Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:40 pm

"Second hand smoke causes cancer." No it doesn't.

With all the scientific evidence out there -- why don't you believe this?

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:19 pm

Looks like its just waiting for Mr. Fahey's pen at this point.

Council refuses to reconsider smoking ban

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=163 ... nd=7584446

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:50 pm

Put em out or get out. Mwahahaaa

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:55 pm

Uffda wrote:
"Second hand smoke causes cancer." No it doesn't.
With all the scientific evidence out there -- why don't you believe this?

That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard! Remember when I told you that your NOT an authority on this. YOUR NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THIS. Until you earn a M.D. and have done decades of research you can tell us what you find. That most be why you are for smoking. You have no idea what it all entails.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:02 pm

http://www.bloomberg.comappsnewspid=20601103&sid=ab2IapbNvASQ&refer=us

Secondhand smoke may still be linked to 46,000 deaths a year from heart disease and 3,000 from lung cancer, even though the number of Americans exposed to it has fallen since 1986 by more than half, to about 126 million people, according to a government report released today.

For someone to argue against any smoking ban on a civil liberties platform has - I begrudgingly (and consistently) admit - a smidge of debatable merit. I wholly and completely disagree with the logic and can shoot holes in the theory from a mile away, but I'll concede the shred of legitimacy.

For someone to state that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer is either stupid or criminal. At least the lobbyists are well-funded for their efforts.

-Big E

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:53 pm

Smoking is a recreational activity.

I have never heard of smoking being considered a recreational activity. I know it is considered a recreational drug, so I asked a couple of close friends who have smoked more years than they want to say.... they dont consider it a recreational acitivity --- a filthy addiction that they wish they could quit.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:25 pm

DTO Luv wrote:No no no. The speak easys. ;)

There's something wrong when Canada allows something and Nebraska doesn't.

Why can't there be a place where people can smoke indoors. With a big sign that say: "Hey, you'll die from smoke in there." And then nonsmokers can look at it and say: They're not like me, so I'll destroy them.

Wait a minute, that's kinda like now.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:00 pm

Not for much longer. Soon the sing will say hey clean air, no more toxins to kill you.
Now my next fight will be to allow touching for blind people at strip clubs.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:03 pm

I am not sure what you are saying Canada allows

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3758707.stm

Canada

Smoking levels are some of the lowest in the world, with some 21% of Canadians over the age of 15 reported smoking in 2002, according to government statistics.

Public health experts say the decline has been driven by tough anti-smoking measures adopted in recent years.

In addition to bans on smoking in workplaces and many public places, cigarette packets bear graphic images of the damage done to internal organs by smoking.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Weed, Canada allows small amounts of marijuana.

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:58 pm

MTO wrote:
Uffda wrote:
"Second hand smoke causes cancer." No it doesn't.
With all the scientific evidence out there -- why don't you believe this?
That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard! Remember when I told you that your NOT an authority on this. YOUR NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THIS. Until you earn a M.D. and have done decades of research you can tell us what you find. That most be why you are for smoking. You have no idea what it all entails.

DTO not say that you have had any credibility in this discussion before this, but that really is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I suppose you believe the holocaust was completely made up too?

(Oh yeah, I took it to that level!)

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:30 pm

Linkin5 wrote:
MTO wrote:
Uffda wrote:
"Second hand smoke causes cancer." No it doesn't.
With all the scientific evidence out there -- why don't you believe this?
That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard! Remember when I told you that your NOT an authority on this. YOUR NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THIS. Until you earn a M.D. and have done decades of research you can tell us what you find. That most be why you are for smoking. You have no idea what it all entails.
DTO not say that you have had any credibility in this discussion before this, but that really is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I suppose you believe the holocaust was completely made up too? (Oh yeah, I took it to that level!)

Playing the holocaust card in an anti-smoking thread brings on the thread lock in 5...4...3...2....

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:08 pm

Im going to have to knock some sense into him next time I see him. It's kind of funny when we are in person it doesn't even get this heated because I usually win.

papiostud · Post by **papiostud** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:21 pm

News flash: Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection, even in heavy marijuana smokers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:32 pm

Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer*.

If you're around smoke once, twice or even three times a week you're not going to get cancer. I bet you a million dollars that they blew smoke on a rat for a month and then it got cancer. That will give anyone cancer. But if you're around it sparingly it's not going to hurt you.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:32 pm

from long ago but still the same arguments.

SMOKING BAN REJECTED FOR MOST U.S. FLIGHTS

Published: March 20, 1984

The Civil Aeronautics Board today rejected proposals to ban smoking on up to 85 percent of commercial flights in the United States, but agreed to prohibit it on planes with no more than 30 seats.

