No-smoking sections
Lawrence Beyer
http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=517586&tid=23
--
Larry...@comcast.net
Dave Hitt
<Larry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Little help for non-smokers. Go to article.
>http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=517586&tid=23
Isn't it interesting that studies that tobacco money has even come
near are written off as biased, but "studies" conducted by blatantly
partisan nanny groups are haled as fact.
Note the complete lack of controls in the study, and no explanations
of methodology.
More Pure Crap from the nannies.
Dave Hitt
----
Why smoking bans kill businesses
http://www.davehitt.com/april03/homebody.html
Asha34
of the tobacco industry. But if second hand smoke really isn't harmful, what
do these "nanny groups" have to gain?
Ashley Adams
author of Winning 7-Card Stud
Irish Mike
appear to be intelligent enough to know it's unhealthy - that eventually you
will end up with lung cancer. You know your cloths stink - you know you are
spending money on something that will ultimately make you sick. I've never
smoked so I don't know how bad nicotine addition is. Maybe it's just too
tough for some to kick.
Irish Mike
"I stood on the Dublin docks and my future was uncertain, in a place where
fortunes are won and lost on the dealing of a hand"
"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:37vh4056ksot2kts1...@4ax.com...
Ken M
it is easier to kick heroin and I can believe them (although I have no personal
experience with heroin). What is more insidious is the smoker's need to delude
himself.
I remember when the statistics first came out showing smoking caused cancer. I
came up with god knows how many reasons the statistics were invalid. (A lot
like Dave here?) After I quit, I realized how blind I had been, but it took a
while.
"Irish Mike" mjo...@ameritech.net
Dave Hitt
>What exactly is the self interest of "nanny groups"? I see the self interest
>of the tobacco industry. But if second hand smoke really isn't harmful, what
>do these "nanny groups" have to gain?
An enormous amount of money. Huge stinking gobs of money. Some comes
from contributors, but most comes from the master tobacco settlement.
Successful nanny groups also can get huge handouts from government
agencies, and from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The heads of
these groups usually earn six figure salaries.
Nannyism is big business.
Dave Hitt
wrote:
>Here's a question for you Dave - why don't you just quit smoking? You
>appear to be intelligent enough to know it's unhealthy - that eventually you
>will end up with lung cancer. You know your cloths stink - you know you are
>spending money on something that will ultimately make you sick. I've never
>smoked so I don't know how bad nicotine addition is. Maybe it's just too
>tough for some to kick.
I did. I quit cigarettes a long time ago. I smoke cigars and pipes
now, maybe once or twice a week. Neither is inhaled, so the risk is
minimal. (I don't know of any pleasure that's entirely risk free.)
BTW, about 25% of smokers die from a smoking related disease, and only
10% of them get lung cancer. That's a pretty big risk (one I'm not
willing to take) but not as big as the nannies would have you believe.
A few years ago they pulled fresh numbers out of their ass and claimed
that smoking kills 1/3 the people that do it, now they've got it up to
50%. They learned they conjure any number they like and the media
will report it over and over so often that the general public will
start to believe it. Witness SHS - first they claimed it killed 3000
per year, then 50,000, then 53,000, and now it's up to 63,000. All
completely fictional.
Within five or six years you'll probably be seeing that smoking kills
75% of the people who smoke, and SHS kills 250,000 a year.
Dave Hitt
>As a former smoker - Yeah, it is hard to quit. I've read articles that claim
>it is easier to kick heroin and I can believe them (although I have no personal
>experience with heroin). What is more insidious is the smoker's need to delude
>himself.
>
>I remember when the statistics first came out showing smoking caused cancer. I
>came up with god knows how many reasons the statistics were invalid. (A lot
>like Dave here?) After I quit, I realized how blind I had been, but it took a
>while.
Smoking does indeed cause cancer. Actually, that's not the correct
terminology, because 90% of smokers don't get lung cancer from
smoking. Smoking *increases the risk* of lung cancer. Quite a bit,
but not nearly as much as we're lead to believe.
I'm not arguing that smoking is a healthy habit, or health neutral.
(I know a few people who do, and you're right, they're fooling
themselves.)
The trick is to look at the real numbers and see what they really say.
They really say smoking increases the risk of some diseases. (Not
nearly as many as the nannies claim, though.) The also say that SHS
doesn't increase the risk to anyone at all - not even people who spend
a lifetime sharing a home with a smoker. it's simply far to dilute to
cause any trouble. Don't take my word for it - learn what the numbers
mean, and read them.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> <Larry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Little help for non-smokers. Go to article.
