  Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1079 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20 |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060822/O PINION01/608220334&SearchID=73 254558317201 | ||
Messykitty Member Username: Messykitty Post Number: 79 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.21.198.33 |
Is his bar currently non-smoking? If not, he has every right to make it so, and he should. Where I live, there are non-smoking bars and smoking bars. We have a choice of where to go. Even as a smoker, I often opt for non-smoking venues. I should (and currently do) have the choice of where to go, and equally important, a business owner should have the choice of how to run his or her establishment. Don't like smoky bars? Don't go to them. | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 927 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.246.18 |
whine whine whine. why does it have to be all or nothing? who's stopping the bosco from going non-smoking? there's room in this area for both smoking and non-smoking bars. | ||
Outoftowner Member Username: Outoftowner Post Number: 144 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.223.214.2 |
I hate smokey bars, and avoid them like AIDS. I spend a lot more time in bars now that my closest big city is completely smoke-free. It's better for all of the cute waitresses, too. | ||
Rsa Member Username: Rsa Post Number: 928 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.246.18 |
[directed at the article, not you messy. i agree] | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7771 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
MY guess: He wants his place to be non-smoking (assuming it isn't)but doesn't want to take the risk of losing business to smoking bars. | ||
Messykitty Member Username: Messykitty Post Number: 81 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.21.198.33 |
Well, Jt1, I suggest he grow a pair. I bet it would at worst be a wash for him. He'd lose some, he'd gain some (maybe a lot). | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 140 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 66.184.3.44 |
quote: He'd lose some, he'd gain some (maybe a lot). ______________________________ ___________________ I agree, why is it that one clown can change a law to affect everybody? If he wants his bar to be smoke free, go for it. I would think that his business would at least stay the same, as there are lots of non-smokers who would probably frequent it. Let smokers go to bars that cater to them. To force all bars to go smoke free is definately another little snip of our freedom being erroded. Who does this guy think he is, the president? It never ceases to amase me how small a minority can dictate what laws the majority will have to follow. | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 588 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 71.213.227.125 |
Well, as you can see from the post-script of the article, Mr.Haberman is also an attorney. Attorneys always try to change all behavior via legislation, not through other means of action. They know better than the rest of us. I agree with Messy, if he is so convinced a ban is a good thing, let him put his business out there as the pioneer. (Not that this hasn't been done before, about a decade ago there was a fairly sucessful bar in B'ham on old woodward that was non-smoking; name escapes me however) | ||
Pistonian_revolution Member Username: Pistonian_revolution Post Number: 14 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 141.217.108.31 |
i've refused to go to Amsterdam Espresso because they have only two seats available in their "smoking section". its total bullcrap. the seats are by the window and all of the smoke in the room is funnelled towards those two seats anyway. i feel like they're discriminating against nonsmokers or patronizing them by not giving them a legitimate smoke-free place. they're right down the street from me and i'd like to support them as a business in my neighborhood- but i am enfuriated that they would create such an environment that is unfriendly to nonsmokers. when i complained to the cashier she said, "you can go sit at the outside tables...". this was even more enfuriating. i DO think that smoking should be banned in all restaurants, bars, and cafes. the freedom to smoke where you please is not an inalienable right because of its noxious effects on others around you. to have certain businesses designated as Smokers only and others as No Smoking is modern day segregation. why should this determine my ability to enjoy whatever restaurant i please? if you want to exercise your right to kill yourself with cigarrettes, then please do it at home. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1474 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150 |
And please stay at home if you do not like how a certain business owner runs his private establishment. | ||
Toolbox Member Username: Toolbox Post Number: 970 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.126.173 |
He also crys that he can't make a buck selling Bud Light to the Dream Cruise attendees. I guess he is too good to make a buck off the non pretty people. | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1749 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.61.187.234 |
Well, it's a pretty bar, not a shithole. What do you expect? And there's a difference between pretty and pulled together. Frankly this area could use a few more places where jeans, a t-shirt and ballcap aren't the uniform, in my opinion of course. It takes time to make these changes. In Chicago, where a smoking ban was also recently passed, there were a few bars that went non-smoking early (or created large non-smoking areas) to show their support for this ban, which was considered a public health issue. However they didn't do it until there was some real momentum toward the ban. You can go non-smoking and be a martyr, or you can fight for change without losing your shirt. Fighting the good fight shouldn't cost you your business, despite what some people might think. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 485 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 70.160.37.222 |
