Smokefree Indoor Air Update

Last month I diaried a preview of what was coming in the 2007 Legislative Session with respect to Smokefree Indoor Air legislation.  Since then several states have taken action to support smokefree indoor air in workplaces and public places.

Puerto Rico

On March 2nd, Puerto Rico's smokefree air legislation came into effect.  Puerto Rico should be applauded for enacting one of the most comprehensive workplace and public indoor smoking bans in the US.

The new law prohibits smoking at all food establishments (restaurants, cafeterias, coffee shops and fast food restaurants) cultural centres (museums, theatres), casinos, liquor establishments (bar/pubs, nightclubs and liquor stores), convention centres, shopping centres and retail stores, recreation centres, public and government buildings, hospitals and health care centres, public transportation vehicles, judicial courts, all academic institutions, day care centres, retirement homes, funeral homes and private vehicles transporting children under 13 years of age.

http://www.caribbean.com/...

New Mexico

On March 13th, New Mexico Gov. Richardson signed into law the Dee Johnson Indoor Air Act, which bans smoking in almost all workplaces (except cigar bars, cigar shops, private clubs, casinos and bingo parlors).  The bill passed the House unanimously and passed the Senate 27-9.  The law will take effect on June 15th.  New Mexico is the 8th Western state to pass Comprehensive Smokefree Workplace Legislation.

New Hampshire

On Feb. 22nd, the New Hampshire Senate passed Comprehensive Smokefree Workplace Legislation by a 17-7 margin.  Last year the then Republican-controlled Senate had rejected identical legislation after it passed the House by 43 votes.  The bill hasn't been voted on by the House, but it is expected to pass, and Gov. Lynch has said that he will sign the bill.

http://www.nhlung.org/...

Maryland

On March 24th, the Maryland House approved a comprehensive smokefree smoking ban with a 98-40 vote.  Today, the Maryland Senate approved a slightly weaker bill by a 33-13 vote.  The remaining details to be worked out in Conference are whether the ban extends to private clubs like the American Legion and whether bizarrely state and local officials would be able to issue so-called "hardship waivers" to businesses.  Why the Maryland Senate is even considering issuing permits to poison employees is beyond me.  Hopefully, both the private club exemption and the bizarre "hardship waivers" will be removed in Conference.  The House bill has neither.

http://www.smokefreemd.org/...

Minnesota

A comprehensive workplace smoking ban made it out of the Senate Finance Committee without several amendments which would have weakened or delayed implementation of the bill.  The bill has a good chance of passing the Senate and House without any of the weakening amendments which have been discussed.  Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said that he will sign the bill.

http://www.smokefreecoalition.org/

Virginia

Virginia currently has a very weak indoor air law which merely requires restaurants with more than 50-seats to provide a non-smoking section.  Virginia's Republican legislature passed a bill which would have weakened this law by eliminating the non-smoking section requirement and instead requiring that restaurants simply post a sign stating that they are a smoking restaurant.  Today, Virginia's Democratic Governor TIm Kaine amended the bill to ban smoking in all of Virginia's restaurants.  The Bill goes back to the Legislature which can either approve the Bill as amended or override the veto with a 2/3rds vote.  Kudos to Gov. Kaine.  Please contact your legislator to ask them to support the bill as amended.

http://lungaction.org/...

Pennsylvania

Smokefree workplace legislation made it out of Committee in the Pennsylvania Senate, but the Republican leadership is probably going to fight tooth-and-nail to kill it.  However, Democratic Governor Ed Rendell has made clear that passing comprehensive workplace smoking legislation is a priority of his administration.  With Maryland and New Hampshire likely to pass legislation this session, that would leave Pennsylvania as the sole Northeastern State that allows smoking in workplaces and indoor public places.

Oregon

No action has been taken yet on banning smoking in bars/taverns in Oregon.  This legislation is still allegedly going to be taken up before the end of the session, however.

