gut wrote: Then would you care to explain how workplaces banned smoking (successfully and legally) before the laws were passed? There's no difference. It's a behavior, not discrimination, and even then smokers are not a protected class.

Again, show me the law that is violated.

there is huge a difference. two very different types of establishments. workplaces are not open to the public the same as a bar is. plus, if you work for a company that has client W, X, and Y. then you pick up client Z that allows smoking in their building and you have to frequent there often, are you just supposed to quit because of that? oh and isnt homosexuality just a behavior? i dont know too many people who can spot a gay person just by looking at them compared to picking out someone's race, gender, or ethnicity.

adog wrote: Wait a minute now....you say unless they are a Private club huh..well then, why are these same PRIVATE clubs under this same "law" banning smoking? And to your question of finding a bar that did not allow smoking before the ban...probably can't (unless you count the bars in airports...some smoke free others not, guess which ones were busier)...because of supply and demand..so now you say the "peoples" choice dictates what a Private ownership can and cannot allow? Again..I will say...if the business was out there for a smoke free bar, restaurant, whatever...somebody would have opened 1 up. Stil goes back as ernest says....took the freedom and rights of the estblishments owners away

They arent, read the law.

ORC 3794.03 Areas where smoking is not regulated by this chapter.
(G) Private clubs as defined in section 4301.01(B)(13) of the Revised Code, provided all of the following apply: the club has no employees; the club is organized as a not for profit entity; only members of the club are present in the club’s building; no persons under the age of eighteen are present in the club’s building; the club is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the club; smoke from the club does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter; and, if the club serves alcohol, it holds a valid D4 liquor permit.

4301.01 Liquor control definitions.
(13) “Club” means a corporation or association of individuals organized in good faith for social, recreational, benevolent, charitable, fraternal, political, patriotic, or athletic purposes, which is the owner, lessor, or occupant of a permanent building or part of a permanent building operated solely for those purposes, membership in which entails the prepayment of regular dues, and includes the place so operated.

Glory Days wrote: there is huge a difference. two very different types of establishments. workplaces are not open to the public the same as a bar is.

So you are saying that department stores that sell clothes are not open to the public? Non-smoking cabs did not serve the public? I had every right to puff away while sweating on the stairmaster at the gym? And are you arguing that a bar is not also a workplace?

Again, please show me the law that was violated if I banned smoking at my restaurant.

Moreover, please explain to me how me banning smoking in my restaurant would be illegal and discriminatory but the state doing so is not. I can't ban black people from my restaurant, but if the local KKK gets a ballot initiative thru it's all aces?

gut wrote: So you are saying that department stores that sell clothes are not open to the public? Non-smoking cabs did not serve the public? I had every right to puff away while sweating on the stairmaster at the gym?

you would be damaging the clothing or products that department store sells. you would be ruining the inside of that cab driver's car. and you would be ruining the workout that other people are doing. so yes, those places have the right to refuse service to someone smoking. and eventually people were sick of eating food while smelling smoke.

And are you arguing that a bar is not also a workplace?

no i am not, just saying its a different type of establishment. just like everyone makes it sound like your privately owned bar is like your home, it isnt.

Again, please show me the law that was violated if I banned smoking at my restaurant.

i am pretty sure it would fall under the civil rights act: right to public accomodation. even though you cannot refuse service to someone based on race, gender, nationality etc, you still cannot refuse service to someone for an arbitrary reason. before people cared about second hand smoke, it was an arbitrary reason, no one cared. just like you couldnt ban people from standing on one foot in your establishment if they wanted to.