>
>http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=517586&tid=23
>
> Isn't it interesting that studies that tobacco money has even come
> near are written off as biased, but "studies" conducted by blatantly
> partisan nanny groups are haled as fact.
>
> Note the complete lack of controls in the study, and no explanations
> of methodology.
Note that tobacco companies admit smoke kills people.
>
> More Pure Crap from the nannies.
>
Hardly
>
>
>
> Dave Hitt
> ----
> Why smoking bans kill businesses
They improve business.
Restraunts bitch, then notice profits go up when they go smoke free.
> http://www.davehitt.com/april03/homebody.html
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:48:06 -0500, "Lawrence Beyer"
><Larry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Little help for non-smokers. Go to article.
>>http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=517586&tid=23
>
>Isn't it interesting that studies that tobacco money has even come
>near are written off as biased, but "studies" conducted by blatantly
>partisan nanny groups are haled as fact.
>
>Note the complete lack of controls in the study, and no explanations
>of methodology.
>
>More Pure Crap from the nannies.
Here's another link, from the page above:
http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm
Let's see, on the one hand we have information from the National
Cancer Institute, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy of
Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health, all of which have
documented the harmfulness of cigarette smoke in the air ("secondhand
smoke").
On the other hand, we have ... you.
Hmmm, who is right ... how to decide ... gee, this is tough ...
--
Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>The trick is to look at the real numbers and see what they really say.
>They really say smoking increases the risk of some diseases. (Not
>nearly as many as the nannies claim, though.) The also say that SHS
>doesn't increase the risk to anyone at all - not even people who spend
>a lifetime sharing a home with a smoker. it's simply far to dilute to
>cause any trouble. Don't take my word for it - learn what the numbers
>mean, and read them.
You should try that (look at real numbers). "Children of parents who
smoke have more respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract
infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function, than do
children of nonsmoking parents;" "[secondhand smoke] is responsible
for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among nonsmokers
in the United States." "Recent studies and the EPA's report point to
a 20朴ercent increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers due to
[secondhand smoke]." "The EPA report, a compilation of 30
epidemiological studies that focused on the health risks of nonsmokers
with smoking spouses, concluded that there is a strong association
between [secondhand smoke] exposure and lung cancer."
Source: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm
No, I won't take your word for it.
C06777
>I don't know how bad nicotine addition is. Maybe it's just too
>tough for some to kick.
To go further off-topic in this thread than it has gone already, let me add to
this new branch. I have attended a number of various 12-step meetings for as
many as nearly a dozen different groups. I have often heard more than one
speaker say that quitting cigarettes was the hardest thing they had ever done
in their life, and that was much more of a struggle than quitting heroin and
other drugs, or more difficult than not acting out their sexual addictions,
etc. So the thought of it being too tough for some to kick does not strike me
as unreasonable at all. Maybe the "too tough to kick" notion should be more
widespread and might give those thinking about starting a cause to pause to
consider lighting up.
Tugboat
> As a former smoker - Yeah, it is hard to quit.
Not true. Kicking the habit's amazingly easy. I've mangaged to do it
4 times in the last two years.
Gary Carson
monogomous sex
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Asha34
be against smoking. In truth, the best way they could line their pockets would
be to have tobacco companies continue to defeat legislation banning smoking.
They'd want smoking to be legal everywhere. That way, there would be more
people dying of cancer and, potentially at least, more litigants.
Nah, I don't see it. I think their motives are legit. The American Cancer
Society really doesn't want more people to die of cancer and really wants to
reduce that number by limiting one of the highest risks -- first and second
hand tobacco smoke.
Ashley Adams
author of Winning 7-Card Stud
>
Dave Hitt
>Wait a second. By your logic then, these groups should only want to appear to
>be against smoking. In truth, the best way they could line their pockets would
>be to have tobacco companies continue to defeat legislation banning smoking.
>They'd want smoking to be legal everywhere. That way, there would be more
>people dying of cancer and, potentially at least, more litigants.
You're confusing them with Scum Sucking Bottom Feeders. With the
exception of ASH, they don't make their money from lawsuits. They
make their money from activism. And the more they do, and the more
successes they have, the more they can justify their salaries, and the
more contributions and grants they bring in.
> Nah, I don't see it. I think their motives are legit. The American Cancer
>Society really doesn't want more people to die of cancer and really wants to
>reduce that number by limiting one of the highest risks -- first and second
>hand tobacco smoke.
Agreed. But they've taken an "ends justifies the means" approach, and
if it means passing laws that put bars and taverns out of business,
well, too bad, we're saving lives, dontcha know.
There are few things more evil than someone who wants to save you for
your own good, against your will.