Tennessee

Tennessee's Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen came out in favor of a workplace smoking ban at the beginning of this session.  Kudos to Gov. Bredesen.  What is perhaps more surprising is that Republican Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey is now at least supporting a restaurant smoking ban.  In 2004, Ramsey killed a bill that would have repealed Tennessee's preemption.  Democrats hold a small lead in the House and Republicans have a very narrow lead in the Senate so anything is possible here.

Wisconsin

The Joint Committee on Finance is holding hearings throughout the state the discuss the matter.  Legislation will be considered after the hearings are complete.

http://www.smokefreewi.org/

http://wisconsin.grassroots.com/...

•  Anything More to Report? (n/t)

  by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:27:00 PM PDT

  •  There are rumours of an indoor smoking ban

    in Illinois.  Lake County and much of Cook County went smoke free at the beginning of the year.

    by bherner on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:29:51 PM PDT

    •  Doh

      I forgot Illinois.  Illinois is considering a bill SB500 which would enact a statewide workplace smoking ban.

      by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:32:19 PM PDT

    •  California is probably the best...

      by Barbara on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:31:04 PM PDT

  •  speaking of kids under 13, the gateway drug is...

    ...the idea that soft drink purveyors are allowed to sell them beverages that contain caffein, which is a drug that for at least some people is addictive as hell, is outrageous and ought to be dealt with.  

    If we're serious about protecting children from the health impacts of nicotine, consistency requires we do likewise with caffein.  Goose, gander.  

    Bottom line:  No caffeinated beverages for children under the age of 16.  That means no more caffein sneaked into orange soda (Sunkist), rootbear (Barq's), etc. etc. except for versions thereof that are sold in liquor stores where only adults are allowed to purchase.  And no more children drinking coffee (except decaf) or tea for that matter (except herbal teas obviously).  

    Why 16?  Because there is NO need whatsoever, and NO good reason whatsoever, for children to be consuming a stimulant drug (unless under doctor's prescription).  And because 16 provides two years for parents to exercise appropriate control in the household before the kid goes to college or work where coffee and related beverages are widely available.  

    I'm quite serious about this.  Ask yourself, what the hell need is there for children as young as single-digit ages, to be consuming a stimulant drug?  

    If you're concerned about smoking, consider: Caffein is the real gateway drug, that leads to all the rest of them, tobacco, alcohol, pot, and so on.  

    And for anyone here who doubts caffein is a strong drug with addictive potential, just try doing without it for a few days and see what happens.  

    by G2geek on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM PDT

    •  Health Effects of Caffeine

      As a coffee drinker, I follow this fairly closely and I've never heard of any adverse health effects of low-to-moderate caffeine intake.

      In any case, I'm not opposed to parent's limiting their child's intake on caffeine.  I don't think that gives any parent license to harm the health of their child by smoking in a confined space such as a car.  

      by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:41:24 PM PDT

      •  no acute effects from the others either....

        Nor is a child going to get instant health impacts from smoking a couple of cigarettes or drinking a couple of beers.  At worst they'll get sick to their stomach.  So, shall we do away with the age limits on tobacco and alcohol, and let parents exercise whatever discretion they choose?  

        My point here is twofold:  

        One, most of these substances in moderation are relatively harmless.  Even tobacco: pipe and cigar smokers rarely have any ill effects (something like 1 out of 400 to 4000 depending on co-factors).  

        Two, the subjective effects of caffeine are what make it a gateway drug:  I consume a substance, I feel good, therefore I learn that in order to feel good I can consume a substance.  This sets up a pattern, and at present the pattern can be established in the single-digit-age years starting with a few cans of Coke.  Letting children use a drug establishes that using drugs is OK.  

        And especially if the drug is "relatively" harmless, as with caffeine: the message is, "drugs are harmless, go ahead and use, everyone else does!"  (Perhaps it would be better if immoderate doses of caffeinated beverages made people throw up, or at least gave them a horrible hangover the next day: at least that would send the message that over-indulging is bad for you.)  

