Marion County, Indiana, where Indianapolis is located, passed a smoking ban which takes effect March 1, but local businesses are already feeling the effects.
The smoking ban prohibits smoking in any bar or restaurant that admits people under 18. Private clubs and cigar bars are not affected by the ban.
The choice restaurant owners face in Indianapolis is whether to go smoke free, or go adult only.
“That’s the decision everybody is trying to make. That’s the tough part of it,” said Chad Ashley, general manager of Rock Bottom Restaurant and Brewery in Downtown Indianapolis. “Most likely, we will be smoke-free.”
Fernando Escamilla, general manager of the TGI Friday’s on West 38th Street, said his restaurant is still sorting out how to handle the ban. In fact, the chain’s corporate office is working on a proposal to ask city officials to allow a separate room for smokers rather than making the restaurant and bar adults-only.
“Hopefully they will give us an exception,” Escamilla said, although the ordinance now would not allow such a setup.
The controversial workplace smoking ban was approved by the City-County Council in May — ending years of debate and bringing the city in step with many other cities nationwide.
Thirty-nine percent of U.S. residents live in states or cities that restrict smoking, according to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, a California advocacy group. The anti-tobacco movement has helped pass more than 2,000 smoke-free laws, including 118 that ban all smoking at work and in public places — even outdoors.
Smokers who puff away in spite of the ban could face a $100 fine per violation. Enforcement will be handled primarily by health and building inspectors, but the Indianapolis Police and Marion County Sheriff’s departments also could write tickets.
Opponents of the smoking ban complain that government has overstepped its boundaries by telling business owners which customers they can serve and by declaring private establishments public places. They predict many eateries will become 18-and-older to avoid the ban.
“They have to decide whether to give up prom business or family business,” said John Livengood, president of the Restaurant and Hospitality Association of Indiana. “It’s a tough economic decision.” — Indianapolis Star
Clearly, these businesses are going to lose either way. The choice is, which business do you decide to lose?
But more than that, how can a government force private businesses to make such a choice?
Many restaurants were already smoke-free, so it’s not like non-smokers didn’t have a choice to go places where smoking isn’t allowed. Instead they want to eliminate choice for everyone else and cost local people jobs. What kind of “progress” is that?
(2 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Gardner Goldsmith explains why claims by politicians that consumers can become "irrational" and why claims by the same politicians that government can help "fix" markets are both false and misleading. He also explains what the terms Praxeology and Epistemology mean, which is key in understanding how to place free markets in their proper place among human history.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Bob Sindelar
Jan 03, 2006
A case of a few ruling the choices of many. There is no scientific (accurate) evidence which would pass the test of “medical certainty”, that backs up any of the tobacco haters claims. No clear evidence to show where even one death was directly related to Cigarette Smoking. If so, I would like to see it?
Jan 03, 2006
CigarJack's Cigar Review Weblog.
Eric Hahn
Jan 04, 2006
Being that it’s only a city ordinance gives it some room for leeway.
However, Indianapolis made a pretty bad decision altogether. They could have allowed smoking in designated areas like they do elsewhere around the country, but no, they gave in to the anti-smokers who want “all or nothing.”
Bad policy!
Craig
Jan 06, 2006
I’m all for banning smoking. The whole “we are going to lose business” argument is mostly smoke and mirrors. (Bad pun, I know.)
That same argument was used here in my home town and believe me, the bars, clubs, and restaurants are just as busy as they always were. One difference, however, is that bars and clubs can actually build a room on their premises where people can go and smoke. Smokers get their nicotine, and I get to enjoy an evening free of the stench. We all win!
Kevin Fields
Jan 09, 2006
I disagree with Craig 100%. A ban was put into effect in Lexington, KY a year ago. The hotel that I worked for shut its doors in September – and 96 employees got 36 hours notice – in large part because revenue from our bars and restaurants declined 80%. Even though most of our patrons that remained continued to smoke, and even though the hotel took a hit of $500 a week in fines from the city for refusing to enforce the ban, most of our patrons left for venues outside of Lexington so that they could smoke in peace. They didn’t spend money in our bars, in our restaurants, and they took their hotel stays with them.
Nearly all restaurants, including restaurants that were already non-smoking, have seen a huge decline in business as patrons who wish to smoke excercise their rights as consumers to give their business to restaurants where smoking is openly allowed.
