John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia, equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of David at a recent Republican event.
I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS ARTICLE FROM HUFFINGTON POST --
-
I CANNOT CLICK IT -- IF SOMEONE COULD GET IT ON OUR SCREEN THAT WOULD BE
GREAT --
THANKS .... DVORA
>I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS ARTICLE FROM HUFFINGTON POST --
> -
> I CANNOT CLICK IT -- IF SOMEONE COULD GET IT ON OUR SCREEN THAT WOULD BE
> GREAT --
> THANKS .... DVORA
> John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> David at a recent Republican event.
>> John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>> equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>> David at a recent Republican event.
> > John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> > equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> > David at a recent Republican event.
I would just put it at "false analogy". Better he should have
compared it to Stalin's ban on religious observance. That would be the
perfect analogy.
--
The Smokin' Golem
>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia, >equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of >David at a recent Republican event.
>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia, >>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of >>David at a recent Republican event.
They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
grew up in the US perfectly safe.
I refer to his use of "soup nazi". The line, the whole bit, appeared
in reruns too a couple years later, even though I'm sure he got a lot
of flak because of it. I wrote them a stern complaint.
I also didn't like his silly bit when a "religious" girl he was
dating couldn't control herself when there was lobster or something
lieft over in the fridge at the beach house they were staying in for a
couple days on Long Island. Few girls in their 20's who have kept
kosher all their lives would be tempted by that, when they could have
bought it on their own anytime they wanted, but the scrpt made her
seem typical.
--
>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia, >equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of >David at a recent Republican event.
>End quote
Frankly, I don't believe the stories about second-hand smoke -- maybe
if you live in the same home with a heavy smoker, but not other places
--, and neither does my brother, an MD. Neither of us have ever
smoked, so we have nothing personal to gain. And I think people who
work at bars and should find another job if they're afraid of second
hand smoke. And I think smokers are abused in large part becasue
it's no longer acceptable to abuse in public Blacks or Jews or
homosexuals, and there aren't enough Gypsies. So people take out
their aggressions on smokers.
But even from my pov this guy is as stupid as they come. If the
worst I faced in my life would be having to go outside to smoke, I'd
be a very happy man. He seems ignorant beyond belief about the
nazis. And he's stupid.
OTOH, if they have their science right, the rules are reasonable.
Except probably for the bars.
>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>>David at a recent Republican event.
>>End quote
> Frankly, I don't believe the stories about second-hand smoke -- maybe
> if you live in the same home with a heavy smoker, but not other places
> --, and neither does my brother, an MD. Neither of us have ever
> smoked, so we have nothing personal to gain. And I think people who
> work at bars and should find another job if they're afraid of second
> hand smoke. And I think smokers are abused in large part becasue
> it's no longer acceptable to abuse in public Blacks or Jews or
> homosexuals, and there aren't enough Gypsies. So people take out
> their aggressions on smokers.
> But even from my pov this guy is as stupid as they come. If the
> worst I faced in my life would be having to go outside to smoke, I'd
> be a very happy man. He seems ignorant beyond belief about the
> nazis. And he's stupid.
> OTOH, if they have their science right, the rules are reasonable.
> Except probably for the bars.
> Meir
If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should cause it to be banned.
>>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>>>David at a recent Republican event.
> They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
> esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
> very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
> given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
> his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
> grew up in the US perfectly safe.
The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the Great Dictator" (1938, I think)
-- Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, מאת JJ:
> If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should > cause it to be banned.
A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
The real reason is ideological. If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, מאת JJ:
> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> > cause it to be banned.
> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
> The real reason is ideological.
The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
eyes to water, their clothes to smell, and often gives them allergic
reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
would have left. Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
do with political correctness.
>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
blowing in their faces?
In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
> >>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> >>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> >>>David at a recent Republican event.
> > They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
> > esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
> > very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
> > given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
> > his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
> > grew up in the US perfectly safe.
> The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the
> Great Dictator" (1938, I think)
----
Yes. The point of the Seinfeld episode was to spoof Hitler, not to
make a mockery of the Holocaust.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
On 4/22/2012 10:37 AM, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, מאת JJ:
>> If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
>> does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>> probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>> cause it to be banned.
> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
> The real reason is ideological. If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
No, the reason isn't ideological. It is that it unfairly infringes on the rights on non-smokers to breath fresh air.
I stopped smoking 40 years ago. I would never ban smoking entirely. However, I do support banning smoking where the non-smoker has no choice but to inhale the obnoxious fumes. This includes such places as restaurants and ball parks (with fixed seating) and the workplace. If the smoker wants to smoke, that is fine with me -- so long as no non-smoker is forced to inhale that smoke.