        If caffeinated beverages are not valued for their subjective effects, then clearly no one would object to removing the caffeine altogether: decaf coffees and teas and sodas.  

        So then either one of the following propositions is true, but both cannot be true at the same time:

        One, parents should be the arbiters of the use of substances by their kids, in order to demonstrate the exercise of moderation and instill moderation as a lifetime value with respect to any substance a person might encounter when they get older.

        Two, the dangers to children of exposure to mind-altering substances are sufficient to justify a "compellling state interest" in intervening in the choices of families in this area, and in prohibiting children from having access to caffeinated beverages.  

        The test here is whether adults who drink coffee, tea, cola, etc., would continue to do so in exactly the same manner as they presently do if these beverages were only available without caffeine.  If the grownups would continue drinking them as they do now, then the caffeine isn't being used as a drug, and there is no risk giving it to kids.  

        But what I think you'll find is that most people use these beverages at least in part for their subjective effects, and would drink them less often or differently if the caffeine was not present.   This establishes that caffeine is being used as a drug.  Ands such, it has no place in the hands of children.  

        by G2geek on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:30:48 PM PDT

        •  Not true of tobacco smoke

          The Surgeon-General's Report concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.  

          by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 11:37:47 PM PDT

          •  nor automobile exhaust

            There's no safe level of exposure to automobile exhaust.  So if it's the smoke issue you're concerned with, rather than the drug issue, then you also have to ban residential development within a half mile of freeways, as per recent results showing both acute and chronic respiratory impairment to children living within a half mile of freeways.

            Also in suburban areas you would have to ban fireplaces and barbequeues, because the smoke from both of those sources is laden with all manner of harmful chemicals.  And if there's no safe level, then there can be no tolerance of exceptions.  Even for a juicy steak on the grill, with onions and barbeque sauce.  

            You can't have it both ways.  If the issue is children and drugs, that issue necessarily includes caffeine.  If the issue is children and smoke, that issue necessarily includes auto exhaust, urban development, and even suburban barbequeues and fireplaces.  And, I might add, if the issue is adult health risks and their impact on society, then according to the report just published in The Lancet, alcohol comes in at #5 and tobacco at #9, so it's time to (try to) ban alcohol (again).  

            But if all you're doing is picking and choosing so as to single out one thing you don't like without going after the other equivalent cases, then that to me smells just like what the righties do with homosexuality.  If the issue is "promiscuity," then let's have an equal right to legally-recognized monogamy, i.e. marriage.  If the issue is "threat to marriage," then start by criminalizing adultery, which is the leading cause of divorce.  If the issue is "bad example for children," then do something about the 3,000 murders a year kids see on the TV.  But if the issue comes down to prejudice and sscapegoating in the name of righteousness, that's where I get off the boat, and you should too.  

            by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:07:27 AM PDT

            •  I honestly have no idea what your point is

              with this caffeine business.  It's completely beside the point.  The issue is the harm caused by environmental tobacco smoke.  I haven't looked enough into the issue of safe levels of auto exhaust to say on that matter.  I don't see why that would entail a ban on residential districts near freeways.  Harm is a necessary not a sufficient condition for regulation.  We don't know of any feasible way of reducing auto emission to zero.  We do know how to reduce workplace environmental tobacco smoke exposure to zero.  Tens of millions of American already live in places where it is happening.

              by ortcutt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:26:36 AM PDT

            •  The issue isn't children and drugs

              I don't know how you got the idea that it was.  The issue is children and high-concentrations of carcinogenic tobacco smoke.

              by ortcutt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:28:38 AM PDT

              •  smoke vs. smoke

                I'll reply to both of your replies here instead of each separately.

                OK, if the issue is smoke rather than drug use, then:

                First, we do indeed know how to regulate in order to protect children against the respiratory illnesses caused by automobile exhaust from freeway traffic.  It's called zoning.  