Moreover, please explain to me how me banning smoking in my restaurant would be illegal and discriminatory but the state doing so is not. I can't ban black people from my restaurant, but if the local KKK gets a ballot initiative thru it's all aces?

you have to remember, no one gave at rat's ass about second hand smoke for the longest time. now that its pretty much a proven health hazard, the people voted to ban it in public establishments like bars and its no longer an arbitrary reason for banning people from doing it. and no the KKK couldnt do that. the ban is for the state of ohio, not for podunkville. so if they did that in podunkville, it would be in violation of state and federal laws(that is the problem california is having trying to legalize pot, its still a federal crime). and in theory, the KKK could get their way if they could get congress to remove the civil rights amendment. sort of how prohibition was overturned. although i dont think the KKK will have the same support the anti prohibition people had.

like i said before, how else would you want laws made? do you want the people to have absolutely no say in what goes on? remember it goes both ways, if you want to overturn the ban, by all means try. although like i said, its probably going to be a lot harder now that the health effects of second hand smoke are more well known.

Glory Days wrote: you would be damaging the clothing or products that department store sells. you would be ruining the inside of that cab driver's car. and you would be ruining the workout that other people are doing.

You're arguments are faulty. You damage the inside of my bar with your smoke. You're ruining the atmosphere and experience for my other patrons. I've given you examples of places that restricted smoking. They had every legal right to do so.

Smokers are not a protected class. There was nothing illegal or arbitrary about going smoke-free. These places can and did exist before the bans and there were never even legal challenges to that I'm aware of. The smell and discomforting effects on the eyes and sinuses are certainly not arbitrary reasons. You've also completely confused the issue. They are not refusing service, they are simply don't allow smoking. That person is welcome to partake of services they just can't smoke in there. The action is banned, not the person, so your argument is completely invalid.

Maybe this article will help you to understand:
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/business-right-to-refuse-service.html

i already read that article. the smell and discomfort on the eyes isnt a very good reason. what next, someone claims discomfort on the eyes when they look at an ugly painting too?

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

it has nothing to do with a protected class. homosexuals are not technically a protected class either.

http://www.ncsu.edu/equal_op/harassment/pro_class.html

no one has still listed a bar or resturant that served alcohol that was smoke free before the ban. tell me how else you want laws to be made since you didnt like the way this one was. and tell me what laws or rights were infringed on by this new ban.

no one has still listed a bar or resturant that served alcohol that was smoke free before the ban.

Below is a link to Cleveland area restaurants that were smoke free prior to the ban. I know that many of them do not serve alcohol, but I am sure that some of them did.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3331890/detail.html

Applebee's and other national chains went smoke free nationwide before many states had enacted bans.

Glorydays, I give you a non-arbitrary reason for a place to ban smoking and then you say it's not, based on your opinion. Your argument could not be more flawed. It really is no different than removing people for loud obnoxious behavior. The owner has every right to set a standard of behavior for their establishment and there is absolutely no issue if it is enforced consistently.

And, again, it simply does not matter. There is NO discrimination. You are banning smoking, that action, not the person. Smokers are not a protected class, smokers are not even people but rather people who smoke.

now that its pretty much a proven health hazard

,

This is debatable. And the level of hazard is also debatable.

Prescott wrote:
This is debatable. And the level of hazard is also debatable.

Kind of like global warming, huh?

I wonder if Mars is getting dangerous levels of 5th-hand smoke wafting from Earth.

Prescott wrote:

now that its pretty much a proven health hazard

,

This is debatable. And the level of hazard is also debatable.

Do you know what second hand smoke is comprised of? How in the world can you say it's not hazardous to one's health? Would you let me put those chemicals in your drink?

Glory Days wrote: i already read that article. the smell and discomfort on the eyes isnt a very good reason. what next, someone claims discomfort on the eyes when they look at an ugly painting too?

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

it has nothing to do with a protected class. homosexuals are not technically a protected class either.

http://www.ncsu.edu/equal_op/harassment/pro_class.html

no one has still listed a bar or resturant that served alcohol that was smoke free before the ban. tell me how else you want laws to be made since you didnt like the way this one was. and tell me what laws or rights were infringed on by this new ban.