This law has also affected many of the bingo halls, most of whom use their services and facilities as fundraisers for the overcrowded, underfunded public school system. Most of the fundraisers over the last year had to be cancelled, and most of those bingo halls are now considering moving or have already moved to other counties which have no smoking bans in order to stay in operation. Schools have lost a lot of money because of this smoking ban as well.
Because of all of this, I was forced to seek unemployment for four months, where after all the paperwork was done and processed and because of plenty of other bureaucratic nightmares which worked against me, I was able to receive $50 a week in compensation (for five weeks) for a job that paid me nearly $500 a week. I now work at another hotel with the same job duties, but at only 60% of my previous income.
A few years ago my hometown brought up the idea of a smoking ban. I fought hard against it and voiced my opinion against it. In the end, it failed by a wide margin. If it comes up again, you’re damned right that I’m going to fight even harder to keep it out. The county I live in is not rich by any means, but it is densely populated with restaurants and bars which attract people from the Lexington, KY area. Instituting this ban in our community would put hundreds of lower-wage employees – many of whom smoke themselves – out of a job. I won’t stand for it.
Marty
Apr 13, 2006
Smokers have rights too! If non-smokers dont like the smell of smoke, then get up and leave.
annie's restaraunt
Apr 17, 2006
I own a Restaraunt in Greenfield,In. AMom and Pop place where people came in ate and smoked. Our ban came into affect mar.1,06. Since then I’ve been fighting, but no way will they even let Me decide 18 yrs. or anything. Their law say’s no smoking. Only at the one bar in town and private clubs. Ive begged to have smoking , most of my customers said they don’t care if we have it but, this council say’s no way. I would like to run my own business.
Annie
Judy T.
Apr 19, 2006
I know Annie,and my daughter is a waitress at another restraraunt in Greenfield. Her tips have gone down 35% and the business as a whole has lost more business dollars a day. I have also been in Annie’s in the last week,her business is sorely DOWN. Both these establishments are “MOM and POPs” businesses. Where has the Ameican right of Free Enterprise gone to? No,the big businesses will not loose,they are not the small local ones who cater to the neighborhood. The place where home town folks gather to talk,eat and relax. The ONLY business in this town who have not suffered,are the ones by the interstate,the big company owned ones,where travelers stop for a quick meal and go on. Preople are so stupid. Most smokers do not want to offend others,we feel that they have a right to not smell smoke,but we also think that we have a right to a place to do so. Most persons should be smart enough to be able to read a sign that reads “no smoking” on a door,or “smokers allowed” and enter which ever one they choose to spend their money in!! The law would only intervene if some one lit up in a place that was registered as “no Smoking”,or someone caused a fuss because they were rude in a “smoking allowed” facility and they did not like that. There would only be a fine if they broke these laws. That is plain and should be simple. NO ONE has the right to infringe on ANYONES rights,either of runining their business,or doing what they believe in. People better get wise. Hitler was a non smoker,he took over a whole country by taking away one thing at a time from a group of “inferiors”,and he brain washed a whole country with lies and that country believed him. I do not care if it is a smoker or not,this country is having it’s freedom’s removed from the citizens,one at a time. When Krucheve slammed a shoe on the podium,years ago,he stated that they Communist would not have to fire a shot,that America would be defeated from with in. POeople are being cohersed into going against the constitution. I hope to God that the American people wake up,before it is too late. Any good American should care that freedom for one sector should be freedom for all. FIGHT for the rights of ALL Americans.
Carla
Sep 21, 2006
I always laugh when smokers talk about their “right” to smoke. Or even
funnier their “constitutional right” to smoke. Smoking is never a right, const
, constitutional or otherwise. Like many things that are otherwise
legal, it is a privilege that comes with restrictions. Condoms are
legal and I can buy them about anywhere, but I can’t use them for their intended intended purpose just anywhere. Any business that goes under because
of a smoking ban must have been on the verge anyway. Bob has obviously
been smoking something besides tobacco if he doesn’t think there’s any
evidence linking deaths to smoking. The only problem I see is that it
doesn’t kill the idiots fast enough and my insurance premiums go up because
of it.
angela
Oct 06, 2006
I understand smoking offends some, so does telling us we cannot smoke. We are free americans, I think this ban has hurt more than it has helped. You are generally only in a restaurant for an hour or two, so you will not die of second hand smoke unless you never eat at home. If bars are your problem drink at home with your real enemy yourself. I have been in the restaurant buisness for 12 years and never seen such slow buisness. Go stand outside the state buildings downtown a look at a law in its greatest, half the people who proposed this health ban our puffing away less than twelve feet from all the entrances. Our air is dirty,food polluted, so if i want to smoke I should be able to. You get to drive your cars, responsible for more deaths ever year than anything else. So if i choose to smoke go drive your car and get on your cellphone and make decisions for everyone else while you run everbody else off the road. You want to save people from themselves, take a good look around at all the other things that are bad for you and others.
