakora and others have said, some things are best handled by adults, without government as their Big Sister.
If someone is smoking near you, and it bothers you, ask them in a nice way to move or stop. Or you can move, if they were there first.
If you don’t like smokers, don’t go to a restaurant that has a smoking section. If you can’t find one, get your like-minded friends together and start one of your own.
If you don’t like to work around smokers, find a job where the employer has restricted smoking.
This silliness trivializes government and makes more people disrespect it.
I can’t believe people are complaining about having to wait a few more months for this ban to take affect. boohoo. I am a non-smoker and never smoked a day in my life, but I stand neutral on the issue of the ban. I still think it should be up to the restaurant and bar owners if they want to ban smoking or not. If some crybaby wants to complain there is smoke in the air then they should be a big boy or girl and go somewhere else that is smoke-free. But on the other hand smokers should be courteous to the non-smokers around them. But really it doesn’t matter since the ban has passed anyway…I just think its pathetic people are complaining about the delay. You all (those who wanted the ban) got what you wanted…why don’t you just be happy with the results and wait a few more months.
Set aside the health argument for a moment.
Lee, can you explain why the rights of a smoker to pollute the air around him should supersede the rights of a non-smoker to breathe smoke-free air? Why should non-smokers have to go out of their way to avoid places where smokers are stinking the place up? Shouldn’t the burden be on the smoker not to create the offensive odor?
Isn’t it the libertarian ideal that anything goes, so long as another person’s rights aren’t affected? Why is smoking exempt from the caveat?
Because it’s not dangerous, Wally, haven’t you been listening? They proved it in the 60’s and if the government or anyone tells you otherwise, it’s because they want to make you live off of nutrition-enriched paper and live in a sanitary white box. Other people’s cigarette smoke is no more dangerous than a field of lilies. I mean, it’s almost as beautiful, those smoke rings lilting up gracefully in the sky, why do you hate beauty?
Wally, its all about perspective. As I posted I am a non-smoker, but the smell of smoke doesn’t bother me and I’m sure I’m not the only non-smoker that gives a hoot. So why are you basing your argument on the fact that smokers are “stinking up the place” when its all about opinion? I think you should be basing your argument more on the health risks of second hand smoke…then, I would probably agree with your post.
There are no absolute rights to clean air, nor to pollute the air. Restaurants are property, and the owners and tenants have property rights. They can grant or withold the right to eat, drink, curse, and smoke on their premises.
These smoking bans seek to take away the property rights and other rights of businesses. That is dangerous to all liberty.
As I already illustrated, it is also unnecessary. Adults already handle the smoking issues. This legislation is the childish moralism of intolerant bigots.
Government has no more right to tell restaurants that they can allow smoking than it has to dictate the television channels, drink recipes, menus and dress codes.
“These smoking bans seek to take away the property rights and other rights of businesses….”
Second hand smoke is a carcinogen. The correct comparison is with controlling other carcinogens in the work place… not with the unrelated television, recipes and dress codes. If you don’t think the government should be able to control carcinogens in the work place… then argue that instead of continuing your typical straw man arguments.
“It looks like Jay is unaware of the extensive medical, FAA, FTC, FDA, and OSHA studies in the 1960s and 1970s”
Just so I’m not missing anything… instead of consistently picking the most recent research and scientific consensus in an area, you cherry pick the decade or research to serve your political ends? (or am I missing something).
Why not dredge up the old tobacco company reports that said smoking itself had no negative effects on any smokers? (Its a hoot listening to those adds on the old time radio shows.)
Many people have been indoctrinated to BELIEVE the notion that, “Second hand smoke is a carcinogen”, without any scientific proof. They ignore the longterm studies by the FDA, FAA, and OSHA which found no evidence of any health problems due to background smoke.
We do know that the health risks are much lower than those for many other airborne chemicals, including the smoke from outdoor barbeque grills, and in the kitchens of restaurants. You won’t hear the anti-smokers calling for a ban on charcoal grills, Burger King, Japanese restaurants, or all restaurants, because they LIKE those things.