                Second, we do know how to reduce automobile emissions to zero.  It's called electric cars.  And even if that electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, the emissions from those power plants (if they are operating within EPA limits) are far less than the emissions from the gasoline-powered automobiles they would take off the road.  

                If you're really concerned about respiratory health, both of those are no-brainers.  

                But if the only kind of smoke you're concerned about is tobacco smoke, then sorry bub, that flunks the consistency test.  It's no longer a health issue, it's a moral crusade, and it has no more viability on the Democratic side of the aisle than Jerry Falwell's screeching about the evils of homosexuality.  

                by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:07:00 AM PDT

          •  There's No Safe Level of Exposure.....

            ....to any number of things in a given workplace in the hospitality industry, including the aforementioned "secondhand" consequences of alcohol and grease burns.  You single out smoke because you don't like the smell of other people's cigarettes and wish to manufacture a health crisis out of it even as the direct body count mounts for drunk driving victims and bouncers at bars trying to bring order to the lawless climate of intoxicated barflies.  Somehow, their well-being falls short in your effort to puritanize the world.

            by Mark27 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:49:49 AM PDT

  •  I'm Waiting on News of a Workplace Alcohol Ban...

    ....because anybody who wants to talk about "secondhand" consequences to a behavior is looking at the wrong vice.

    by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:03:36 PM PDT

•  Florida is a clean air state!

  I was shocked when I went back to a North Carolina  restaraunt and was asked -"Smoking or non."  

  Its so much nicer in Florida being able to eat without someone blowing toxins in your direction.

  by floridadude on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:28:46 PM PDT

  •  re

    It is nice. Ca did it years ago and despite the cries of "that will put us out of busniess", it didn't.

    by cookiesandmilk on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:34:14 PM PDT

  •  Florida is pretty good

    The two counts against Florida are that it allows smoking in bars and has preemption.  Restaurants are a biggie though.  I had the same reaction last year in Pennsylvania when the hostess asked me "Smoking or non?".  It took me five seconds to figure out what she was talking about.

    by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

    •  ugh, bars

      I don't go to bars here because the smoke is so gross. Bars complain when bans go into effect because they say they'll lose business... well, they'll never have my business until smoking is banned. It goes both ways.

      by PhantomFly on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:16:38 PM PDT

      •  You Say That Now....

        ....but most places that have banned smoking in bars based on the word of people like you have discovered that the nonsmokers never show up to replace all the smokers who were told to go home.  Any wonder why bar owners fight this ban with everything they got whenever a bunch of nanny-state thugs propose it?

        by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:05:50 PM PDT

        •  The smokers don't have to go home.

          They just can't smoke.

          I went to a nonsmoking bar last week with my smoking friend and guess what? She survived having to go outside. Suck it the hell up.

          by PhantomFly on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:21:43 PM PDT

  •  I highly doubt the air in Miami is that clean n/t

    by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:44:39 PM PDT

  •  Yeah. It's hard to get used to school here in VA

    where they still ask.

    by AUBoy2007 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:44:43 PM PDT

•  As an ex-smoker and non-car owner...

  ...I am waiting until we can outlaw cars that create exhaust at all. Why should I have to walk outside and breath in other peoples exhaust? I am sick and tired of car exhaust. Unfortunately, all lung cancer is caused by cigarettes and no other pollutants.
  Please explain why I should have to breath in air fouled by people who feel it is their right to pollute the air with their stupid cars.
  The day that people addicted to a terrible substance get free nicotine supplements and treatment is the day I support higher taxes, on cigarettes, and the looking down on the addictted.
  All I ask is to stop polluting my outside air with you stupid cars.

  by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:44:01 PM PDT

  •  indeed.