Glory..you must not have read my posts..I did indeed mention a restaurant in NW ohio that was smoke free before the ban. I did not mention names but I will now..Old Barn Out Back in Lima. This place has been smoke free for as long as I can remember. And guess what..they had that right because the OWNERS put it in place ( and no discrimination suit filed either)..I have no problem with that. The problem is when people such as you and I tell a private owner that he/she must ban smoking in their restaurant. This should once again be a matter of supply and demand..not your self righteousness pushed onto others.

tk421 wrote:
Do you know what second hand smoke is comprised of? How in the world can you say it's not hazardous to one's health? Would you let me put those chemicals in your drink?

Because many things in life are "hazardous" to our health. It depends on the frequency and amount of exposure, which is probably why the science is so mixed (which tends to happen when there is an extremely weak, if any, relationship).

gut wrote:

tk421 wrote:
Do you know what second hand smoke is comprised of? How in the world can you say it's not hazardous to one's health? Would you let me put those chemicals in your drink?

Because many things in life are "hazardous" to our health. It depends on the frequency and amount of exposure, which is probably why the science is so mixed (which tends to happen when there is an extremely weak, if any, relationship).

I can't believe there are people like yourself who still try to argue that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, even if someone is exposed to it from time to time. There may be plenty of hazardous things in everyday life, but I don't have them blown in my face.

tk421 wrote: I can't believe there are people like yourself who still try to argue that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, even if someone is exposed to it from time to time. There may be plenty of hazardous things in everyday life, but I don't have them blown in my face.

Because the research simply does not support that conclusion. I'm exposed to car exhaust every day, too, but I'm still here. Ever grill out? Lots of bad stuff in that smoke (which I'm sure is blown into your face on occasion) that makes your burger so tasty. Potatoes contain cyanide, but I'll bet you still eat french fries.

gut wrote: Because the research simply does not support that conclusion. I'm exposed to car exhaust every day, too, but I'm still here. Ever grill out? Lots of bad stuff in that smoke (which I'm sure is blown into your face on occasion) that makes your burger so tasty. Potatoes contain cyanide, but I'll bet you still eat french fries.

Suppose I go to a bar once a year. Second Hand smoke isn't going to affect me. But, suppose I'm one of the thousands of bartenders who make their living providing drinks to the proprietors patrons, second hand smoke is in my face every day.

It's just like Asbestos. Proprietors aren't allowed to use asbestos as it increases the risk of cancer for their employees.

Proprietors shouldn't be allowed to allow for cancer causing smoke to fill up their employee's nostrils either. Especially considering that most bartenders and cocktail waiters are not offered health insurance by their employers.

Anthropogenic global warming may not be set in stone but it is a fact that an employee bartender, with limited employment mobility, de facto forced to breathe in second hand smoke in a bar is at a much greater risk of getting cancer.

This is a labor issue IMO.

BoatShoes wrote: Suppose I go to a bar once a year. Second Hand smoke isn't going to affect me. But, suppose I'm one of the thousands of bartenders who make their living providing drinks to the proprietors patrons, second hand smoke is in my face every day.

Well, no one is forcing you to work there. Most ask up front if you have any issues working in an environment with smoke.

And, well, the inconclusive research I was referring to has all been done on spouses, children and co-workers of smokers. The "incidental" second-hand smoke risk is so laughable no one has even studied it. But why would they, if can't even prove the former no way you find significance with people many multiples less of exposure.

I smoke.
I have always tried to be considerate about it. I do not smoke in my home and I never smoked around my kids when they were younger.

I do not like to have smoking around when I eat. But a bar IMO is different.
I can't remember what state it was (maybe Mass. and no longer the case) but the bars that had more than 50% of the revenue from food was considered a resturant and smoking was not allowed.
What cracks me up is the people that have a problem with smoking in a bar for health reasons.
If you are so concerned about you"health" then why are you drinking poison?