Dave Hitt
Ah, appeal to authority. How nicely you bend at the knee, Joe.
Let's take a look at that study, shall we?
The EPA had 32 studies to start with. They settled on 11, one of
which wasn't even finished. They ignored 2/3s of the available data.
When that didn't give them the numbers they wanted, they doubled their
margin of error. Let me repeat that - the doubled the standard margin
of error!
That gave them 1,500 deaths. But they had eliminated all studies of
non-smoing men, because none of them supported their pre-announced
results, and limited it to women. So they just doubled it, because
they had left me out, after all. (See anything wrong with that
approach?)
A federal judge, with a history of supporting the government on
tobacco issues, vacated the study, and issued a *92* page document
outlining all the errors, lies and fabrications in the report.
I've documented all this here: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
but won't ask you to take my word for it. I've provided quite a few
references, and you can find others pretty easily.
BTW, you're behind the times. The current number is 63,000 deaths
from SHS. You see, the nannies learned a long time ago that they can
just make up numbers, and the media will report them over and over
until the gullible consider them facts. To thinking people, those
number smell pretty funny. That's because the nannies have pulled
them out of their ass.
Dave Hitt
Carson) wrote:
>> (I don't know of any pleasure that's entirely risk free.
>
>monogomous sex
May all your troubles be little ones.
And people do die of heart attacks while in the saddle.
(Not that that's a bad way to go, but that means it's not risk free.
Personally, I hope to go that way. While celebrating my 100th
birthday. And I hope the three women who are with me are so upset by
it they drop out of college for a semester.)
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:37vh4056ksot2kts1...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:48:06 -0500, "Lawrence Beyer"
>> <Larry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Little help for non-smokers. Go to article.
>>
>>http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=517586&tid=23
>>
>> Isn't it interesting that studies that tobacco money has even come
>> near are written off as biased, but "studies" conducted by blatantly
>> partisan nanny groups are haled as fact.
>Oh stop sounding like an idiot.
Disagreeing with you makes one an idiot?
Pointing out how partisan a study is makes one an idiot?
>> Note the complete lack of controls in the study, and no explanations
>> of methodology.
>Note that tobacco companies admit smoke kills people.
Wait, I thought the Evil Tobacco Companies were not to be trusted?
NOW they're suddenly trustworthy? What they say with that big gun to
their head is now gospel?
Dave Hitt
----
Why smoking bans kill businesses
Dave Hitt
>> Why smoking bans kill businesses
>
>They improve business.
>Restraunts bitch, then notice profits go up when they go smoke free.
went belly up after 30 years in business because of the NYC smoking
ban. How about Fiddlers Green, also in NYC, dead because of the ban.
Would you like to make that argument to the owners of Harry's Hanover
Square, in NYC? They had been open over for over a century. They
survived *prohibition*, but could't survive the smoking ban. How
about The Middleport in, which was doing great guns in Middleport NY,
until the ban caused their business to drop to the point it was no
longer sustainable. I've got her e-mail, if you'd like to write and
tell her how good it was for her business.
In fact, I have contact information for quite a few of the 200+
business I've listed on this page:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html Let me know which ones
you want to contact to tell them how good the bans are for business,
and I'll get you the information.
Dave Hitt
----
Why smoking bans kill businesses
Dave Hitt
Appeal to authority is so nice. It saves you having to make any
decisions on your own, saves you from taxing either brain cell. And
if you can't trust the government, well, who can you trust?
If you ever wish to think for yourself Joe, there are plenty of
resources on the internet that can help. Mine are just one, but since
I'm so untrustworthy, there are others. Learn to read the numbers,
learn what they really say, and then you'll be able to converse
intelligently on this subject.
Of course, you'll also have to admit you were completely wrong on this
subject. Are you a big enough man to do that, Joe, or does that go
against your nature?
tribeguy2000
exhaust fans. cubic feet per minute( cfm ) is how they size them. and #
air changes per hour is what you trying to improve. u can size them so
all air in room changes every 5 mins. besides smoke in air perfume, nail
polish carpet cleaning and other cleaning products all bad to breath.
indoor enviroments are not that healthy unless you mix outside air more
cfm the better. smoking easy to see ,radon gas fiberglass fibers in air
, other airborne pollunts are hard to detect. so like all problems we
fix the ones esy to see ignore others
Posted From http://OnlinePokerRooms.com Card Room News - Critical
Reviews - Dialogue
C06777
from people how they had been affected by moving into a newly built home, new
carpeting, everything, etc. and as a result of some sort of chemical toxic
thing were now unable to tolerate smells. Maybe at least five people I have
come into contact with. Which to me seems like a lot. I mean, these people
can't even sit next to someone in church who has scented deodorant on, let
alone is wearing perfume or cologne. That is how I first heard about this
condition, from a preacher who was asking members of the congregation to be
sensitive to this.