> >>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> >>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> >>>David at a recent Republican event.
> > They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
> > esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
> > very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
> > given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
> > his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
> > grew up in the US perfectly safe.
> The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the
> Great Dictator" (1938, I think)
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
The propaganda cartoons during World War II put out by Walt Disney
in the 1940s weren't too bad -- but the subject matter was not
trivial. The first link is quite a serious cartoon, the second one has
a little more humor
> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American > > PC
> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> > cause it to be banned.
> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of > 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So > it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking > in public places.
> The real reason is ideological.
The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
eyes to water, their clothes to smell, and often gives them allergic
reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
would have left. Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
do with political correctness.
>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and >the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the >comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe >justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, >and in the name of science.
There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
blowing in their faces?
In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
I stopped smoking over 20 years ago. Today, when I stand on a street corner and someone is smoking in the crowd, the smell is almost nauseating.
At one time smokers were allowed to smoke in the "smoking section" of an airplane or a restaurant. About which someone said that having a smoking section in a restaurant Is like having peeing section in a swimming pool.
>The real reason is ideological. If people have to go to special shelter, open on >two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they >can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking.
At one of the firms that I serve (a large financial institution)
a broadcast email went out last year that seemed to imply one
more reason.
The gist was that smokers may no longer just go outside of a
building and smoke anywhere they want - not even walking around
on the campus' grassy areas. Instead, anybody smoking on the
premises must be in one of the designated areas.
Since the designated areas were so conspicuously out of sight,
the widely-attributed implication was that The Powers That Be did
not want visitors to the institution (some of whom were
entrusting very large sums of money to same) to think that
anybody working there would have such poor judgment as to have
started smoking.
Maybe that goes back to the social stigma aspect.... but it seems
like there is truth there: what level of judgment would a person
have (aside from a child or adolescent) who would voluntarily
addict themselves to something with such horrendous health and
social consequences? Would I want to entrust my life savings
or my company's entire retirement fund to an institution where
such people work when alternatives were available?
-- Pete Cresswell
בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 18:29:44 UTC+1, מאת (PeteCresswell):
> Maybe that goes back to the social stigma aspect.... but it seems
> like there is truth there: what level of judgment would a person
> have (aside from a child or adolescent) who would voluntarily
> addict themselves to something with such horrendous health and
> social consequences?
Virtually no-one starts smoking after the age of 25. It's something that people do in the later years of school, ate university, or when they are just starting out on adulthood.
Peer pressure in this age group is extraordinarily strong. The main reason is that everyone is looking for sexual partners. There's an awful lot to play for, and the costs of being excluded for the peer group are very high. Also, this is the age at which the messages from the adult world are not right. Adults are always making demands of late teenagers, then rewarding those who don't comply, because they perceive them as more mature.
The the medical costs of smoking usually don't kick in until the fifties. To a teenager, that is another life. A lot of youngsters also start smoking to smoke cannabis with it. Cannabis has a similar but different culture associated with it.
> On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, מאת JJ:
> > > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
> > > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> > > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> > > cause it to be banned.
> > A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
> > The real reason is ideological.
> The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
> second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
> noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
> eyes to water, their clothes to smell, and often gives them allergic
> reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
> former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
> In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
> places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
> ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
> woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
> faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
> would have left. Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
> smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
> do with political correctness.
> >If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
> There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
> doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
> *should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
> blowing in their faces?
> In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
> alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
> were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
> fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
I agree with Cindy.
It is my understanding that one of the reasons second hand smoke was
banned in NY state in bars and restaurants was the observation that
people who worked in those places and who did not smoke themselves
were dying at a higher rate from cigarette induced medical problems.
There is no doubt that second hand smoke causes substantial health
problems, not the least of which is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,
pneumonia in children, ear problems, and asthma.
By making smoking less and less convenient, it may encourage more
smokers to quit and save their own lives.
Not to mention smoking is very expensive.
The California EPA estimates that 430 babies die each year from
SIDS in the USA due to second hand smoke.
Some authorities estimate that almost 50,000 people die in the US
annually due to second hand smoke. Preventable deaths too.
The politician making the the silly statements about the smoking ban,
is he in a state where growing tobacco is a major industry?
That might be the real reason he is fighting any kind of smoking
ban. Wonder what industry might be donating to his campaign, or
what lobbyists are knocking on his door.
>> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
>> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>> > cause it to be banned.
>> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
>> The real reason is ideological.
>The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
>second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
>noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
>eyes to water, their clothes to smell,
And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL
> and often gives them allergic
>reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
>former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.
>In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
>places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
>ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
>woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
>faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
>would have left.
Fair enough, you can move or you can leave. You don't even have to
sit down It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
in this area.
>Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
>smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
>do with political correctness.
>>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
>There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.
But it was piddling.
>Also, why
>*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>blowing in their faces?
Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it. Duh.
No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.
>In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
>alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
>were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
>fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
That's artfully phrared. They didn't fail and they didn't go bankrupt
"at all" but you don't say they didn't have reduced profits, or a
reduced customer base that would be less able to tide them through a
business mistake or a recession, or other problems. If they closed
years later after working with a smaller customer base for years,
especially if in a recession, it woudln't be attributed to the no
smoking rule.
Plus money is hardly the only thing. It limited their freedom and
the fee activitiy of smokers.
When you deal with a God who knows you and loves you, your duties are
important.
When you deal with a government that barely knows you, doesn't love
you, makes one rule for everyone, and doesn't make exceptions, your
rights are mportant. Unfortunately, this is a right that has been
lost, at least for now.
>> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where >> > American PC
>> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which >> > should
>> > cause it to be banned.
>> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of >> 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So >> it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking >> in public places.
>> The real reason is ideological.
>The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
>second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
>noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
>eyes to water, their clothes to smell,
And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL
> and often gives them allergic
>reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
>former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.
>In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
>places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
>ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
>woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
>faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
>would have left.
Fair enough, you can move or you can leave. You don't even have to
sit down It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
in this area.
>Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
>smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
>do with political correctness.
>>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and >>the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the >>comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe >>justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, >>and in the name of science.
>There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.
But it was piddling.
>Also, why
>*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>blowing in their faces?
Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it. Duh.
No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.
>In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
>alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
>were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
>fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
That's artfully phrared. They didn't fail and they didn't go bankrupt
"at all" but you don't say they didn't have reduced profits, or a
reduced customer base that would be less able to tide them through a
business mistake or a recession, or other problems. If they closed
years later after working with a smaller customer base for years,
especially if in a recession, it woudln't be attributed to the no
smoking rule.
Plus money is hardly the only thing. It limited their freedom and
the fee activitiy of smokers.
When you deal with a God who knows you and loves you, your duties are
important.
When you deal with a government that barely knows you, doesn't love
you, makes one rule for everyone, and doesn't make exceptions, your
rights are mportant. Unfortunately, this is a right that has been
lost, at least for now.
Yeah, we also lost the right to breathe the exhaust fumes of trucks on the roads, the right to drink filthy water polluted by big business, and the right to kill ourselves by not wearing seat belts in cars. What an irrational, power-grabbing (socialist or fascist, take your pick) government. Then they took away our rights to endanger babies by making up MORE irrational rules as to cribs and high chairs. My one-year old grandson will never forgive them, I'm sure.
>>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>>>David at a recent Republican event.
>>>End quote
>> Frankly, I don't believe the stories about second-hand smoke -- maybe
>> if you live in the same home with a heavy smoker, but not other places
>> --, and neither does my brother, an MD. Neither of us have ever
>> smoked, so we have nothing personal to gain. And I think people who
>> work at bars and should find another job if they're afraid of second
>> hand smoke. And I think smokers are abused in large part becasue
>> it's no longer acceptable to abuse in public Blacks or Jews or
>> homosexuals, and there aren't enough Gypsies. So people take out
>> their aggressions on smokers.
>> But even from my pov this guy is as stupid as they come. If the
>> worst I faced in my life would be having to go outside to smoke, I'd
>> be a very happy man. He seems ignorant beyond belief about the
>> nazis. And he's stupid.
>> OTOH, if they have their science right, the rules are reasonable.
>> Except probably for the bars.
>> Meir
>If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC >does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists >probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should >cause it to be banned.
>Jay
I can't resist, but said with a warm smile:
A, that assumes they know more than I do!
B, If they want to require a sign to be posted that sitting in a room
with smoke is risky, fine, but people should be allowed to risk their
lives. Many people don't seem to regard freedom as a value anymore.
Bars are for relaxation. In a free country threre would be bars
with smoking and entrepreneurs would open bars with no smoking.
There are so many bars in most places that the travel time would
barely increase. (The last time I went to a bar was about 20 years
ago.)
And for the first time in a while, I fully agree with Malcomn's
points.
> >> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
> >> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> >> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> >> > cause it to be banned.