I can't wait until Danny shows up and waxes philosophical on Gaydale. | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1468 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.157.75.227 |
Oh goody, then I can recycle this PS from the war thread.  | ||
Vas Member Username: Vas Post Number: 603 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 68.40.89.188 |
What a bunch of crap. Make YOUR bar non-smoking or shut up. What | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 81 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.40.171.54 |
The inevitability that all indoor spaces will be non-smoking is clear. The only question is where will Michigan/Detroit be on the timetable for instituting a no-smoking ban. It is clear we won't be early adopters like California, New York, Chicago and Columbus. The only question is if we finally succumb to common sense before Virginia, North & South Carolina. The Surgeon General's report definitively stating that second hand smoke kills non-smokers is the final straw. That fact that non-smokers in this state put up with the crappy no-smoking areas most restaurants offer is inconceivable to me. I can't go into a bar without inhaling excessive amounts of toxins from other's tobacco. Michigan is just an unhealthy state with an unhealthy state of mind. Oh well, I guess that is good for my profession. A never ending supply of lung cancer, vascular disease and MIs to keep me busy. http://www.smokefreeworld.com/ usa.shtml | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 715 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 75.10.1.205 |
what bar does dan haberman own? is he the douchebag who owns bosco? | ||
Hornwrecker Member Username: Hornwrecker Post Number: 1471 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 63.157.75.227 |
 Mr Griffin Goes to Washington currently on Adult Swim. | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 633 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.189.188.28 |
Washington state has an outright ban on smoking in any commercial indoor space that was extended to bars and resturants last fall by initiative petition and vote. Early studys have shown that it has hurt business in bars but increased business in resturants. The bars and taverns that have been most effected tend to be "working man" places. I know of two in my town that are considering folding up because of a drop in business. There are some discussions going on to modify the law, but legally they can't modify an innitiative for (I think) 2 years. Personally, it should be the resturant/bar's choice if it goes non smoking or not. Unfortunately it's both a health and business issue..... | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1192 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.251.28 |
Remember, though, smoking is SO cool and has a lot of sex appeal: http://vh10924.moc.gbahn.net/a pps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Da te=20060822&Category=OPINION01 &ArtNo=608220334&Ref=H3Q=100&M axW=250 As said above in this thread, it's a matter of time before a ban on smoking in any indoor public place is instituted. It's inevitable, and I for one eagerly anticipate the day when I can get a drink in a bar without choking on stale regurgitated fumes. Drinking and smoking do NOT necessarily "naturally go together," as postulated some time ago on this forum. Drinking and smoking only "go together" FOR SMOKERS. I would have more sympathy for smokers if restaurants normally located their non-smoking sections in the FRONT of the restaurant. But no, usually you have to walk right THROUGH the smoking section and all that air pollution to get to a non-smoking area. I could see putting all the smokers way in the back -- or in the basement or in the alley -- as a reasonable compromise for an establishment. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 359 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 63.77.247.130 |
Yes he is part owner in the Bosco and the the Magic Stick. He bitches every year about how the Dream Cruise cost him money. He just like to hear himself talk. He won't go non-smoking unless every bar & resturant go non-smoking. He is afraid the smokers will go somewhere else to drink overpriced beer and martinis. (Message edited by Mthouston on August 23, 2006) | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1081 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.248.9.131 |
Smokers bitched and moaned when smoking was finally banned in the workplace. Imagine the nerve, non-smokers expecting to be able to work without having to choke back someone else's clouds of nicotine! Until the early '90s, I had to work in a cloud of smoke thanks to the chain smokers on all sides of me at work. I was off at least a week with bronchitis every year. Outrageous. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 944 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 209.104.146.146 |
I'd never smoke, but I'd never support a ban on smoking in bars. As they say, if smoking is banned in bars, what's next? Drinking and talking? [The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, but I choose to use it here regardless] | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 146.9.204.29 |