Since that time, I have had a roommate who could not use any commercial
household cleaning products whatsoever because of the sensitivity she had
developed to smells. Had to use only vinegar and other natural products.
I worked in California public libraries for a number of years and have noticed
that this condition (which actually has a medical name that I don't recall) is
becoming more widespread among the general population and it does have as a
cause exposure to certain chemicals that are widely used in many normal
consumer products.
I remember the roommate I had for a breif while who said that people's houses
nowadays are so airtight that it is actually dangerous for many of us to
breathe in our own homes. What with our double-paned windows and everything
that is now a norm and standard which was not present in the homes in which we
grew up in the 50s and 60s.
So even though the dust and pollen cause allergies for many, the car exhaust
and such, it is indeed healthier to breathe the outdoor mix of air.
Irish Mike
Mark Twain
Irish Mike
"I stood on the Dublin docks and my future was uncertain, in a place where
fortunes are won and lost on the dealing of a hand"
"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ttim40pnq58fsca0f...@4ax.com...
Asha34
is no group that is looking to stop people from smoking. Rathe, they are
trying to insure that the rest of us have cigarette smoke-free air to breath.
I haven't seen any legislation to ban people from smoking in their cars or in
their homes when they're alone.
Here's a hypothetical for you Dave. Would you be in favor of all of this
"nanny" legislation if it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that
second-hand cigarette smoke really was harmful? Are you in favor or opposed to
legislation that prohibits the burning of lethal substances indoors, PCBs for
example?
Ashley Adams
author of Winning 7-Card Stud
>
Crownliner
suffer.
crownliner
"tribeguy2000" <johei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:404b5082$0$196$7586...@news.frii.net...
Bill Reich
It was easy for me too. I had smoked two or three cigarettes a day for
two whole weeks. I was seventeen and I noticed that tobacco didn't get
me high, while Wild Turkey and sensamilla did. So I gave up tobacco.
I don't smoke tobacco, don't like being AROUND smokers and feel that
second-hand smoke, while it isn't the manace that the nannys say it
is, is still harmful. But there are lots of nannies who don't like MY
habits.
Fuck em.
--
Will in New Haven
Bill Reich
> > (I don't know of any pleasure that's entirely risk free.
>
> monogomous sex
I don't know where you got THAT one. The first woman I ever lived with
ended the relationship by stabbing me in my sleep. And I was being
monogomous, as far as she knew. At least, that wasn't the cause of the
temper tantrum.
--
Will in New Haven
"You know that old trees just grown stronger,
and old rivers grow wilder every day"
John Prine
Bill Reich
Any junkie who isn't trying to impress you with how awful it is and
how much he or she needs your pity will tell you that going cold
turkey is no worse than a case of the flu. On the other hand, kicking
barbituates without medical supervision can KILL you. And so can
continuing to do barbituates. Mabye people are getting smarter because
there are do seem to be fewer people doing "reds" these days.
Any former junkie on here who is so hung up on self-pity to dispute
the description as "no worse than the flu" can save your time. I have
been around enough junkies to know the bullshit junkie party line when
I hear it.
--
Will in New Haven
"My strategy for tournaments is simple:
1: Do not go all-in.
2: If you have to violate rule #1, WIN the damn hand."
Poker for Cats_ by Feather
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:25:58 -0700, Joe Long <s...@my.sig> wrote:
...
>>Source: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm
>>
>>No, I won't take your word for it.
>Ah, appeal to authority. How nicely you bend at the knee, Joe.
"Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy only when the authority
being appealed to is not, actually, an authority on the subject at
hand. Such as advertisements using sports figures or movie stars to
endorse a beer.
Citing CREDIBLE sources is not the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority."
Citing your website, now ...
BTW, you (and your website) remind me quite a bit of the "AIDS
rethinkers" of a decade ago, who insisted that HIV does not cause
AIDS, that AIDS is caused by the drugs used to treat it, and it was
all a big conspiracy. They were equally passionate in their
psuedo-science as you are.
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:19:55 -0700, Joe Long <s...@my.sig> wrote:
...
>>Here's another link, from the page above:
>> http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm
>>
>>Let's see, on the one hand we have information from the National
>>Cancer Institute, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy of
>>Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health, all of which have
>>documented the harmfulness of cigarette smoke in the air ("secondhand
>>smoke").
>>On the other hand, we have ... you.
>>Hmmm, who is right ... how to decide ... gee, this is tough ...