Shannon
Oct 19, 2006
What’s next. Smoker’s water fountains? Do we have to sit at the back of the bus.
Angela 2
Nov 09, 2006
I am so angry regarding smoking bans! I am all for smoke free
environments, but in the same breath, why aren’t there smoking allowed establishments too? I do not understand this, have a smoke free
restraunt and a smoking restraunt. I will choose to patron the one
I want too, I will choose to work in the one I want too!!!
Joyce
Nov 26, 2006
People always freak out about smoking bans. I do not understand it. Many many cities across the country have similar bans. Removing smoking from restaurants simply makes it a safer,nicer place to work and to bring your children. Smokers are not going to stop eating out because they can’t smoke inside. They will do the same thing they have done everywhere else… step outside for a moment!
Tim
Dec 04, 2006
I live on the far west side of Indianapolis and most of the restaurants we go to are really in Avon which is just over the border from Indianapolis and so not affected by the smoking ban in Indianapolis.
Within weeks of the smoking ban in Indianapolis all of the restaurants in Avon noticed that their business was way down.
The cause? People choose to eat out in Indianapolis where it was smoke free.
The result? Nearly all of the restaurants in Avon went smoke free to get their customers back.
Conclusion? Far more people wanted to eat in a smoke free environment and voted that way by where they went.
If it wasn’t so then everyone would have avoided the Indianapolis restaurants and gone to Avon but it didn’t happen that way; everyone left Avon for Indianapolis.
John V
Dec 14, 2006
Last time I checked smoking was not a right. Carla, I agree with you, smoking is a privilege. On the other hand, any logical person would think that clean air, free of carcinogens, and not leaving the place smelling like a you just rolled around in a pile of manure, is a right for non-smokers.
Dec 21, 2006
Two years of Homeland Stupidity - Homeland Stupidity
Anonymous
Mar 06, 2007
we can smoke if we want .. even if the government says NO!
Ben Friedman
Mar 06, 2007
fuck the police!!!!
bRY
Mar 06, 2007
i agree with benjamin
andrew
Mar 20, 2007
get a life.i hate you.go to hell.basterd
Anonymous
Apr 24, 2007
I was just hit by the “smoking police”. Very rude woman came into my firm. I share a building with another business. Which there are smokers and a area to smoke. They came into my business and gave me a 100.00 ticket for having an ashtray (that I just cleaned out for use in this smoking area) in sight for the public to see. She proceded to take pictures and needless to say there were a few unpleasant remarks. Just because I have a ashtray in sight does not give someone the right to come into my firm and start taking pictures. And of course she wrote in her notes that I refused to let her walk around my firm and take photos and warned me that she would be back and that the ashtray had better not be there. I think I will build a shelf and put it on display with her buisness card right next to it.
Anonymous
Apr 25, 2007
The smoking ban is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason the ban is even in place is because a bunch of people read a bogus article about how secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. In all reality that was never proven and all studies thus far have been thrown out because they are completely biased. No study has yet to find that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. People say, “Well my wife/husband died of secondhand smoke” and that is complete crap too. There is no proof yet that anyone has died of secondhand smoke and it until it can be proven then the ban should be lifted. Its like descrimination against a bunch of people because they do something, well last time i checked descrimination was a bad thing. Hence why the ban is stupid and should be removed
Anonymous
Apr 25, 2007
Carla you are a dumb bitch and need to learn your manners. Get your facts straight and do some research, there are NO LEGITAMENT STUDIES that link secondhand smoke to lung cancer or death.
Anonymous
Apr 25, 2007
Bob you are completely right
Cheryl
Jul 07, 2007
I am not a smoker, but I feel if you want to smoke, smoke, we all know the facts about smoking. It should be our choice. Before too long our government will not be a democracy it will be communistic not giving us a choice which is in the Declaration of Independence. When will it end? It will be the downfall of us all. Restaurants and work places can make provisions for both smokers and non-smokers (example: Joe’s Crab Shack.)
