Well in Georgia here there is a NO SMOKING BAN.

quote:

Originally posted by daveman486:

quote:

So NYC is an exception; why not try to focus on the area you're talking about?

Same with california and many other states too

Not to mention the fact that I WAS talking about NYC in the first place:

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by benje309:

quote:

Originally posted by risika2004:
I smoke in public. If you don't like it, then move elsewhere. Smokers have every right to smoke in public as those who don't smoke.

Not in NY bars and resturants.

No they still have the right to. It's just that the Nanny Government of NY has infringed upon thier rights with oppresive legislation.

quote:

And they did not evaluate the EPA's studies independently as a meta analysis.

This was unessessary as the actual final EPA study is enough to show that there was no correlation. As to why they don't state the Brownson and Kabat studies, they are not that signifigant to the issue and didn't warrent a full discussion.

quote:

So NYC is an exception; why not try to focus on the area you're talking about?

Same with california and many other states too

quote:

Smoking bans such at they are in NYC certainly affect private property. Smoking in bars and restaraunts is outright banned. These establishments are privately, not publicly owned, and receive no public funding or support outside of the ordinary citizen. Smoking is legal and not otherwise regulated, and the government has no buisness telling people if they, or others, can participate in a LEGAL activity while on that property.

So NYC is an exception; why not try to focus on the area you're talking about?

quote:

You NEVER do a scientifc study to "prove" there are or aren't risks. You preform the study and THEN make your desicion. A study that goes in with a predetermined outcome, ie. looking for "no proof" is already inherently flawed. Therefore, a major study should not be to "prove" the risks are there, but rather to see if there are any risks. Thus it satisfies both the search for the positive and the negative.

Point taken.

Despite the EPA ignoring studies, the question is "Why?". Was there insufficient data, were there too many variables, was there a bias to begin with, etc. I'm not refuting the possibility of EPA corruption, but even your site doesn't state the Brownson and Kabat studies, which he/they accuse the EPA leaving out because according to those studies there were no conclusive connections. And they did not evaluate the EPA's studies independently as a meta analysis.

Here's a decent link, courtesy of Google.

quote:

Wrong - Anti-smoking laws, first of all, do allow the smoking on private property, as long as the property owner does allow it; you are allowed to smoke on your own property (versus the noise restrictions, it would seem as though noise restrictions are more stringent). You're comparing private and public property, as well as social property rights, which is not a satisfactory comparison.

Smoking bans such at they are in NYC certainly affect private property. Smoking in bars and restaraunts is outright banned. These establishments are privately, not publicly owned, and receive no public funding or support outside of the ordinary citizen. Smoking is legal and not otherwise regulated, and the government has no buisness telling people if they, or others, can participate in a LEGAL activity while on that property.

quote:

There have only been studies to prove that SHS risks are present; none have been conducted for the reverse argument. If there is a factor of harm, our government has generally been good about removing the risk.

You NEVER do a scientifc study to "prove" there are or aren't risks. You preform the study and THEN make your desicion. A study that goes in with a predetermined outcome, ie. looking for "no proof" is already inherently flawed. Therefore, a major study should not be to "prove" the risks are there, but rather to see if there are any risks. Thus it satisfies both the search for the positive and the negative.

quote:

As for your "studies...proven to be flawed", I would like for some proof to be shown that the studies were flawed to an extreme amount - all studies have a percent error, but you make it sound like the results were pracitically made up.

That's because, in the case of the EPA study from with virtually all current SHS legislation in this country is based off of, the results apparently WERE made up. I don't have the the link off the top of my head, a good summary was posted before. Here's what happened:

The EPA basically made a compliation of studies on SHS smoke and compared the total data. There is strong evidence that the studies chosen were cherry-picked to be biased towards the politically expediant answer: that SHS is a severe health risk. There are actually many individual studies within the EPA study that show no health risks, and even a few that show that SHS is mildly beneficial.
However, despite the bias in the chosen studies, the data the EPA obtained still showed no statistical evidence that SHS caused cancer or other lung diseases.

This is not some "maybe they chose biased studies" speculation. You read the report, and the data clearly shows NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFIGANT CONNECTION. However, the EPA ignored this and went out and, through half-truths, announced that thier study showed a signifigant increase in cancer risk. They actually announced the findings of the study before it was completed.

Not to mention the initial WHO study that also found no connection between SHS and cancer or lung disease. That study was buried and replaced by a second study that had similar flaws to the EPA study.

quote:

Anti-smoking laws do not make that distinction. They're all or nothing.

Wrong - Anti-smoking laws, first of all, do allow the smoking on private property, as long as the property owner does allow it; you are allowed to smoke on your own property (versus the noise restrictions, it would seem as though noise restrictions are more stringent). You're comparing private and public property, as well as social property rights, which is not a satisfactory comparison.

quote:

One can make an argument that this would increase the danger to police officers, etc. Smoking does not contribute to crime, or increase the danger on the public/police as a whole aside from individuals making desicions that only affect themselves.

This is a little better of an argument. However, people feel there is a risk - so the risk of danger was taken away, in both situations. Smoking may not directly lead to crime or danger, but it poses a seeming (if you are, in fact, correct about the lack of health concerns with SHS) health risk to others and so it has been removed in many areas as a potential danger.

quote:

I've got no idea what your point is with this.

There have only been studies to prove that SHS risks are present; none have been conducted for the reverse argument. If there is a factor of harm, our government has generally been good about removing the risk.