>Appeal to authority is so nice. It saves you having to make any
>decisions on your own, saves you from taxing either brain cell. And
>if you can't trust the government, well, who can you trust?
See my earlier post about the logical fallacy of "Appeal to
Authority." What I am doing is not "Appeal to Authority."
>If you ever wish to think for yourself Joe, there are plenty of
>resources on the internet that can help. Mine are just one, but since
>I'm so untrustworthy, there are others. Learn to read the numbers,
>learn what they really say, and then you'll be able to converse
>intelligently on this subject.
Yep, just like the "AIDS Rethinkers."
Thanks, but I will continue to consider reports from major
Universities, recognized research institutions, and, yes, even such
government organizations as the NIH and National Academy of Sciences
more reliable than your website and your links to other partisans.
>Of course, you'll also have to admit you were completely wrong on this
>subject. Are you a big enough man to do that, Joe, or does that go
>against your nature?
People like you are simply in denial, and no amount of evidence will
every change your mind.
Joe Long
>never can figure out why they dont set up smoking areas with bigger
>exhaust fans. cubic feet per minute( cfm ) is how they size them. and #
>air changes per hour is what you trying to improve. u can size them so
>all air in room changes every 5 mins. besides smoke in air perfume, nail
>polish carpet cleaning and other cleaning products all bad to breath.
>indoor enviroments are not that healthy unless you mix outside air more
>cfm the better. smoking easy to see ,radon gas fiberglass fibers in air
>, other airborne pollunts are hard to detect. so like all problems we
>fix the ones esy to see ignore others
Better ventilation is not incompatible with non-smoking policies; in
fact, they both work toward the same goal. Why not have both?
Backslider
> Appeal to authority is so nice. It saves you having to make any
> decisions on your own, saves you from taxing either brain cell. And
> if you can't trust the government, well, who can you trust?
Are the effects of smoking a decision? I wish I had known that earlier. So
I can just decide that sitting in someone elses smoke doesn't smell like
shit? And I can decide that it doesn't make my eyes hurt and my head hurt?
Sweet.
Backslider
Dave Hitt
>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:17:21 GMT, Dave Hitt
><BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:19:55 -0700, Joe Long <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>...
>>>Here's another link, from the page above:
>>> http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm
>>>
>>>Let's see, on the one hand we have information from the National
>>>Cancer Institute, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Academy of
>>>Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health, all of which have
>>>documented the harmfulness of cigarette smoke in the air ("secondhand
>>>smoke").
>
>>>On the other hand, we have ... you.
>
>>>Hmmm, who is right ... how to decide ... gee, this is tough ...
>
>>Appeal to authority is so nice. It saves you having to make any
>>decisions on your own, saves you from taxing either brain cell. And
>>if you can't trust the government, well, who can you trust?
>
>See my earlier post about the logical fallacy of "Appeal to
>Authority." What I am doing is not "Appeal to Authority."
It is, absolutely, and you're too blind to see it.
>>If you ever wish to think for yourself Joe, there are plenty of
>>resources on the internet that can help. Mine are just one, but since
>>I'm so untrustworthy, there are others. Learn to read the numbers,
>>learn what they really say, and then you'll be able to converse
>>intelligently on this subject.
>
>Yep, just like the "AIDS Rethinkers."
Ah yes, another standard comeback. Compare you adversary with someone
or something they have nothing at all to do with. That proves
nothing, Joe, except how shallow your thinking is.
My site encourages you to look at The Facts. Not what the authorities
say, not "what everyone knows." Not what someone claims is The Truth.
Just the facts. You're unwilling or unable to do that. You're in
good company, but that still means you're swallowing bullshit and
bragging about how good it tastes.
>Thanks, but I will continue to consider reports from major
>Universities, recognized research institutions, and, yes, even such
>government organizations as the NIH and National Academy of Sciences
>more reliable than your website and your links to other partisans.
Yet you refuse to look at the actual studies they cite, which prove
the exact opposite of what they're saying!
None so blind.
>
>>Of course, you'll also have to admit you were completely wrong on this
>>subject. Are you a big enough man to do that, Joe, or does that go
>>against your nature?
>
>People like you are simply in denial, and no amount of evidence will
>every change your mind.
I've examined the evidence in great detail, far closer than you are
willing or able to do. The facts are very clear. The bullshit, which
you prefer, contradicts them. Too bad you insist on accepting the
latter.
Dave Hitt
>never can figure out why they dont set up smoking areas with bigger
>exhaust fans. cubic feet per minute( cfm ) is how they size them. and #
>air changes per hour is what you trying to improve. u can size them so
>all air in room changes every 5 mins. besides smoke in air perfume, nail
>polish carpet cleaning and other cleaning products all bad to breath.