Both the tobacco industry and the airlines opposed efforts to ban smoking on the short commercial flights.

Flights lasting up to one hour represent about half of all commercial flights in the United States, and those of up to two hours encompass about 85 percent.

The C.A.B. chairman, Dan McKinnon, said said that, for most domestic flights, today's action means: ''There will be no smoking ban.''

Current Federal regulations require airlines to provide nonsmoking sections for passengers. The board reaffirmed rules that prohibit ''sandwiching'' of smoking and nonsmoking sections. The board dropped proposals that would have required passengers to present medical notes saying they are bothered by smoke. Board members said most carriers already take care of people with special health problems.

It also rejected a proposal to ban smoking on planes with 60 or fewer seats, choosing instead to apply the ban to planes with 30 seats or less. 'A Logical Decision'

''It was a logical decision,'' Mr. McKinnon said, noting that ventilation systems on planes of 30 seats or less are not as powerful as those on larger planes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A962948260

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:36 am

D'Shawn I like your signature this morning.

"I AM FOR THE SMOKING BAN"

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:45 pm

What happens to smoking rooms? I know the First National Tower has a smoking room because they do not want to have people smoking out in front of their buildings.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:25 pm

Uffda wrote:from long ago but still the same arguments.

SMOKING BAN REJECTED FOR MOST U.S. FLIGHTS

Published: March 20, 1984

The Civil Aeronautics Board today rejected proposals to ban smoking on up to 85 percent of commercial flights in the United States, but agreed to prohibit it on planes with no more than 30 seats.

Both the tobacco industry and the airlines opposed efforts to ban smoking on the short commercial flights.
The C.A.B. chairman, Dan McKinnon, said said that, for most domestic flights, today's action means: ''There will be no smoking ban.''

It also rejected a proposal to ban smoking on planes with 60 or fewer seats, choosing instead to apply the ban to planes with 30 seats or less. 'A Logical Decision'

''It was a logical decision,'' Mr. McKinnon said, noting that ventilation systems on planes of 30 seats or less are not as powerful as those on larger planes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A962948260[/quote]

PRICELESS!

I predict that the Omaha City Council will have a change of heart within 1-2 years and tighten the ban to include all bars within a much shorter time span than 5 years. That or the public will petition to ban it through the electoral process. It is unfair to force one class of establishments to ban smoking while allowing it for others. There should be one rule for all. The basic health and safety of employees and customers must come before any consideration of economics.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:33 pm

papiostud wrote:News flash: Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection, even in heavy marijuana smokers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html

Money quote from the article: "While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day."

As the song goes, Isn't it ironic. The FDA and Congress ban marijuana, a substance with demonstrated health benefits, while allowing public sale of tobacco, which has demonstrated deadly health consequences. I guess the tobacco lobby is much stronger than the pot lobby.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:52 pm

"dude, let's go to the pot lobby...they have pot leaf wallpaper and....what was I just saying? hey, a twinkie."

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:36 pm

It is signed and goes on the books next Thursday.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=163 ... nd=3371556

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:54 pm

One thing I've found ironic in all of this is that both the initial supporters and opposition (except DTO, of course) are all now almost unanimous in wnating a total ban, which is what GASP, the Mayor and numerous others have essentially been trying for all along.

NativeOmahan predicted earlier that the council will have a change of heart in 1-2 years and expedite the full enforcement. Based on what I mentioned above - and don't consider this official gossip (or even accurate) - I'm predicting a 60-40 chance there will be a statewide ban from Lincoln within the same time frame.

-Big E

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:20 pm

I seriously hope it doesn't take five years for everywhere to go smokeless. These restaurants and bar/grills don't have nearly as much to worry about as they think they do. They'll be OK. I wonder how many would drop the grills just so they could allow smoking? Seems like the money they would loose by not serving food would be a wash with any money they could potentialy make by only catering to smokers.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:40 pm

So when are we going to get together and force all of the bars to only sell O'Douls and virgin martinis and bloody marys?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:53 pm

DTO is trapped in pure bliss...

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:07 pm

As soon as YOUR drinking makes ME drunk or damages MY liver, I'll be right there with you, DTO.

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:31 pm

I tried to tell him that drinking does not spit toxins into the air that can |expletive| with my lifespan.

crypticgeek · Post by **crypticgeek** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:59 am

Many of you may be interested in this article for the Straight Dope take on the issue of ETS. I have read a few of the studies (including the EPA study most EVERYONE cites), and personally I think the link between ETS and cancer is tenuous. When you look at the numbers (yes, I'm not talking out my |expletive| here...I did look at them), it's so statistically insignifigant. Granted, I abhor the awful little sticks of death. And I can sympathize with those who don't wish to be around it.