Detroit is too working class for a smoking ban to be implemented. Expect to see it in the hysterical risk adverse suburbs first. The recent Carmona Report showed that there is no short term risk to SHS unless you have a serious health condition (like being 400 lbs and being a few steps away from death's door). If SHS agitates your asthma or if you just don't like it, then don't go to places that allow smoking. If you don't like how that restricts your options for going out or working, then quit crying and find something else to do. The proper response is not to implement legislation that limits the choices of the rest of the people just because *you* are forced to make a decision that you don't like. I don't believe the harm of SHS (especially short-term) to non smokers is great enough to curtail the property rights of private business owners. If you are at a smokey bar (or spouse) 8 hours a day for 30 years, then you may have something to be concerned about. However, the smoke you happen to breath in that one night on the weekend you actually go out isn't going to kill you. A smoking ban would hurt the poor and working class the most (those most likely to smoke cigarettes). You can be damn sure that the wealthy and the politicians are going to keep their cigar bars. <quote> I for one eagerly anticipate the day when I can get a drink in a bar without choking on stale regurgitated fumes. </quote> :rolleyes: It's not about you. It's about the right of the business owner to say what flies in his establishment. Haberman is a spineless douche who doesn't have the guts to put his money where his mouth is. I think there is still enough opposition to smoking bans among smokers and non-smokers that we will not be seeing it sweeping the nation. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1082 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.248.9.131 |
No "short term" risk? So they don't rule out a long term risk, like disease and death, eh? What's the "Carmona Report" anyway, is that faxed to the media from Ann Coulter's guest bedroom or something? So Scotland isn't working class? Ireland isn't working class? Both have bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1193 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.251.28 |
"...the smoke you happen to breath in that one night on the weekend you actually go out isn't going to kill you..." You're right... it won't kill you that night or even the next night. We all know that second-hand smoke is a cumulative effect. The issue isn't only about how lethal second-hand smoke is. No, it's also simply disgusting and vile, and non-smokers shouldn't have to endure inhaling the belched residue of a drug just because others have acquired an addictive habit that impinges upon others' air. "A smoking ban would hurt the poor and working class the most (those most likely to smoke cigarettes)." If some people want to spend a large part of their income buying a drug, that's their economic choice. Their addiction and allocation of money is not my problem; it's theirs. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1100 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.78 |
You non-smokers are such fuddy-duddy's. Fuddy-duddy's with clear lungs, but fuddy-duddy's nonetheless... | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 2127 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
Ms. Rosa you smoke to much anyway a smoking ban would be good for you. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1101 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.78 |
I do not smoke too much... | ||
Heywood_mccrakin Member Username: Heywood_mccrakin Post Number: 6 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 63.169.78.170 |
if you saw susanarosa's avatar on HFD, you would definitely know she is smokin'! | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 146.9.204.29 |
Pffft, Richard Carmona was the Surgeon General of the United States, he just recently left the office. The report I mentioned was the latest meta-analysis of SHS. I simply called it the "Carmona Report" because out of all the other reports his office release, the latest SHS was in the news the most. Lumping anti-prohibitionists in with Ann Coulter is not going to win you many friends. Opponents to smoking bans are not all neocon nutters. It's usually a mix of libertarians and small government types. There's nothing libertarian or small government about Coulter and her ilk. I digress. <quote>non-smokers shouldn't have to endure inhaling the belched residue of a drug just because others have acquired an addictive habit that impinges upon others' air. </quote> You're right! All they have to do is not patronize establishments that allow smoking! Look, I know I'm on the loosing side here. Statist public health policies are here to stay and will only grow as we increasingly pay for the health care of every one else. I'm just trying to throw out a good protest before it's over and done, futile as it ultimately may be. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 328 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.215.16.121 |
Let's do it they do in Toronto way - No smoking in any bars or restaurants. It works just fine. Go Canada. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1083 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20 |
"loosing" side? Didn't we have a whole thread about this. Why is the difference between "lose" and "LOOOOOSE" so hard to savvy? "Lose" is the verb. "Loose" is an adjective. You will lose this argument. I have a loose tile on my roof. They are pronounced distinctly differently. OK? OK! | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 361 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 63.77.247.130 |
Whats next, Closing all the resturant serve unhealthy food or "cruel food" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,208253,00.html | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 2128 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
I think that if a bar owner sued in one of the states that banned smoking in bars and restaurants they would win. If the state owned the building then they would have the right to ban smoking but what about people that own the building and the business. What right does the government have to tell them what they can and cannot do with the building? Next they will try to ban smoking in your house. People are free to go to which ever restaurants and bars they choose to in this country. If you dont like dont go. I always sit in the non-smoking sections at restaurants and always request that I be far away from the smoking section because I dont like the smell of smoke when I eat. Now if they cannot accommodate that or if I think the place is too smokey, I leave which is my choice. In Chicago this weekend I went to a smoke free bar which was find by me but when I wanted a cigarette I went outside to have one. I followed the rules of the bar that they set up. If I didnt like it I could have went to one of the 100 bars that allowed smoking. I have been reading this website for years and it is extremely liberal. There are allot of folks on here that are always talking about the government trying to take away our freedoms but what they really mean is taking away freedoms you agree with as for the ones that you dont agree with it is alright. Life is truly great when you can have it both ways. | ||