> >> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
> >> The real reason is ideological.
> >The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
> >second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
> >noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
> >eyes to water, their clothes to smell,
> And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL
Not illegal. Just not allowed in public places.
> > and often gives them allergic
> >reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
> >former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
> If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.
Well, happily, since New York State doesn't allow smoking in bars, New
Yorkers with asthma and COPD can go to bars without putting their
health at risk.
> >In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
> >places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
> >ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
> >woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
> >faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
> >would have left.
> Fair enough, you can move or you can leave. You don't even have to
> sit down It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
> in this area.
And I think it's sad that so many young people in Italy smoke and also
that Italian smokers are allowed to pollute everybody else's air in
public places.
> >Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
> >smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
> >do with political correctness.
> >>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
> >There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
> >doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.
> But it was piddling.
I don't think giving other people an asthma attack or making their
hair and clothes stink is piddling. Sorry.
> >Also, why
> >*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
> >blowing in their faces?
> Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it. Duh.
Well, in New York, it's against the law for the owner to permit it.
Duh.
> No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.
Sure. If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, let them stay home.
Happily, in New York, it's the smokers who have to smoke outside or
stay home.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
> >In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
> >alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
> >were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
> >fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
> That's artfully phrared. They didn't fail and they didn't go bankrupt
> "at all" but you don't say they didn't have reduced profits, or a
> reduced customer base that would be less able to tide them through a
> business mistake or a recession, or other problems. If they closed
> years later after working with a smaller customer base for years,
> especially if in a recession, it woudln't be attributed to the no
> smoking rule.
> Plus money is hardly the only thing. It limited their freedom and
> the fee activitiy of smokers.
> When you deal with a God who knows you and loves you, your duties are
> important.
> When you deal with a government that barely knows you, doesn't love
> you, makes one rule for everyone, and doesn't make exceptions, your
> rights are mportant. Unfortunately, this is a right that has been
> lost, at least for now.
>>> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where >>> > American PC
>>> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>>> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which >>> > should
>>> > cause it to be banned.
>>> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of >>> 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So >>> it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking >>> in public places.
>>> The real reason is ideological.
>>The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
>>second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
>>noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
>>eyes to water, their clothes to smell,
>And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL
>> and often gives them allergic
>>reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
>>former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
>If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.
>>In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
>>places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
>>ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
>>woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
>>faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
>>would have left.
>Fair enough, you can move or you can leave. You don't even have to
>sit down It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
>in this area.
>>Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
>>smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
>>do with political correctness.
>>>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and >>>the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the >>>comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe >>>justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, >>>and in the name of science.
>>There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>>doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.
>But it was piddling.
>>Also, why
>>*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>>blowing in their faces?
>Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it. Duh.
>No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.
>>In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
>>alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
>>were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
>>fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
>That's artfully phrared. They didn't fail and they didn't go bankrupt
>"at all" but you don't say they didn't have reduced profits, or a
>reduced customer base that would be less able to tide them through a
>business mistake or a recession, or other problems. If they closed
>years later after working with a smaller customer base for years,
>especially if in a recession, it woudln't be attributed to the no
>smoking rule.
>Plus money is hardly the only thing. It limited their freedom and
>the fee activitiy of smokers.
>When you deal with a God who knows you and loves you, your duties are
>important.
>When you deal with a government that barely knows you, doesn't love
>you, makes one rule for everyone, and doesn't make exceptions, your
>rights are mportant. Unfortunately, this is a right that has been
>lost, at least for now.
>Yeah, we also lost the right to breathe the exhaust fumes of trucks on the >roads
No comparison. The roads are public roads. Everyone breathes
everyone's exhaust.
>, the right to drink filthy water polluted by big business,
No way to give good water to those who want it and bad water to those
who don't mind.
> and the >right to kill ourselves by not wearing seat belts in cars
That's fascist also.
> What an >irrational, power-grabbing (socialist or fascist, take your pick)
Fascisl. I don't see what sociallism has to do with it.
>government. Then they took away our rights to endanger babies by making up >MORE irrational rules as to cribs and high chairs.
People shouldn't be risking the lives of others, but they have the
right to risk their own lives. In fact everyone risks their own
lives, the question is who gets to decide how much. If Halacha were
telling you what you couldn't do, and it has such rules, you would
bridle and ignore them. Yet you expect me and other Americans to
willingly follow some other set of rules. Maybe from now on I'll
expect you to follow Halacha.
> My one-year old grandson >will never forgive them, I'm sure.
>Jay
Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.