    The biggest shame of all is that the cigarette sin taxes go to paving roads, building schools and other things to make up for states' budget shortfalls. If states were that concerned about smokers' health and their cost to society healthwise they would spend every penny collected from these regressive taxes on health care for smokers. But they don't. The states are as addicted to cigarette tax money as smokers are to cigarettes. Ever wonder why they barely used the settlement money from big tobacco for actual health related concerns for smokers?

    by michael1104 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:55:28 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      The states are spending far too little of their tobacco taxes and lawsuit settlement funds on tobacco prevention and cessation programs.  Tobacco control organizations like the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids have been complaining about this for years.  Only 9 states got A grades in the ALA's 2006 report card for spending adequate amounts on money on tobacco prevention and cessation programs.

      http://lungaction.org/...

      http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/...

      by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:03:22 PM PDT

      •  And The Disconnect Will Only Get Worse.....

        ....considering the gargantuan funding liabilities that governments faces due to changing demographics and longer life expectancies.  Do you honestly believe that government, neck-deep into a nearly trillion-dollar-a-year tobacco revenue dependency, wants to keep a single young person from stopping smoking?  Without a new generation of kiddies filling the state revenue trough with ever-increasing tobacco taxes, government goes broke.  Then what?

        by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:10:31 PM PDT

    •  Call me a conspiracy nut but...

      ... I swear big tobacco is the fall guy for all pollutants. No longer do we have to look at environmental pollution by big business because everyone knows lung cancer is caused by second hand smoke.
      I think that people should be equally concerned about the health of the smokers as they are with their own health. I also think it is time to get over looking down our noses at addicts whether it is crack or nicotine. We should have free treatment for all people with addiction. THough, that isn't what people are concerned about. THey think it is morally right to tax an addict more than taxing gas. When will the states of this nation start talking about increasing gas taxes by a dollar here and a dollar there. If we are "addicted to oil" therefore it follows that we should raise taxes in order to attempt to wean people off their addiction?
      I don't know how many of you people were addicted to nicotine and tried to stop but it is really fucking hard, probably the hardest thing I have done in my short 31 years on this planet.
      Non-smokers understand smokers as much as believers understand atheists.

      by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:04:15 PM PDT

  •  Lung Cancer

    It isn't true that all lung cancer is caused by cigarettes.  The National Cancer Institute says that 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by tobacco smoke.  12% of lung cancer cases are linked to radon (a radioactive gas that seeps up from the soil).  Some number of lung cancer cases are linked to auto exhaust, in particular diesel particulates.

    In any case, I like the American Lung Association support efforts to reduce exposure to both tobacco smoke and auto and industrial pollution.  You can find out more on the American Lung Association's air quality efforts here.

    http://www.lungusa.org/...

    by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:55:35 PM PDT

    •  I believe too that second hand smoke has...

      ...been linked to breast cancer even though first hand smoke hasn't. I am no scientist but that seems odd. How the exhaling of a carcinogen(sp?) turns it more lethal than the original smoke.

      by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:57:22 PM PDT

      •  Sidestream Smoke

        Most indoor environmental tobacco smoke is smoke that comes off of the tip of the cigarette (so-called "sidestream smoke") rather than smoke that is exhaled by the smoker ("mainstream smoke").  Because of the different properties of the burning, sidestream smoke is different from mainstream smoke.  

        Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke. Sidestream condensate is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate by dermal application.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

        by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:12:16 PM PDT

        •  Aren't sidestream smoke and secondhand...

          ....two completely different things. Secondhand smoke, I thought, meant the smoke exhaled by a smoker. Sidestream smoke is the smoke that is created by a cigarette idly burning. That is correct, right?

          by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:19:55 PM PDT

          •  Who cares? They're both bad.

            by PhantomFly on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:21:42 PM PDT

            •  Not as Bad as We're Led to Believe.....