And BTW, “just saying”, you don’t know what a “straw man” is.
Jay, I don’t understand the motivations of those who want to tax cigarettes on the one hand and make if impossible to smoke on the other, but there they are, thinking they occupy the moral high ground.
I do understand that cigarette smoke is not pleasant to some people and they need not be exposed to it.
But I don’t understand why we must jump to an all-out smoking ban in bars and restaurants that offers no room for a bar or restaurant where only smokers, employees included, may congregate, or a completely separate area at any restaurant or bar where only smokers, employees included, may congregate.
Why can’t we come up with a solution that will accommodate everyone when more than one such solution OBVIOUSLY exists?
The only conceivable answer is that someone thinks they know better about me than I do and thinks they should have more leeway to decide what I do than I do.
Mr. Warthen, I think, would love to see a world where no chance existed he would ever run into me with a lit cigarette in my hand. That’s totalitarianism, and Mayor Bob and Mr. Warthen can shove it up their kommunal kazoos.
“At what point has it become okay for the government to dictate what a private business owner can have smoking or non smoking? ”
The federal government has done all kinds of thinks about work place hazards, and has for a long time. OSHA was signed into law by Republican president Richard Nixon on December 29, 1970.
“”Second hand smoke is a carcinogen”, without any scientific proof. ”
The EPA, NIH, NCI, and NIOSH have a variety of reports summarizing the current scientific evidence. But why believed trained professionals when we have Lee here to set us straight. (Do you have any peer reviewed studies from the past decade that say second hand smoke isn’t harmful?)
“The only conceivable answer is that someone thinks they know better about me than I do and thinks they should have more leeway to decide what I do than I do.”
Presumably a large group of trained professionals does know what is better for you than you do in areas you have no experience in — that’s why we have trained professionals. (Safety standards in cars, air traffic control, banning DDT, the FDA drug approval standards, building codes, etc…) Are those groups perfect? Of course not. Are they better than nothing? The majority of your elected representatives for the past 30+ years has thought so.
Point me to your studies.
I want to see how they came up with entirely different findings than the FAA, FDA and OSHA in the 1970s, before the anti-tobacco craze. Nothing has changed with cigarettes or humans to render those studies irrelevant.
Could it be they had a bias due to being funded during the anti-smoking craze?
Could it be these studies don’t actually exist?
And why don’t you want to ban all grilling, campfires, auto body painting, weedeaters and lawnmowers making dust, etc, etc?
Lee, there are plenty of studies, I linked to a summary by HHS above. But it seems to me that you are going to be suspect to anything the government puts out, unless it’s pre-1980, so what’s the point, really?
Can I ask you a hypothetical? If second-hand smoke was a carcinogen and was dangerous, would you still be against the smoking ban?
New research on secondhand smoke 2007
August 2007 edition of the American Journal of Public Health Measured levels of chemicals in the blood of nonsmokers…
Found no health effect differences with non-exposed non-smokers.
The 1979 study by California of the illnesses of airline flight crews (smoking was then allowed on all flights), found no differences from the general population.
TO THE POINT, you have to right to eat at a particular restaurant. You have the CHOICE as an adult to find a restaurant with the sort of atmosphere of your choosing. If it doesn’t exist, just like the menu of your choosing, then the market demand for no smoking areas is too small. Get over it. Grow up. Eat at home.