>indoor enviroments are not that healthy unless you mix outside air more
>cfm the better. smoking easy to see ,radon gas fiberglass fibers in air
>, other airborne pollunts are hard to detect. so like all problems we
>fix the ones esy to see ignore others
Some places have. But that's not good enough for the anti-smoker
movement. Hell, they are banning it in parks because the don't want
children to *see* smokers.
James Replace, one of the most ardent anti-smokers in the country,
claims nothing short of hurricane force winds will remove smoke from
an area. And the media reports this as if it were a fact!
And why spend 5-10k on ventilation when your investment will be
worthless when the government outlaws smoking in your place anyway?
Dave Hitt
>You are mischaracterizing the actions of these groups. As far as I know there
>is no group that is looking to stop people from smoking.
Then you really don't know these groups very well.
I just received this in an e-mail from Smokfree America:
Thanks for caring about the problem of tobacco use! Working together,
we can have a world free of tobacco.
>Rathe, they are
>trying to insure that the rest of us have cigarette smoke-free air to breath.
>I haven't seen any legislation to ban people from smoking in their cars or in
>their homes when they're alone.
Then you're not paying attention. Such legislation has been proposed,
many times in many states. ASH sells kits to get smokers kicked out
of their apartments.
With all due respect you have no idea what your talking about.
> Here's a hypothetical for you Dave. Would you be in favor of all of this
>"nanny" legislation if it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that
>second-hand cigarette smoke really was harmful? Are you in favor or opposed to
>legislation that prohibits the burning of lethal substances indoors, PCBs for
>example?
Sure. Prove it. It will be tough, though, considering that there are
at least 127 studies on the subject, and 114 of them show NO
statistically significant increase in illness from SHS. And most of
the remaining ones show increases so trivial they'd be discarded by
anyone if this weren't such an agenda laden subject.
Joe Long
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:40:49 -0700, Joe Long <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yep, just like the "AIDS Rethinkers."
>
> Ah yes, another standard comeback. Compare you adversary with someone
> or something they have nothing at all to do with. That proves
> nothing, Joe, except how shallow your thinking is.
> My site encourages you to look at The Facts. Not what the authorities
> say, not "what everyone knows." Not what someone claims is The Truth.
> Just the facts. You're unwilling or unable to do that. You're in
> good company, but that still means you're swallowing bullshit and
> bragging about how good it tastes.
Yep, JUST like the "AIDS Rethinkers." They said all of the same things
you said here.
>> ...
>> People like you are simply in denial, and no amount of evidence will
>> every change your mind.
> I've examined the evidence in great detail, far closer than you are
> willing or able to do. The facts are very clear. The bullshit, which
> you prefer, contradicts them. Too bad you insist on accepting the
> latter.
Never underestimate the abilty of people to rationalize their
prejudices and call it "science," especially when their addiction is
threatened.
The "AIDS Rethinkers" convinced themselves that "The Truth" was that
HIV doesn't cause AIDS, because they wanted to continue having
anonymous unprotected sex. Some of them paid for their rationalization
with their lives. "Tobacco Rethinkers" convince yourselves that
secondhand smoke is harmless because you are controlled by your
addictions -- in your case, it is the people around you that you make
sick.
Irish Mike
store that sell cigarettes? Or, maybe you work for one of the large tobacco
companies. I don't believe any thinking person would defend something as
unhealthy as smoking, as doggedly as you do, unless they were making money
from it.
Irish Mike
"I stood on the Dublin docks and my future was uncertain, in a place where
fortunes are won and lost on the dealing of a hand"
"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:daor40pvf1j2e79gq...@4ax.com...
Dave Hitt
wrote:
>So Dave, what line of business are you in? You own a tobacco shop or a
>store that sell cigarettes? Or, maybe you work for one of the large tobacco
>companies. I don't believe any thinking person would defend something as
>unhealthy as smoking, as doggedly as you do, unless they were making money
>from it.
>
>Irish Mike
Sorry, Spunky, you must have been absent in school the day that taught
the lesson on "when you assume."
For the past 20 years I've worked in IT, and am now working in retail.
I have nothing to do with the tobacco industry (other than enjoying a
cigar from time to time). In fact, I despise Big Tobacco just as much
as most nannies do.
But I also despise junk science, and the fact that we've become a
Nanny Nation. THAT is my motivation.
Dave Hitt
----
Quick Hits - Rapid Rants
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 06:49:55 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:37vh4056ksot2kts1...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:48:06 -0500, "Lawrence Beyer"
> >> <Larry...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Little help for non-smokers. Go to article.