              For all the deranged hyperbole about secondhand smoke meant to divide nonsmokers against smokers, the Surgeon General Report last summer indicated the relative risk of secondhand smoke to be only one tick above no risk at all (1.1 relative risk for ETS compared to 1.0 representing no risk).  Comparatively, the grills cooking your food at the restaurants that have banned smoking have a relative risk of 1.9.

              by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:14:30 PM PDT

          •  That's one reason why...

            the term "second-hand smoke" is somewhat inaccurate.  The more appropriate term is "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS) instead.  Environmental tobacco smoke is a combination of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke.  Unfortunately, ETS is the air that many food service workers breathe every day in much of this country.

            by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:28:45 PM PDT

            •  Do You Support Banning Frying Pans....

              ....in restaurants to protect workers from grease burns?  And if not, how can you be so cold-hearted?  Why shouldn't restaurant workers be protected from grease-related flesh wounds the same way that office workers are?

              by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:16:24 PM PDT

        •  This is ...

          a good reason for smokers to smoke outside.  When a smoker smokes inside, he exposes himself to both mainstream and sidestream smoke.  By smoking outside, a smoker cuts his exposure to sidestream smoke.  That reduces the harm to himself.

          by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:23:35 PM PDT

          •  Mom

            Your concern for smokers is very touching.  Thanks Mom!

            by Jagger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:06:37 PM PDT

          •  And Once That Happens.....

            ....you and your ilk move to ban smoking outdoors.  It's happening all over the country, and I'm skeptical that you are raising any objections to the trend given the extent of your crusade against indoor private property rights.

            by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:18:42 PM PDT

•  I think that people feel they can shame...

  ...smokers into quitting. Almost as if smokers are just weak and need a little push, through shame, to help them. Like was asked in Super SIze Me, at what point does it become acceptable to look at overweight people with the same contempt as smokers. Imagine a fat tax.
  It is as if the smokers don't feel enough shame and self disgust as it is. For christs sake, I was beating myself up every goddam cigarette. I thought of myself as some weak loser who just needed to stop. Then I got to look around and have people shaming me on top of it. No I didn't quit smoking because of taxes, shame, discrimination, ...... I quit because I could finally afford nicotine gum and I wanted to quit forever.

  by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:10:20 PM PDT

  •  smoker as pariah

    I have to agree with what you're saying.  I've never been a smoker, but am really uncomfortable when some none-smokers judge smokers.  Smoking is bad for you, but so is fat, sugar, stress, and a whole lot of other things.

    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:47:28 PM PDT

•  Again why is it okay for peoples...

  ...cars to pollute my air with their exhaust.

  by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:11:18 PM PDT

  •  you've made your point

    no reason to spam the diary.

    by PhantomFly on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:14:14 PM PDT

    •  I am asking a simple question....

      ...over and over without response. I don't see how that is spam.
      I just want to know how it is different.

      by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:17:36 PM PDT

  •  What the hell...

    ... get troll rated for taking a conflicting point.

    by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:21:01 PM PDT

  •  YOu can troll rate me but refuse...

    ... to answer my questions. Go f**k yourself.

    by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:22:11 PM PDT

    •  I've uprated you

      a few times to compensate for the BULLSHIT trollrating you got from the fucking moron who can't read or comprehend the rules for issuing them.

      by RabidNation on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:13:27 PM PDT

  •  The difference?

    Name a benefit of cigarettes?

    Cars, for their faults, at least have a benefit.  Though we should be working on their emissions as well.

    by AUBoy2007 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:25:28 PM PDT

    •  I like them n/t

      by slothlax on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:40:07 PM PDT

    •  people are addictted n/t

      by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:55:03 PM PDT

    •  Benefit of Cigarettes?

      People need something to take the edge off in this high-stress world.  Compared to the alternatives, I don't think cigarettes are so bad.  

      by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:21:13 PM PDT

      •  Better get used to it

        Minnesota's gonna have a workplace smoking ban before the end of the year whether you like it or not.

        by ortcutt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:04 AM PDT

        •  Ah, Such a Mature Point.....