Anonymous
Jul 30, 2007
if you want to smoke and kill yourself in the process, feel free to go right ahead and do so. but at least give your coworkers or fellow patrons who choose not to make stupid choices (such as smoking)the right to breath clean and nonsmelly air. the smoking ban in indy is the best thing to happen here in a while, with the exception of the super bowl champs that is.
take your nasty cigs outside!!!
Mary
Aug 07, 2007
Here’s a little common sense for all of you. Smokers DO have rights because they are American citizens, just like drinkers, trans fat eaters, etc..
Sure, smoking might kill you in 30 years if you are a smoker but, you could get killed by a drunk driver–tonight…and it is much more likely.
Also, all of this second hand smoke stuff is hilarious. If anyone writing on this blog drives a car (and I’m willing to bet that most do)you are putting more carcinogens and poison into our air than smokers could ever do. Example: Put a person in a closed garage with a car running and see how long they survive…45 minutes? Now, put a person in a closed garage with a smoker..and see how long it takes for that person to die of second hand smoke….:)
Bill Heath
Sep 22, 2007
I am astounded that the anti-smoking-choice forces, who have truth on their side, don’t use it. The truth is that there is a measurable increased lifetime risk of certain diseases from exposure to second hand smoke. The numbers are incredibly low – the increased lifetime risk of lung cancer for a non-smoker married for a lifetime to a smoker is 0.4%, for example. The increased lifetime risk of any form of cancer for someone exposed not more than eight hours a day to second hand smoke is about the same as the increased lifetime risk from taking statins to control cholesterol.
The increased lifetime risk of permanent hearing damage from 60 minutes exposure to sound above 85 decibels – well below the sound level of the averaqge rock concert or dance club – is 80%. When I point this out to the anti-smokiing-choice activists, they say that people have a choice about whether they wish to go into these places or not. Strange how that does not apply to places that allow smoking.
Dennis
Oct 03, 2007
No scientific data about the bad effects of secondhand smoke…That’s halarious! What liberal is feeding you that BS? Of course smokers are going to mention there is no effect, just like pot smokers will say pot doesn’t make you lazy and stupid. There are hundreds of scientific journals proving the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Your smoking rights stop when you harm the innocent around you. Thats exactly why cocain, herion, meth and others are illegal. It causes adverse effects not just to the person consuming that crap but to the people who are around you. Smoking should not only be banned from public places but should be made illegal as well. Here is a secondhand smoke fact sheet:
There are many of these out thier. Stop kidding yourselves and quit smoking for the good of yourself and the world.
Dennis
Oct 03, 2007
Here is the fact sheet mentioned above:
Dennis
Oct 03, 2007
Well apparently I do not know how to post a link in xhtml. Must be all the pot I smoked back in college.
John Clayton
Nov 12, 2007
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
So-called ‘progressives’, (new-speak for socialists) Want to control everything. I have yet to see one person who agrees with this ban do these simple things:
1. Show me proof, not by consensus, but by scientific fact that have been observed independantly by several researchers that anyone has suffered any ill-effects from second-hand cigarette smoke. Now we have all heard the advocates for these laws quote so-called ’studies’ or ‘independant studies’ show that …. but there is no CLINICAL evidence.
2. Explain why a person of legal age can not decide, with full-knowledge of the risk involved, where they want to work. Crab fishermen work in a dangerous environment. Automobile mechanics work with greasy cars and that is a carcinogen. People working in plastics factories work in environments that have high-levels of harmfull vapors. But as long as the company does something to mitigate the vapors and vent them outside, that is allowed. I drive on the road all day fixing customers’ computers and inhale exhaust fumes. It is a risk I take. I could work in a different field.
3. If non-smokers want to go to a smoke free environment, then why not start a business of your own that is smoke free? If there were such a demand, trust me, they would be everywhere. If there is a demand for something, and in our capitalistic society you can make a profit doing it… it will be done. So tell me, if you want a smoke-free place then why not allow business owners to choose one way or another?
I live in Bardstown, KY. Afriend of mine opened a jazz club on 3rd street called Jazzy’s. It was smoke free. He had great food, live music that was awesome, but he’s out of business now because, and he admits it, he did not want to work in a place where smoking was allowed, but he could not get the customers to come in. There weren’t enough customers. LET me repeat… he could not get enough customers to come into his non-smoking business. Yet, around the corner at Talbot Tavern, that place allows smoking, has mediocre food, live music and has been in business since the 1800’s.