How in the world can you say it's not hazardous to one's health?

Because I researched the hazards of SHS. I could not find ONE definitive study to support the hazards of SHS. It has to do with exposure rate and dosage.I looked at WHO studies, EPA studies, and independent studies.

I read some propaganda based on junk science, but when I researched it further there was no basis.

Here is something I read that I found interesting


Antismokers claim that secondary smoke is a Class A Carcinogen.

This claim would seem to be almost irrefutable. The designation of ?Class A Carcinogen? is established by a respected international body, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and any element designated as Class A by them is, by a matter of definition, Class A.

However, I feel that this claim is another example of what Dr. Kessler would say is "an accurate, but not true" statement. A review of IARC's 9th Report on Carcinogens reveals that the basis for that definition was drawn largely from the equivocal studies reviewed in Appendix A, a far weaker, indeed, uniquely weaker standard than IARC has applied to any other element it has identified as a Class A carcinogen.

Almost 95% of the substance of secondary smoke consists of such elements as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and other elements that bear no relationship at all to cancer. The total weight of the six Class A carcinogens in ETS is less than one half of 1/1000th of a gram per cigarette; less than 1/1000th that given off by a standard alcoholic drink in an hour. These are the elements that, in sufficient quantities, could cause cancer, not the entirety of secondary smoke itself.

If one were to examine the smoke from candles, the reflected wavelengths of light from a full moon, the dust in the air at a horse show, or the impurities in an ordinary glass of tap water, and apply the same sort of reasoning and examination to these, one would be forced to classify all of them as Class A Carcinogens. In these other cases though, it is correctly recognized that it is the individual components, and the concentrations of those components, which determine carcinogenicity. Only in the case of tobacco smoke does the IARC abandon such scientific determination in order to classify an overall compound of elements as carcinogenic with the specific goal of mass behavior modification.

Antismokers claim that secondary smoke as a whole is a Class A Carcinogen, without any regard or concern for concentrations of exposure.

gut wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Suppose I go to a bar once a year. Second Hand smoke isn't going to affect me. But, suppose I'm one of the thousands of bartenders who make their living providing drinks to the proprietors patrons, second hand smoke is in my face every day.

Well, no one is forcing you to work there. Most ask up front if you have any issues working in an environment with smoke.

You could say the same thing about sweat shops. "Excuse me sir, do you have a problem with daily lashings?" "It's my property so I'm allowed to run my business any way that I desire regardless of the harm I cause to my employees"

Prescott wrote:

How in the world can you say it's not hazardous to one's health?

Because I researched the hazards of SHS. I could not find ONE definitive study to support the hazards of SHS. It has to do with exposure rate and dosage.I looked at WHO studies, EPA studies, and independent studies.

Well, sir, I don't know...don't take this the wrong way...perhaps you're not a good researcher or your confirmation bias that second hand smoke isn't harmful is so deeply entrenched that there's nothing that will convince you.

"cardiovascular disease, cancer, lung problems, birth problems, are attributed to frequent, long term exposure to second hand smoke;"

Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11

If you go to wikipedia even, you can see many of the research articles like this one cited.

Also, think about it from a logic stand point...I directly put harmful substance A in my nostril multiple times daily for years...I put harmful substance A in my bartenders nostril multiple times daily for years...

"Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis."

Do you know what a meta analysis is?? AS i understand it, a META ANALYSIS is a compilation of related studies that support a hypothesis. If any or all of those studies are flawed, then the META ANALYSIS is flawed. A meta analyis is not an actual study

Below is a link to a story in the British Medical Journal concerning a study on SHS that lasted 38 years and had 118 094 subjects.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Enstrom&searchid=1063319549099_12436&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

Is your confirmation bias that second hand smoke is harmful is so deeply entrenched that there's nothing that will convince you??

BoatShoes wrote: Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.".