> >>
>
>>http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=517586&tid=23
> >>
> >> Isn't it interesting that studies that tobacco money has even come
> >> near are written off as biased, but "studies" conducted by blatantly
> >> partisan nanny groups are haled as fact.
> >Oh stop sounding like an idiot.
>
> Disagreeing with you makes one an idiot?
Posting idiocy makes one an idiot.
You qualify.
>
> Pointing out how partisan a study is makes one an idiot?
>
Claiming a study on a known carcinogen demonstrating cancer-causing
properties is "partisan" makes one an idiot.
You qualify.
> >> Note the complete lack of controls in the study, and no explanations
> >> of methodology.
> >Note that tobacco companies admit smoke kills people.
>
> Wait, I thought the Evil Tobacco Companies were not to be trusted?
When the evil admit their guilt, it's because they can't possibly come up
with any kind of defense at all.
> NOW they're suddenly trustworthy? What they say with that big gun to
> their head is now gospel?
What they discover they can't wiggle out of is trustworthy.
If they can't even TRY and lie about it...
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> >> Why smoking bans kill businesses
> >
> >They improve business.
> >Restraunts bitch, then notice profits go up when they go smoke free.
>
> Really? Perhaps you can explain that to Harry's Hanover Square, who
> went belly up after 30 years in business because of the NYC smoking
> ban.
Show a cause and effect relationship for this.
Then show the profit and loss statements for all the other restraunts in NY.
Then show profit and loss statements from surronding communities where
idiots can still pollute themselves shooting up.
How about Fiddlers Green, also in NYC, dead because of the ban.
> Would you like to make that argument to the owners of Harry's Hanover
> Square, in NYC? They had been open over for over a century. They
> survived *prohibition*, but could't survive the smoking ban.
They serve booze then?
How
> about The Middleport in, which was doing great guns in Middleport NY,
> until the ban caused their business to drop to the point it was no
> longer sustainable. I've got her e-mail, if you'd like to write and
> tell her how good it was for her business.
I'd like you to show cause and effect.
There isn't any.
Studies show most restraunts do better.
The few who fail tend to offer poorer food to begin with.
>
> In fact, I have contact information for quite a few of the 200+
> business I've listed on this page:
> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html Let me know which ones
> you want to contact to tell them how good the bans are for business,
> and I'll get you the information.
Or you'll make it up.
Or they will.
I'm in mass, idiot-boy.
Bans have hit most of the towns.
Most of the chains went smoke-free before bans hit.
Restraunts are still fine, most do better because the non-smoker avoids
smoke-filled places in much higher ratios than the smokers fill them.
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:4iim405bhgioii7j8...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> Why smoking bans kill businesses
>> >
>> >They improve business.
>> >Restraunts bitch, then notice profits go up when they go smoke free.
>>
>> Really? Perhaps you can explain that to Harry's Hanover Square, who
>> went belly up after 30 years in business because of the NYC smoking
>> ban.
>
>Show a cause and effect relationship for this.
Harrys ran successfully and profitably for over thirty years. He
catered to cigar smokers, and his cigar sales were an important party
of his income. When the ban came in, his clientele disappeared. He
went out of business.
Simple enough for you?
>Then show the profit and loss statements for all the other restraunts in NY.
Now *that's* a reasonable request.
But what else can we expect from a True Believer.
Now, how about sharing some of that hate you need to feel good about
yourself?
>Then show profit and loss statements from surronding communities where
>idiots can still pollute themselves shooting up.
Thanks.
> How about Fiddlers Green, also in NYC, dead because of the ban.
>> Would you like to make that argument to the owners of Harry's Hanover
>> Square, in NYC? They had been open over for over a century. They
>> survived *prohibition*, but could't survive the smoking ban.
>
>They serve booze then?
I don't know, but would guess they probably did.
> How
>> about The Middleport in, which was doing great guns in Middleport NY,
>> until the ban caused their business to drop to the point it was no
>> longer sustainable. I've got her e-mail, if you'd like to write and
>> tell her how good it was for her business.
>
>I'd like you to show cause and effect.
>There isn't any.
Only an idiot would say that.
Oh. Sorry.
I see you passed up the offer to talk to the owner directly. I can
only conclude you're afraid that she'll tell you the same thing she
told me, and that might shake your True Belief.
>Studies show most restraunts do better.
Only studies conducted by nanny groups. (Which is almost all of
them.)
Here's how they do it: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html
>The few who fail tend to offer poorer food to begin with.