However I'm strongly againt the ban. Why? I think it's awfully rash of certain people to run around like a chicken with its head cut off citing a few studies now known be either flawed or misrepresented to justify their selfish regulating of the activities of private businesses and people.

There are nonsmoking sections of many restaraunts. If you don't like smoke, don't go to the bar. You pro ban people act as if it's the end of the world that you don't get to go to smokey bars. I honestly don't get it. Help me understand why we should legistlate the activities of private individuals and businesses to accomodate your whim. I was going to try an analogy, but they are so dumb anyway.

Many pro ban people dismiss the fact that smokers have to go freeze in the cold winter to smoke. If you don't have empathy for them, you don't deserve any back. One could just as easily retort back that non smokers should form smoke free establishments to go to. It's a "choice" to aquire an unhealthy addiction you say. Well it's a choice to go to the bar too. These kind of arguments are pedantic and childish anyway. Many people on both sides of this argument have been rude, obnoxious, and totally unopen to dialouge. I can understand why, but it's still a shame.

My .02, comments not directed at anyone in particular or anything.

crypticgeek · Post by **crypticgeek** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:15 am

Big E wrote:http://www.bloomberg.comappsnewspid=20601103&sid=ab2IapbNvASQ&refer=us
Secondhand smoke may still be linked to 46,000 deaths a year from heart disease and 3,000 from lung cancer, even though the number of Americans exposed to it has fallen since 1986 by more than half, to about 126 million people, according to a government report released today.
For someone to state that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer is either stupid or criminal. At least the lobbyists are well-funded for their efforts.

-Big E

Read the language of that information carefully. MAY be linked?

Either stupid or criminal? How do these people come up with their "estimates"? Do you know? I bet you don't. Unless you know the facts behind the proven deaths from second hand smoke I wouldn't go around calling people stupid/criminal.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:39 am

If we're going to allow businesses which allow/encourage smoking, then let's have separate hospitals too... to be funded by separate insurance groups (not just separate rates), because I don't want to pay for the stupidity of smokers... much less take in their second hand smoke.

Oh, and welcome to the forum geek.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:30 am

Sweeeet! we got the big guy chiming in too. haha...

Why do we always hear about us telling bars what to do? WE ALREADY DO! For christ sake. Go |expletive| about the other hundred health code regulations before you complain about something that isn't even a law yet.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:58 pm

No rest for advocate of smoke ban

Mayor Mike Fahey signed Omaha's smoking ban Friday, making it law. And how did one of the law's biggest cheerleaders and architects, the anti-smoking advocate Mark Welsch, celebrate? By stuffing envelopes. Five hundred of them. With thank-you letters and blank petitions. A reminder to the army of volunteers to stay in the no-smoking fight, in part in case Omaha's new ordinance is challenged. A notice that Welsch isn't done.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=2199152

crypticgeek · Post by **crypticgeek** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:50 pm

jhuston wrote:If we're going to allow businesses which allow/encourage smoking, then let's have separate hospitals too... to be funded by separate insurance groups (not just separate rates), because I don't want to pay for the stupidity of smokers... much less take in their second hand smoke.

Oh, and welcome to the forum geek.

Well if we're gonna allow people to drink themselves to death lets have a hosptial for them...oh, don't forget people who eat all that deadly fast food...and what about those people who copy that MTV show where they do stupid things and risk seriously injurying themselves in the name of entertainment?

Oh, and thanks.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:54 pm

There is an LD50 to pure H20 there is an LD50 for anything... But once again (with a huge sigh) if you go drink yourself to death does it effect MY HEALTH? Fast food fast food hmm.. If you go get a cheeseburger does it give me cancer if you eat it at the bar next to me?... and so on

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:08 pm

Here is a good article that some of you (DTO!) should read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:11 pm

Well if we're gonna allow people to drink themselves to death lets have a hosptial for them...oh, don't forget people who eat all that deadly fast food...and what about those people who copy that MTV show where they do stupid things and risk seriously injurying themselves in the name of entertainment?

Unfortunately, there is no 'smoking in moderation'.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:40 pm

Yeah, try telling an addict to use moderation. Good luck.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:58 pm

There's also no second-hand drinking or second-hand eating. The reason it is difficult to make analogies to smoking is because there ISN'T one.

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:22 pm

I don't know why people will ho ahead and admit that smoking is bad for the smoker but not for the backwash smoker.... Explain that one to me pro smoking people.