Isnyd Member Username: Isnyd Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 12.165.188.130 |
Seeking a smoke free environement? The Karras Bros. Tavern - www.karrasbros.com. It's a matter of choice. The choice of the owner to allow and put up with smoking or ban it. The choice of patrons to bring their business to the atmosphere they prefer. If enough people care about smoke-free environments, smoke free bars will make it without legislation. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4879 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
It's amazing that people's right to smoke in public places is getting limited eevry day. Even in Gaydale the would be  in all restaurants. in Como's Restaurant. in Gaydale neighborhoods. in this place. in that place. Even Who will stand up and fight this? Otherwise  . | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1476 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150 |
Perfume and Colonge can have the same effect to ashmatics as SHS, lets ban those as well. That shit can be offense to even use normal breathers. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4882 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
Well the NO SHS everywhere. | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 716 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 75.10.1.205 |
ahhhh okay i cant stand the douchebag dan haberman, My GF likes to go to bosco on tuesday for cheap drinks, and every single week he pesters us about having our passport(part of the deal) after his doorman and bartender alread checked. I wish my GF wasnt friend with the bartender on tuesday because i would never go there. About the non-smoking thing ive been to the bars in toronto and it doesnt seem to effect or bother people to bad. Some of the bars have smoking areas or rooms. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 2131 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
I don't think there is a problem with not wanting people to smoke in your establishment. It should be the owner who decides not the government. The only reason the owner of the Bosco wants it to be a state law is because he knows his profits will go down if he bans smoking and other bars don't. He might want to start with not selling cigarettes behind his bar if it is so bad. Look at how Casino Windsor profits dropped when smoking was banned there and this slapass doesnt want the same thing to happen to his bar. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1106 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.78 |
All I know is that I've seen how the outsides of bars get on a wild party night. We think Altered State leads to crime? Wait until you get a bunch of drunked-up smokers all on the sidewalks and streets outside bars and clubs across the street and next to each other and watch the fists (or bullets) fly. Now, that shouldn't be the only reason to not ban smoking in drinking establishments. But if anyone has been in a state where smoking isn't allowed on a night where tons of people, especially under-30 men are out drinking... it's U-G-L-Y... | ||
Messykitty Member Username: Messykitty Post Number: 83 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.21.198.33 |
I honestly don't think his profits will fall at all. Sure, he will lose some smokers, but he will most definintely gain non-smoking business, especially if there are not many non-smoking establishments. He won't be a 'martyr'. That said, I don't know what an uptight drip like this is doing in the bar business. I wouldn't go there, even is it is 'nice'. If it fails, it's probably because he is a jerk. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 276 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 216.207.220.249 |
Rlr: The Old Woodward Grill in the 555 Bldg. The owners made a fortune. Slows? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7773 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.19.21.44 |
"How dare people smoke while I get drunk." Claiming health reasons for no smoking in bars sounds a little stupid when you think about it. PS - I don't smoke. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1084 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.248.9.131 |
Jt1: Here's a shocker -- the fumes from a Stroh's beer generally don't kill ya. | ||
Hooha Member Username: Hooha Post Number: 122 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 24.145.153.182 |
"A smoking ban would hurt the poor and working class the most (those most likely to smoke cigarettes)." How does this increase expenses for only the poor and smoking? It would be bad for the poor to smoke at home without buying beer? Or smoking at home and drinking cheaper beer from the party store? Or just cutting back and not smoking at the bar? "I think that if a bar owner sued in one of the states that banned smoking in bars and restaurants they would win. If the state owned the building then they would have the right to ban smoking but what about people that own the building and the business. What right does the government have to tell them what they can and cannot do with the building? Next they will try to ban smoking in your house." Merchantgander, in my mind government has all the jurisdiction they want because cigarettes are a drug. To put things in perspective, if we legalized pot, but made it illegal to smoke in public places, would you still say that it's completely wrong that a bar owner doesn't get to choose if people do and do not smoke weed in their bar? Or maybe legalized crack? A drug is a drug, regardless of how socially acceptable it is. I'd go so far to say that the precedent has been set with everything from weed to cocaine that the government has the right to ban cigarettes completely (phillip morris has too many $ for them to do this, but it would be legal). Now, if you're saying nobody should have any say in how or where people do any drugs, that's another story. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 2133 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