Prove that smokers cause health costs to go up. Explain why a smoker has to pay higher premiums for life-insurance than non-smokers. If your rates are lower, then how does a smoker’s choice raise YOUR rates. It seems it only raises their own. An insurance company manages risk. They take the risk and you pay for it. They make money doing it, also. After a long period of time they know that a certain percentage of people go to hospitals for various reasons. They do not know if they are smoking related or not, or even if the person going in for illness xxxx even smokes. I know because I used to work at Humana, a nationwide health insurance company based in Louisville, KY. Their actuarials do not consider smoking or not. Do smokers go to the hospital more than non-smokers? Again, no scientific data to support it. I have been smoking for over 30 years and I rarely, if ever go to the doctor. Facts are, insurance companies do not consider the smoking issue in setting their premiums. And there is no scientific data to support the claim that smoking results in more vists to the hospital or more costly visits to the hospital.
When I was a kid, they banned cycimates, a sugar substitute, because they said in large quantities it kills laboratory rats. They banned freon 32 because they said it was destroying the ozone layer in the atmoshere…. no they say that they calculated wrong and have no proof what effect, IF ANY freon has on the ozone layer. They banned DDT back in the ’60s because somone showed a study that it was making the eggshells of birds weaker and causing fewer births of wild birds. Now it has been proven that it did no such thing and it has also been learned the researcher hid data that proves DDT was the problem because, “she felt sure it was the cause” and wanted to save face. No people in 3rd-world countries are dieing of malaria because one of the most effective mosquito insecticides has been banned. They also once thought the earth was flat.
And as far as what is a right and what is a privilage goes… I have a right to do whatever I want whereever or whenever I want as long as it does not impose on the freedom of others. It is called freedom.
A privilage, on the otherhand, is something doled out by governemnts or controlled by governments and that is the real issue here. Pretty soon if these socialists have their way everything will be a privilage. The right to have more than one daughter, the right to believe in whatever religion you want and to practice it freely… etc…. Does China or the Soviet Union ring a bell? Which is why I started my post the way I did.
Cigars Rule
Nov 22, 2007
the liberals love Fascist ideas such as smoking bans and gun control laws Adolph Hitler would be proud of todays DNC/Leftwing
remember the movie Demolition Man it sure spoke the truth about the DNC/Leftwing
Anonymous
Jan 05, 2008
Denis u r so full of crap i have to put a stop to it. Wanna no something? secondhand smoke or ets doesnt kill anyone. and u confused there with their u stupid fuck. The surgeon generals studies on ets itself has provenb to be inconclusive. As well as pathetic. No evidence- scientifically answering any quesiton-0 can nbe found. Here is a longass quote from Dr. Guri’s paper. I hope u like it u fricken moron
ETS comes from the dilution of sidestream smoke produced by smoldering cigarettes and from the small residues of mainstream smoke (MS) exhaled by active smokers. Generated and existing under much different conditions, these different smokes have some similarities but marked differences in chemical and physical composition and behaviour. All comprise a gas phase and small respirable suspended particles (RSP). These particles in turn, may contain at various times different amount of water and other volatile components that may exchange with the gas phase.
Mainstream smoke — inhaled directly by smokers — is concentrated and confined to the moist environment of mouth, throat, and lung. Its higher gas-phase concentrations favour larger respirable particles that condense and retain more water and volatiles. By contrast, ordinary ETS is over 100,000 times more diluted, with much lower humidity and extremely low concentrations of volatiles. Evaporation is faster from ETS particles which — within fraction of seconds from their generation — attain sizes 50 to 100 times smaller in mass and volume than their mainstream counterparts. As ETS ages, it undergoes oxidative and photochemical transformation, polymerization from loss of water and volatiles, reactions with other environmental components, differential absorption to environmental surfaces, and other changes (NAS,1986; USSG,1986; USEPA,1992c; Guerin et al., 1987; Baker and Proctor, 1990). The reducing capacity and free radicals of MS are lost within minutes (Schmeltz et al., 1977, Tanigawa et at.. 1994), and ETS is considerably less cytotoxic than inhaled MS (Sonnenfeld and Wilson,1987).