I could probably stop there. The '93 EPA study was a "cumulative meta-analysis" and epidemiological meta-analsyis is very tricky to use and generally frowned upon as a definitive study (indeed, not really a study at all but a combination of studies that glosses over differences in the samples).

I can't speak for Prescott, but I have a a pretty good understanding of basic statistics and research and have looked at many of these studies. The liberties taken, funadmental principles violated and inconclusive results is obvious. It IS a terrific example of junk science.

The results of studies determining a link are very, very weak. Most cite things like 25% or 75% increased risk, but the hurdle you'll find in most other studies without an agenda is typically 200-300%. And that's not counting numerous studies that received little or no press or weren't published because no relationship at all was found.

The whole second hand smoke risk is simply the greatest propaganda campaign we've seen since Prohibition. The study most cited here in the US - that '93 EPA study - would have shown no risk had it been done correctly. The other and most major & comprehensive study, the WHO report was only able to show a BENEFIT for children (something like reduced risk of developing asthma).

I really don't have a horse in this race. My disdain for this topic stems solely from the acceptance and tolerance of junk science and the way it has been ram-rodded down our throats.

I really don't have a horse in this race. My disdain for this topic stems solely from the acceptance and tolerance of junk science and the way it has been ram-rodded down our throats

I couldn't agree more.

I am sure your explanation is much better than mine as I do not have a statistical background.

gut wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.".

I could probably stop there. The '93 EPA study was a "cumulative meta-analysis" and epidemiological meta-analsyis is very tricky to use and generally frowned upon as a definitive study (indeed, not really a study at all but a combination of studies that glosses over differences in the samples).

I can't speak for Prescott, but I have a a pretty good understanding of basic statistics and research and have looked at many of these studies. The liberties taken, funadmental principles violated and inconclusive results is obvious. It IS a terrific example of junk science.

The results of studies determining a link are very, very weak. Most cite things like 25% or 75% increased risk, but the hurdle you'll find in most other studies without an agenda is typically 200-300%. And that's not counting numerous studies that received little or no press or weren't published because no relationship at all was found.

The whole second hand smoke risk is simply the greatest propaganda campaign we've seen since Prohibition. The study most cited here in the US - that '93 EPA study - would have shown no risk had it been done correctly. The other and most major & comprehensive study, the WHO report was only able to show a BENEFIT for children (something like reduced risk of developing asthma).

I really don't have a horse in this race. My disdain for this topic stems solely from the acceptance and tolerance of junk science and the way it has been ram-rodded down our throats.

I disagree that Meta-Analysis are "generally frowned upon". I agree that sources of bias aren't controlled and that you can have the problem of picking and choosing published studies, but dismissing them as "junk science" is just as bad as accepting them as pure truth, IMO.

At the same time...I could open up the Meta Analysis and scour all of the studies it used to come it its "Meta-Conclusion" but I don't really suppose it would be worth my time to do all that work for an internet message board.

BoatShoes wrote: I disagree that Meta-Analysis are "generally frowned upon". I agree that sources of bias aren't controlled and that you can have the problem of picking and choosing published studies, but dismissing them as "junk science" is just as bad as accepting them as pure truth, IMO.

At the same time...I could open up the Meta Analysis and scour all of the studies it used to come it its "Meta-Conclusion" but I don't really suppose it would be worth my time to do all that work for an internet message board.

Meta-analysis works when you have uniform samples, which is fine when combining clearly similar/identical data. But with epidemiological studies where the groups of people are obviously different and different selection criteria, such a combined study indeed becomes junk science because you are comparing apples and oranges. "Frowned upon" may be a poor choice of words, let's say instead in the field of epidemiological study it is an undeveloped/unrefined "science".

And without even diving into those potential issues, when you combine studies you are usually choosing published studies, so you are already starting from an inherently biased position.

"I agree that sources of bias aren't controlled and that you can have the problem of picking and choosing published studies" - that is, by the way, a pretty good explanation of junk science.