Hooha what is your point the government hasn't made smoking illegal. Last time I looked you can buy cigs all over the place and the only restriction is you have to be 18. If it is so bad why not just make them illegal stop selling them in stores? (Message edited by Merchantgander on August 24, 2006) | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7780 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
So your willing to accept liver diease but your lungs must remain clean. Gotcha. Tell me you see the irony of people bitching about smoking at bars. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 2135 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.150.244 |
JT1, I find it hilarious that this guy won't ban smoking at his bar (which he could if he wanted to) and sells cigarettes behind the bar but had the nerve to write this article. With that type of hypocrisy he should sign up her because he would fit in perfectly with about 90% of the DY posters. | ||
Jimg Member Username: Jimg Post Number: 698 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 12.47.224.7 |
I think the difference between smoking and drinking does relate to fumes, in a way. Second hand drinking doesn't kill or make sick too many people. Maybe the solution is to ban smoking and drinking in bars. | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 295 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.65.11.152 |
You CAN drink IN a bar without sharing risks with others ( with designated driver of course ) You CANNOT smoke IN a bar without sharing risks with others. But, I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment. If you don't like their decision- don't go there. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7781 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Second hand smoke can be inhaled but the lungs do recover. Unless you are spending an obscene amount of time in bars you shouldn't have to worry about the second hand smoke. If, on the other hand you spend that much time at bars you probably have bigger things to worry about. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 373 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 68.42.164.121 |
Your right Merchantgander. Haberman wants everyone to compete on his idea of a level playing field. He is just afraid that if goes non-smoking all by himself, he will lose busisness. So it really is not a health issue as much as a money issue. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7783 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
I say everybody go to the Bosco, order a Coke and sit there all day chain smoking. I don't smoke cigarettes but I could have a cheap cigar burning in an ashtray in front of me. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 378 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 68.42.164.121 |
Jt1 gotta date in mind?  | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1085 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20 |
Jt1, The crucial difference is, those who drink in a bar choose to, if they drink too much, put their liver in jeopardy. The liver of the person sitting next to them is safe. If the guy is smoking, all bets are off, everybody in the room is sucking in the nicotine. We live in a largely free society, we let people do destructive things to themselves if they choose, but when it affects the health of others nearby, against their will, that should be stopped. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 7784 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19 |
Again - If you spend so much time in bars that second hand smoke becomes a problem there is a much bigger problem. The studies of second hand smoke concentrate on people that are exposed to high levels of second hand smoke, not someone that is in a bar a few hours a week. From US Department of Veteran Affairs: http://www1.va.gov/VAMCWB/docs /PatientEd/RecoverySmoking.pdf #search='lungs%20%20recovery%20from%20 smoking' Recovery from Smoking is a Matter of Hours As soon as you snuff out that last cigarette, your body will begin changing. Among other thingsc ♦ Within 20 minutes: Blood pressure, temperature, & pulse rate drop to normal. ♦ Within 8 hours: Smokerfs breath disappears. ♦ Within 1st 3 days: Chance of heart attack ♦ Within 2 to 3 months: Circulation improves. Walking becomes easier & lung capacity to 30%. ♦ Within 1 to 9 months: Congestion & shortness of breath. Cilia (Little brushes that sweep debris from your lungs) grow back. Energy increases. ♦ Within 5 years: Stroke risk. Risk of mouth, throat, lung, & esophagus cancer is 1/2 that of a smoker. ♦ Within 10 years: Lung cancer death rate is close to that of a person who does not smoke. ♦ Within 15 years: The risk of heart disease is equal to a person who never smoked. Lungs can recover and will if they are not constantly exposed to second hand smoke. If you are not continually putting yourself in an environment with smoking the effects exaggerated. If you don't like smoking in a place that allows it, go somewhere else. I would be happy if we outlawed smoking in bars since I don't smoke. I think that the anti-smoking and second hand smoke paranoia is getting ridiculous. I'm sure Karras Brothers and Baille Corcaigh (Sp) would be happy to have your business. | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 6 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 146.9.204.29 |
Pffft, again, it is not against the non-smoker's will if the non-smoker chooses to enter an establishment that allows smoking. No one is having their rights violated. If a non-smoker doesn't like that a business allows smoking, they need to get lost, not righteous. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1086 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20 |
Bars and restaurants want everybody's business, not just the minority that happens to smoke. |