Of the several thousand components identified in mainstream smoke, only 100 or so have been detected in sidestream smoke under Field conditions, due to extreme dilutions. Because of even greater dilution, only about 20 ETS components have been identified directly under field conditions. In natural settings, most ETS components are below the sensitivity of current analytical capabilities (Guerin et al.,1987; Baker and Proctor.1990).
Compilers of ETS reports from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1986), the U.S. Surgeon General (USSG, 1986), and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992c) have been forced to infer the presence of ETS components by proxy, based on the composition of the sidestream smoke from which ETS primarily derives.
Nominally, then, ETS and mainstream smoke may share some components, but their chemical and physical differences are substantial. Moreover, the presence of most ETS components can only be postulated because they are beyond material detection. Also, the chemical and biologic reactivity of ETS is less than that for the MS that active smokers inhale, because of the loss of free radicals, other quenching, and absorption losses during dilution and aging.
ESTIMATING ETS EXPOSURE
A major limitation of epidemiologic studies on ETS has been the unreliable estimates of the dose, which compound the uncertainties of personal or proxy recall of the intensity, frequency, and duration of exposures over individual lifetimes. Even the simple dichotomous classification of exposed and non-exposed subjects presents recognized uncertainties, such as those deriving from the self-classification of some smokers as nonsmokers or the propensity to exaggerate exposure estimates by publicity-sensitized patients (USEPA, 1992c; Lee, 1992, 1993). On comparatively more solid grounds, a range of probably momentary exposures to ETS can be inferred from physical and chemical derivations. These inferences are also insufficient to determine cumulative exposures, but raise compelling doubts about the reliability and meaning of epidemiologic estimates.
On the basis of extrapolations from sidestream and mainstream smoke data, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that for nicotine alone the difference in peak inhalation concentrations between smokers and ETS-exposed nonsmokers varies between 57,000- and 7,000,000 fold (NAS, 1986). Dose estimates based on body fluid concentrations of nicotine or cotinine yield higher values, but depend on environmental and pharmacokinetic assumptions of unlikely validity (USEPA, 1992c; USOSHA, 1994). They also depend on a set of equally dubious systematic assumptions as listed by the National Research Council: ” Current smoking patterns reflect past patterns. Cotinine or nicotine concentrations… are linearly correlated to recent exposures to ETS and to the carcinogens in ETS among non- smokers. All subjects in the various studies began to be exposed to ETS at the same time and have continued to be exposed at the same rate throughout the follow-up period….” (NAS, 1986, p. 290).
Estimates of exposure to other ETS components are even more problematic because of the numerous sources external to ETS. For instance, plasma concentrations of volatile organics in nonsmokers appear to be as much as two-thirds of the corresponding levels in active smokers (Angerer et al., 1992; Brugnone et al, 1992; Perbellini et al., 1988) — an indication of significant sources other than tobacco combustion (Ritcher et al., 1994; Ong et al., 1994).
By utilizing surrogate sidestream smoke values, conceivable ETS exposure has been compared with current federal standards of permissible occupational exposure to several smoke components. Considering an unventilated room of 100 m3 (3533 cubic feet), the number of cigarettes that would have to be burned before reaching official threshold limit values varies among 1170 for methylchloride to 13,300 for benzene to 222,000 for benzo(a) pyrene to 1,000,000 for toluene (Gori and Mantel, 1991).
As well as what is said uyp following, damn near all secondhand bullshit is disproven and was debunked a while ago. Go to the page Forces.org to look it up. It was made my NON-SMOKERS in an effort to suport free speech because stupidass laws are being made up. It shows facts even from the anti smoking campaigns that disprove nearly all of the information. READ IT U STUPID SON OF A BITCH AND LEARN SOMETHING SCXIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF BEING ALLOWED TO BE FED AND HAVE UR FUCKING LIBRERTY AND FREEDOM TAKEN AWAY FROM STUPID FATASS NAZIS. And yes, Nazis were the first ones to implement anti smoking movements. Read this- axctually read this Dennis. And everyone else. Learn something, for most of us still live in the US, and we are STILL free to do whatever we damn well please as long as it doesnt hurt others. Learn something so you can stand up for the smokers and say the facts. Stand up for freedom pursuit of happiness and America.