          First of all, I don't smoke and never have.  Beyond that, your attempts to rub my nose in the theft of private property rights and the culture war waged against the working class that you're so proud of only reinforces the long-standing allegation that anti-smoking prima donnas are little more than schoolyard bullies-turned-lobbyists.  Your mama must be proud.

          by Mark27 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 04:43:43 AM PDT

          •  I'm not gloating

            There are just some people who have Republican-like bubbles which makes them impervious to facts regarding ETS.  I can talk all I want, and you can talk all you want, but the bottom line is that this is coming to most of the US.  I'm glad that Democrats are doing it too because we are the party that's dedicated to safe workplaces.

            by ortcutt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:54:23 AM PDT

  •  I dont' come here to get ratings....

    ... I come here to be part of a dialogue. I guess conflicting view points aren't tolerated in this Stalinist anti-smoking....
    Oh ya the reason it is okay for you guys to pollute the air with car exhaust is because you do it. You aren't addicted so that is okay.......

    by InStride on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:27:13 PM PDT

    •  Autos aren't allowed to run inside buildings.

      Probably a good idea at that. The laws mentioned are basically applied to indoor areas. The laws banning smoking outdoors are another matter and deserve more discussion.

      by citizenx on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:53:15 PM PDT

      •  belmont, california

        The town of Belmont, California is trying to pass a law where you can't even smoke in your own house.

        by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:54:44 PM PDT

        •  That is just silly.

          by citizenx on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:01:10 PM PDT

          •  it's wrong

            Not only do I think it's wrong to meddle into people's private lives, but I hate that our law enforcement has to waste money on such stupid rules.  The war on drugs was bad enough, now this?

            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:04:00 PM PDT

          •  Especially...

            Considering that it never happened.

            by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:07:15 PM PDT

          •  Silly, But It's the Endgame of the Jihadists.....

            ....who have dedicated their lives to bullying smokers.  Ten years ago, it seemed silly to ban smoking in bars, but all over the country, politicians "protecting us from ourselves" have moved forward with the bans.  It sickens me to see otherwise sensible people align themselves with these "Big Anti-Tobacco" thugs.  In the end, I fear the theft of freedom that their tactics represent just as much if not more than the theft of freedom that the Bush administration represents.

            by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:24:08 PM PDT

        •  Umm, no

          Here's the actual story.

          "The first alternative is to ban it on streets and sidewalks," Zafferano said Tuesday inside a City Council chambers packed with close to 150 attendees, as he explained the details of the proposed law.

          Options in the draft ordinance range from the strictest limits on smoking, which would permit it only in single, detached private homes and private cars in Belmont, to milder restrictions such as allowing apartment dwellers who currently smoke to keep doing so, with the ban taking effect after they vacate the unit, or only prohibiting smoking on sidewalks when fairs, farmers markets and other public events are in progress.

          But if the proposed law, drawn up after compelling testimony about one man's duress over exposure to secondhand smoke in a multiunit senior facility, has left City Council members stunned at the response, the proposal has business owners in the city equally dismayed at its novel nature.

          http://www.insidebayarea.com/...

          The city never adopted any ordinance.  Banning smoking in your own house was never included in any of the alternatives under consideration.

          by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:05:54 PM PDT

          •  if your house is not detached

            If you own a house that is not detached then yes, you cannot smoke in your own home, if the law passes.

            by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:09:32 PM PDT

            •  What law?