Lee, I think your point is completely arguable, that the government has no business dictating what happens on private property. I happen to think you’re a bit extreme and self-centered on it, but to each his own. Where it verges into the absurd is when you also try to argue that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. It’s patently obvious that it’s dangerous, it’s the kind of thing you almost don’t need a study to validate. Is it as dangerous as hovering over a campfire for weeks on end or inhaling auto-body fumes for years? Probably not, but no one is arguing that, there’s your straw man, for what it’s worth. I just think you’d be better sticking to an argument with some validity. Just pick one and go with it…
“August 2007 edition of the American Journal of Public Health”
Most of the articles in that issue are on prevention. One I saw was that seemed relevant here said that the nonsmokers were affected. Here is the quote directly from the abstract of yhe article by Stark, Rohde, et.al.: “Nonsmoking employees left unprotected from workplace secondhand smoke exposure had elevated levels of a tobacco-specific carcinogen in their bodies.”
Which article were you referring to?
“TO THE POINT,”
I thought the issue was the ability of government to regulate work place safety.
“And why don’t you want to ban … auto body painting,”
They took the route of safety protection for the workers:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/autobody/recognition.html
Similarly, construction sites make people there use appropriate safety equipment (and any visitors to the site as well). I think face masks for servers and patrons wouldn’t work very well at restaurants and bars though.
Citing other baseless and stupid regulations is hardly a reason for another baseless regulation or outright ban in an entirely different industry.
You dismissed the studies from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s which failed to find any ill health effects of inhaling tobacco smoke in the background atmosphere in any work environment.
So I cited the latest ones from 2007 which again found no ill health effects, even though they found the alleged “tobacco-specific carcinogen in their bodies”.
I say “alleged” because they don’t know for sure that these chemicals caused any particular case of cancer in humans, and don’t know how much it takes to produce cancer, because they don’t know how the chemical produces cancer.
I assume that most chemicals which are not manufactured by the body are dangerous to it. Many that are manufactured by the body are dangerous to it. The issue is quantity of exposure and consumption.
We adults just decide for ourselves to assume some risk of grilling steaks, inhaling dust, and sitting in proximity to people smoking tobacco. We don’t need government telling us how to live, or taking away our choices just to satisfy immature individuals who can’t manage their own lives.
“We don’t need government telling us how to live”
Since you think “We don’t need government telling us how to live” and don’t want me to bring up “other baseless and stupid regulations”, I assume then you are ok with a return to the days when parents could to force their children to work as laborers in buildings with locked fire escapes? (I mean, its the government’s telling us how to live that stopped that.)
Or are some regulations ok, and you’re again resorting to hyperbole?
Why can’t you just stick to the subject, and explain why you can’t avoid this smoke on your own, when the rest of us can?
I don’t need government in order to find a smoke-free place to eat and drink. What’s your problem?
“Why can’t you just stick to the subject, and explain why you can’t avoid”
I’ve explained this several times already. The issue isn’t my finding a non-smoking place to eat (although thats a pleasant side effect). The issue is protecting workers health. So, when people ask why the government has the right to do this, I bring up parallel regulations about workers health and safety. And when someone says it isn’t dangerous, I bring up studies that say it is. What could be more on topic than that?
If you aren’t a restaurant worker or owner, their health is none of your business, and a poor excuse for trying to dictate lifestyles to them and their customers.
What value is there in studies with opinions that smoke is “dangerous”, when there own facts don’t support those opinions?
Reasonable or not, other regulations of other activities and chemicals in other industries, are irrelevant to totally banning smoking in restaurants.
“If you aren’t a restaurant worker or owner, their health is none of your business, and a poor excuse for trying to dictate lifestyles ….”
So, once again, I ask: I assume then you are ok with a return to the days when parents could to force their children to work as laborers in buildings with locked fire escapes? (I mean, if they aren’t your kid and you don’t work in that factory)
“What value is there in studies with opinions that smoke is”
We’ll forget for the moment that virtually all scientists and doctors think the studies are done right and show its hazardous, and instead go to a question you were asked earlier by someone else.
If studies proved to your satisfaction that second hand smoke caused severe health problems in people exposed to it, would you be in favor of banning smoking in places of employment? Would you be in favor of classifying exposing children to it as child abuse?
Children working in textile mills has nothing to do with smoking in restaurants. Even the dumbest liberal knows that, even as they try to use it as a diverson from their inability to justify their emotional craving to mind other people’s business.