John Smith
Jan 05, 2008
Denis u r so full of crap i have to put a stop to it. Wanna no something? secondhand smoke or ets doesnt kill anyone. and u confused there with their u stupid fuck. The surgeon generals studies on ets itself has provenb to be inconclusive. As well as pathetic. No evidence- scientifically answering any quesiton-0 can nbe found. Here is a longass quote from Dr. Guri’s paper. I hope u like it u fricken moron
ETS comes from the dilution of sidestream smoke produced by smoldering cigarettes and from the small residues of mainstream smoke (MS) exhaled by active smokers. Generated and existing under much different conditions, these different smokes have some similarities but marked differences in chemical and physical composition and behaviour. All comprise a gas phase and small respirable suspended particles (RSP). These particles in turn, may contain at various times different amount of water and other volatile components that may exchange with the gas phase.
Mainstream smoke — inhaled directly by smokers — is concentrated and confined to the moist environment of mouth, throat, and lung. Its higher gas-phase concentrations favour larger respirable particles that condense and retain more water and volatiles. By contrast, ordinary ETS is over 100,000 times more diluted, with much lower humidity and extremely low concentrations of volatiles. Evaporation is faster from ETS particles which — within fraction of seconds from their generation — attain sizes 50 to 100 times smaller in mass and volume than their mainstream counterparts. As ETS ages, it undergoes oxidative and photochemical transformation, polymerization from loss of water and volatiles, reactions with other environmental components, differential absorption to environmental surfaces, and other changes (NAS,1986; USSG,1986; USEPA,1992c; Guerin et al., 1987; Baker and Proctor, 1990). The reducing capacity and free radicals of MS are lost within minutes (Schmeltz et al., 1977, Tanigawa et at.. 1994), and ETS is considerably less cytotoxic than inhaled MS (Sonnenfeld and Wilson,1987).
Of the several thousand components identified in mainstream smoke, only 100 or so have been detected in sidestream smoke under Field conditions, due to extreme dilutions. Because of even greater dilution, only about 20 ETS components have been identified directly under field conditions. In natural settings, most ETS components are below the sensitivity of current analytical capabilities (Guerin et al.,1987; Baker and Proctor.1990).
Compilers of ETS reports from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1986), the U.S. Surgeon General (USSG, 1986), and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992c) have been forced to infer the presence of ETS components by proxy, based on the composition of the sidestream smoke from which ETS primarily derives.
Nominally, then, ETS and mainstream smoke may share some components, but their chemical and physical differences are substantial. Moreover, the presence of most ETS components can only be postulated because they are beyond material detection. Also, the chemical and biologic reactivity of ETS is less than that for the MS that active smokers inhale, because of the loss of free radicals, other quenching, and absorption losses during dilution and aging.
ESTIMATING ETS EXPOSURE
A major limitation of epidemiologic studies on ETS has been the unreliable estimates of the dose, which compound the uncertainties of personal or proxy recall of the intensity, frequency, and duration of exposures over individual lifetimes. Even the simple dichotomous classification of exposed and non-exposed subjects presents recognized uncertainties, such as those deriving from the self-classification of some smokers as nonsmokers or the propensity to exaggerate exposure estimates by publicity-sensitized patients (USEPA, 1992c; Lee, 1992, 1993). On comparatively more solid grounds, a range of probably momentary exposures to ETS can be inferred from physical and chemical derivations. These inferences are also insufficient to determine cumulative exposures, but raise compelling doubts about the reliability and meaning of epidemiologic estimates.
On the basis of extrapolations from sidestream and mainstream smoke data, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that for nicotine alone the difference in peak inhalation concentrations between smokers and ETS-exposed nonsmokers varies between 57,000- and 7,000,000 fold (NAS, 1986). Dose estimates based on body fluid concentrations of nicotine or cotinine yield higher values, but depend on environmental and pharmacokinetic assumptions of unlikely validity (USEPA, 1992c; USOSHA, 1994). They also depend on a set of equally dubious systematic assumptions as listed by the National Research Council: ” Current smoking patterns reflect past patterns. Cotinine or nicotine concentrations… are linearly correlated to recent exposures to ETS and to the carcinogens in ETS among non- smokers. All subjects in the various studies began to be exposed to ETS at the same time and have continued to be exposed at the same rate throughout the follow-up period….” (NAS, 1986, p. 290).
Estimates of exposure to other ETS components are even more problematic because of the numerous sources external to ETS. For instance, plasma concentrations of volatile organics in nonsmokers appear to be as much as two-thirds of the corresponding levels in active smokers (Angerer et al., 1992; Brugnone et al, 1992; Perbellini et al., 1988) — an indication of significant sources other than tobacco combustion (Ritcher et al., 1994; Ong et al., 1994).