              No law passed.  The degree of hyperbole regarding this case is amazing.  In order to carefully consider the options when a senior complained about smoke wafting into his unit at a senior assisted-living center, the City Council laid out a panoply of options, none of which were eventually adopted.  What happened though was that a careful consideration of all of the alternatives got Fox-Newsified and the story became that those California crazies in Belmont wanted to line up smokers and have them executed.  It's sad really that people can't discuss reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke without hysterical responses from some quarters.

              by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:16:09 PM PDT

              •  proposed law

                I didn't say it passes, I said there were attempts to pass it.  I didn't get it from Fox, I don't watch Fox.  I got it from San Francisco Chronicle.

                by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:18:41 PM PDT

                •  Well

                  The Chronicle is perfectly able to Fox-Newsify a story when they want to.

                  by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:20:15 PM PDT

                  •  okay

                    I guess you can call the SF Chronicle "Fox-Newsified" if you want, not sure what that means.
                    The proposed law wouldn't allow smoking in a home you own, if it were attached in any way to another structure.  I personally don't agree with such a ruling, because it favors people who own detached homes, which in Belmont means $1million+.

                    by sunshineonthebay on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:24:00 PM PDT

                •  Furthermore

                  It's the "if the law passes" that I was objecting to.  The Belmont City Council dropped the matter entirely when they got Fox-Newsified by the media.  There is no "if" at this point.  So, instead of Belmont City Council being lauded for systematically considering the pros and cons of a panoply of options (which is how I wish public policy would be done in this country), they got branded a bunch of loonies.  It's despicable.  No wonder most legislation gets written behind closed doors.  When you try to do the right thing, you get creamed.

                  by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:24:41 PM PDT

  •  Cars Kill Innocent People Every Day

    Between Crashes and exhaust but this is a risk society seems willing to accept. Why aren't we banning automobiles as a workplace. Truckdrivers need to be protected from the hazardous work conditions. Factory workers too. All sorts of air pollutants at factories will kill the employee long term.Second hand smoke is a feel good measure. I son't smoke but leave them alone already. Go after the chemicals in the cigarettes that's where the problems come from. Addatives just like in your food and water. Perhaps another tree needs to be barked up.

    by barbybuddy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:24:49 PM PDT

    •  The thing is that...

      most air pollutants in workplaces are tightly regulated.  Tobacco smoke is the glaring exception.  That is the issue here.

      Tobacco smoke from additive-free cigarettes are just as capable of harming people as other smoke.  That's a red herring.

      by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:52:17 PM PDT

•  What studies have been done

  that link second hand smoke or environmental tobbacco smoke to health problems?  Have there been, say, studies that compare differnt lung cancer rates between non-smokers who work in a smoke free environment, non-smokers who work in bars with smoking, smokers who work in smoke free workplaces, and smokers who work in bars and restaurants that allow smoking?

  by slothlax on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:43:17 PM PDT

  •  The Surgeon-General's Report

    covers a lot of the research on the topic.

    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/...

    by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:48:12 PM PDT

    •  But Don't Forget to Mention....

      ....that this same Surgeon General's report indicates that the relative risk of cancer from secondhand smoke is lower than that of the grills cooking food in the restaurants that have banned smoking.

      by Mark27 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:27:24 PM PDT

      •  That's ridiculous

        Have you even read Chapter 7 of the Report?  This 1.1 figure is frankly pulled out of your ass, and there is no place in the report where they assess the lung cancer risk of grills.  Study after study has shown that as a group people with workplace exposure to ETS have higher risk of lung cancer than people without workplace exposure and that the risk of developing lung cancer increases depending on the level of exposure.  People with the highest levels of exposure (the levels which a food-service workers would be exposed to working for many years) were often at more than 2 times the risk of lung cancer than non-smokers.  And that's just lung cancer.  That doesn't take into account either the cardiovascular effects or the risks of other cancers.

        by ortcutt on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:17:52 AM PDT

•  Hitler Banned Smoking

  The very first thing Hitler did when he seized power was ban smoking. I don't smoke but this is America and a Democratic Republic if a bar or restaurant owner wants no smoking or smoking use your legs to walk yourself on in or on out it is supposed to be Choice you remember freedom of Choice ie pursuit of happiness?

  by barbybuddy on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:18:48 PM PDT

  •  Awesome

    No diary is complete until someone proves Godwin's Law.

    by ortcutt on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:44:38 PM PDT