If studies of smoke in the air of restaurants showed no ill health effects on workers and patrons, would you drop your support for banning smoking there?
Apparently not, since that is what the REALLY have concluded.
There is no need to speculate about studies showing “severe health problems”, because they don’t exist.
The local statists can’t even name any trouble they now have finding a smoke free restaurant or bar in Columbia.
“If studies of smoke in the air of restaurants showed no ill health effects on workers and patrons, would you drop your support for banning smoking there?”
Yes
“Apparently not, since that is what the REALLY have concluded.”
No, the scientific and the medical communities have concluded the opposite. A casual trip through a journal search shows many such articles. (Although I guess I should now be looking for articles showing those things they found in the inhaler’s lungs really were carcinogens.)
Must be nice having the confidence in your political views that any science that disagrees with them must be wrong.
In any case, have an enjoyable long weekend.
You haven’t read any studies.
You can’t find any studies which found health problems due to smoke in restaurants.
You don’t care about the medical studies which found no health effects from such “second hand smoke”.
You don’t care about the greater smoke of campfires and cookouts.
Your position is emotional, not rational.
Your position is ugly, close-minded, arrogant and intolerant of other people, who are just fine with restaurants and bars you will never visit, and are none of your business.
Next time, next issue, go do some research, and make up your mind based on reality.
Even when you can dredge up some evidence after the fact as an excuse for your emotional position, it lets everyone know you weren’t thinking, but following the herd.
“greater smoke of campfires and cookouts.”
What happened to mentioning auto-repainting and yard workers along with the campfires and cookouts? In places where those are run by businesses, OSHA requires some protective gear. In your yard? Its your choice.
If there are industries that make people stand over carcinogen spewing campfires with no protective equipment siphoning the stuff away, then I think OSHA should step in. If its in your yard? Then I think it should be ok up to the point that your smoke stops your neighbors from making adequate use of their yard. (e.g. if everyone with asthma within a 2 mile radius has to seek cover, you probably should be banned from burning like that).
“Your position is emotional, not rational.”
Pot – Kettle
Have you ever read a scientific report that changed your view (away from the stereotypical far right one) on anything?
The surgeon generals report has hundreds of references. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/
One of the references you brought up said there were carcinogens found in the blood stream. Then you wanted to argue if they were really carcinogens. ::: rolls eyes :::
“who are just fine with restaurants and bars you will never visit, and are none of your business”
The experts in the field CDC, NIH, OSHA, EPA all agree second hand smoke causes massive health problems — and the evidence seems good to me, so I take it as a worker protection issue and want to ban it. If I thought it wasn’t a health problem then I would think it was a property rights issue.
I’ll let you have the last word. (Not like I could stop you.)
What experts? You haven’t named any, because you haven’t read any studies.
Just admit your hatred of smoking is nothing more than hatred of other people enjoying themselves. You can’t justify that.
Trying to catch up on e-mail before going home tonight, with 10 p.m. fast approaching, and I’m just now seeing this message from Mayor Bob from Thursday…
I went out last week, and found so many eateries with non-smoking sections or no smoking at all, it is obvious there is no need for a law telling proprietors what to do. There are literally 2,000 non-smoking places to eat and drink in the Midlands right now.
This phony issue is about the lust for power an control by small dictator mentalities.
Guys, give it a rest. Lee is nothing more than an “antagonistic character” that keeps the arguments interesting. He doesn’t believe the things that he writes yet he seems to know just what to write to insure an opposite response. My wife is a nurse and she can tell you that her most sick patients in the ICU are smokers and non-smokers that worked in the restaurant industry and were constantly around second hand smoke. If “Big Tobacco” was honest about the effects of second hand smoke from the start, many people would not have died. My mother being one of them. Lee knows the truth. But his role in life and on this blog is to disagree with the truth no matter how obvious the truth is.