As for your "studies...proven to be flawed", I would like for some proof to be shown that the studies were flawed to an extreme amount - all studies have a percent error, but you make it sound like the results were pracitically made up.

quote:

Noise restictions does not harm others.

Noise restrictions are in place because excessive noise will disrupt people's buisness and/or personal life on adjacent properties. Smoking laws are not based upon that logic. You can play your music as loud as you want on your property as long as it doesn't disturb those who live around you. Anti-smoking laws do not make that distinction. They're all or nothing. That is the key, noise restrictions do not come into effect if someone walks into a club and finds the music too loud. They come into effect if that music is, say, keeping the neighbors awake.

quote:

Merely carrying weapons does not harm others.

Well, actually I'd like a carrying nation, but that's not the issue. One can make an argument that this would increase the danger to police officers, etc. Smoking does not contribute to crime, or increase the danger on the public/police as a whole aside from individuals making desicions that only affect themselves.

quote:

And I have never heard of a single study conducted to attempt to squash the common complaint of smoking and SHS.

I've got no idea what your point is with this. That nobody ever has said that complaints aren't a problem? What? I know there are a lot of people out there who don't like smoke. But tough for them, you are not garunteed a smoke free environment on someone else's private property.

As to the last point you made, "some" does not mean "signifigant" and if it's not statistically signifigant, it effectively is non-existant. In ANY case I would bet my life that the vast majority of recent anti-smoking legislation has been passed because of people who find smoke inconvienent. The studies are merely a tool, as they've been proven to be flawed and are only good for shock value against the ignorant any more.

Noise restictions does not harm others. Merely carrying weapons does not harm others. And I have never heard of a single study conducted to attempt to squash the common complaint of smoking and SHS. The only ones I know of were to find what negative effects there were, and as far as I know (including your past mentioned as well) there is always some negative effect on others.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
Just as the "Nanny Government of NY" also has noise restrictions and carrying weapons in public (last I knew) as well as a more boastful healthcare philosophy. Again, this is from what I have heard and understand. Somebody wanna pick that apart?

The difference between the issues you list there and smoking is that public smoking has only a negative effect on the smoker. The laws in question are driven by noisy people who don't like smoking and want to find loopholes to banning it. An outright ban would never fly in court, so they switch to government coercion. It's an attempt that still inhibits ones rights, but does so in a low-profile manner.

It's 20 feet from a building in Mass... but that doesn't stop it all the time.

Time to solve the problem... because I got it worse than you both... because I've lived in both states. NY didn't just put a ban on smoking inside, you cant smoke outside within 50 ft. of a public building.

In texas you walk into a restraunt they look at me (see that I'm military) and ask... Smoking? Notice the lack of the option for non-smoking

Texas actually isn't a bad state, and it's actually becoming slightly more liberal in nature which is a good change because it was way to religious right to begin with. Austin (the capital) is one of the most liberal cities in the nation (somewhere after boston and San Francisco)

But as far as smoking bans are concerned, if you wanna ban them indoors fine, but dont be like Oregon who thinks they can ban smoking anywhere but on your own property.

I'm fully aware that I don't know anything about NY. But what you said was offensive and shouldn't have been said in the first place. I dislike Texas greatly, but it's an insult to me as well when I live here with no choice. I have to deal with it. So drop the comments and we'll forget about the whole thing.

Oh, and by the way, you don't know anything about NY until you have lived here.

THE EMPIRE STATE

1. I was just joking, as I said, I don't mean it.
2. If you want me to delete it, just post that here, and I will.
3. Once again, it was just a joke. Please don't take it seriously.

Its as if someone said to me all jews have big noses, i know you are just kidding and wont take it personally...but i will get rid of it if you want me to.

quote:

Also, Texas? I wouldn't be surprised to see infants smoking in the streets or chewing tobacco in their backpockets...

wow...what a generalization...i really don't mean that...not trying to offend anyone....

You wouldn't have said it if you didnt' want to offend someone. By the way, you're right. I let my kid smoke because I'm just such a cool mom. It's the new trend here in Texas. *sarcasm*

That entire comment was uncalled for, Benje. You know nothing about Texas until you've lived here. Ass.

quote:

No they still have the right to. It's just that the Nanny Government of NY has infringed upon thier rights with oppresive legislation.

Just as the "Nanny Government of NY" also has noise restrictions and carrying weapons in public (last I knew) as well as a more boastful healthcare philosophy. Again, this is from what I have heard and understand. Somebody wanna pick that apart?

quote:

Originally posted by benje309:

quote:

Originally posted by risika2004:
I smoke in public. If you don't like it, then move elsewhere. Smokers have every right to smoke in public as those who don't smoke.

Not in NY bars and resturants.

No they still have the right to. It's just that the Nanny Government of NY has infringed upon thier rights with oppresive legislation.

quote:

wow...what a generalization...i really don't mean that...not trying to offend anyone....

Then why did you say it at all?

yeah, I was just putting that out there...

Also, Texas? I wouldn't be surprised to see infants smoking in the streets or chewing tobacco in their backpockets...

wow...what a generalization...i really don't mean that...not trying to offend anyone....

I don't have a problem with people by the way, it's the smoking. I have plenty of friends who smoke, even around me. (Sort of hypocritical I suppose, similar to the "I have a black/gay/etc friend.")

I think benje was just saying that New York is different... Could be wrong, but I think that's what he was getting at.