By utilizing surrogate sidestream smoke values, conceivable ETS exposure has been compared with current federal standards of permissible occupational exposure to several smoke components. Considering an unventilated room of 100 m3 (3533 cubic feet), the number of cigarettes that would have to be burned before reaching official threshold limit values varies among 1170 for methylchloride to 13,300 for benzene to 222,000 for benzo(a) pyrene to 1,000,000 for toluene (Gori and Mantel, 1991).
As well as what is said uyp following, damn near all secondhand bullshit is disproven and was debunked a while ago. Go to the page Forces.org to look it up. It was made my NON-SMOKERS in an effort to suport free speech because stupidass laws are being made up. It shows facts even from the anti smoking campaigns that disprove nearly all of the information. READ IT U STUPID SON OF A BITCH AND LEARN SOMETHING SCXIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF BEING ALLOWED TO BE FED AND HAVE UR FUCKING LIBRERTY AND FREEDOM TAKEN AWAY FROM STUPID FATASS NAZIS. And yes, Nazis were the first ones to implement anti smoking movements. Read this- axctually read this Dennis. And everyone else. Learn something, for most of us still live in the US, and we are STILL free to do whatever we damn well please as long as it doesnt hurt others. Learn something so you can stand up for the smokers and say the facts. Stand up for freedom pursuit of happiness and America.
Debbie
Jan 15, 2008
I don’t smoke and I play sports all the time !! I play volleyball, basketball, track, softball, and all the other sports you can think of….but my mom, grandma, aunts, uncles, and cousins smoke and there is not one thing wrong with me. I think people have the right to choose when and where they smoke and if non-smokers don’t like it, they can easily get up and walk away. People need to keep their noses on their faces and leave everybody else alone…second hand smoke doesnt do anything at all, it’s all in your head.
Truth
Nov 09, 2009
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
David
Nov 30, 2009
Don’t you morons understand that if you make ALL public places non-smoking, that you’re all on the same playing field? People do NOT stop going to restaurants and bars because they cannot smoke!! People do not go to bars and restaurants to SMOKE!! You can walk down the street and smoke! You can’t walk down the street and drink, meet people, play pool, listen to music, socialize, enjoy a good meal…that’s what going out is all about, and this moronic argument holds ZERO water. Indy is NOT the first city in the US to make this decision! Do you realize how many states, cities, and even the entire COUNTRY OF IRELAND is non-smoking? Get with the program, Indy and boot the Mayor out if he wants to be a coward about this. He’s a decorated veteran, but he’s being a coward. Focus on people’s health and quit worrying about a few people who will have to stand outside the bar to smoke. They are not the majority of voters…trust me, and people these days decide where to go based on whether it’s smoking or not. Make everyewhere NON-SMOKING, and they will choose based on the location…not about whether they are going to go home coughing and stinking of smoke. I lived in Indy for 12 years, and now live in Phoenix. I cannot tell you how nice it is to go out and not have to worry about smoke. Arizone is smoke-free, and guess what…THE BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE PACKED!! California…New York…all smoke free, and the bars and restaurants are packed! Focus on the health of your citizens and employees of these places, and quit worrying about people who want to pump smoke into their lungs. That is THEIR choice…let them make that choice based on whether it’s freezing cold and if they have to stand outside to smoke. Maybe that will be the influence they need to quit.
Michael Hampton
Nov 30, 2009
Sure, now that everyone’s used to it and people have lost their jobs and restaurants and bars have gone out of business. NOW it’s okay.
To borrow a well-used phrase, if you hate America so much, why don’t you leave?
Rock
Jan 02, 2010
I spend a LOT of tme in California, In Monterey, adjacent to a large military post, with all the bars and clubs that usually go with it. California has a state-wide ban on indoor smoking, PERIOD. Not in bars, clubs, restaurants, offices or stores.
Funny thing, every bar was FULL, and no one smoked inside. If you think people will go somewhere else so they can smoke, they wont, because if they go next door, or across the street, or across town, they can’t smoke inside there either.
It’s great to go into a bar, have some drinks with my friends, be able to breath and not go home smelling like an ashtray.
I’m not a smoker but it looks to me that for a ban to work, it must be statewide, that would take the “location” out of the equation.