>
>>
>> In fact, I have contact information for quite a few of the 200+
>> business I've listed on this page:
>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html Let me know which ones
>> you want to contact to tell them how good the bans are for business,
>> and I'll get you the information.
>Or you'll make it up.
>Or they will.
Just can't stand the facts, can ya, boy? Might have to actually think
for yourself.
>
>I'm in mass, idiot-boy.
>Bans have hit most of the towns.
>Most of the chains went smoke-free before bans hit.
Yes they did. And they support bans. Know why? Because it puts
their competition, the small mom and pop operations, out of business.
They talk about a "level playing field." But if bans really *were*
good for business, why would that be necessary? They could just go
smoke free and watch the profits come rolling in. 'Splain that one,
Loopy.
>Restraunts are still fine, most do better because the non-smoker avoids
>smoke-filled places in much higher ratios than the smokers fill them.
Wrong again. But I won't waste more time presenting facts to a True
Believer. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.
Dave Hitt
----
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:04:42 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:4iim405bhgioii7j8...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >> Why smoking bans kill businesses
> >> >
> >> >They improve business.
> >> >Restraunts bitch, then notice profits go up when they go smoke free.
> >>
> >> Really? Perhaps you can explain that to Harry's Hanover Square, who
> >> went belly up after 30 years in business because of the NYC smoking
> >> ban.
> >
> >Show a cause and effect relationship for this.
>
> Harrys ran successfully and profitably for over thirty years. He
> catered to cigar smokers, and his cigar sales were an important party
> of his income. When the ban came in, his clientele disappeared. He
> went out of business.
restraunt.
Sigh.
>
> Simple enough for you?
>
> >Then show the profit and loss statements for all the other restraunts in
NY.
>
> Now *that's* a reasonable request.
>
> But what else can we expect from a True Believer.
Just someone capable of reading.
Unlike you, apparently.
>
> Now, how about sharing some of that hate you need to feel good about
> yourself?
>
Don't need hate.
Need to be able to breathe.
> >Then show profit and loss statements from surronding communities where
> >idiots can still pollute themselves shooting up.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > How about Fiddlers Green, also in NYC, dead because of the ban.
> >> Would you like to make that argument to the owners of Harry's Hanover
> >> Square, in NYC? They had been open over for over a century. They
> >> survived *prohibition*, but could't survive the smoking ban.
> >
> >They serve booze then?
>
> I don't know, but would guess they probably did.
So they survived by breaking the law.
I suppose they could have tried again.
>
> > How
> >> about The Middleport in, which was doing great guns in Middleport NY,
> >> until the ban caused their business to drop to the point it was no
> >> longer sustainable. I've got her e-mail, if you'd like to write and
> >> tell her how good it was for her business.
> >
> >I'd like you to show cause and effect.
> >There isn't any.
>
> Only an idiot would say that.
Only an idiot posits the post hoc falacy as fact.
You clearly qualify.
>
> Oh. Sorry.
>
> I see you passed up the offer to talk to the owner directly. I can
> only conclude you're afraid that she'll tell you the same thing she
> told me, and that might shake your True Belief.
DOn't need to talk to someone who can't adapt a business and wants to blame
someone else.
>
> >Studies show most restraunts do better.
>
> Only studies conducted by nanny groups. (Which is almost all of
> them.)
Nice refutation without fact.
Logic is clearly a nonissue with you.
Why not just make shit up.
Oh yea, you are.
>
> Here's how they do it: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html
>
> >The few who fail tend to offer poorer food to begin with.
> >
No comment about the restraunt's responsibility.
Of course.
> >>
> >> In fact, I have contact information for quite a few of the 200+
> >> business I've listed on this page:
> >> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html Let me know which ones
> >> you want to contact to tell them how good the bans are for business,
> >> and I'll get you the information.
> >Or you'll make it up.
> >Or they will.
>
> Just can't stand the facts, can ya, boy? Might have to actually think
> for yourself.
>
If you had any facts that survived scrutiny, I'd be concerned.
> >
> >I'm in mass, idiot-boy.
> >Bans have hit most of the towns.
> >Most of the chains went smoke-free before bans hit.
>
> Yes they did. And they support bans. Know why? Because it puts
> their competition, the small mom and pop operations, out of business.
>
No, they get more business.
So do the locals, once they too go smoke free.
Several restraunts used to have 3/4 empty smoking sections and 3 people
waiting for non-smoking.
Smokers are dumb, but more importantly, they're the minority.
> They talk about a "level playing field." But if bans really *were*
> good for business, why would that be necessary? They could just go
> smoke free and watch the profits come rolling in. 'Splain that one,
> Loopy.
Most bans are placed for the benefit of customers and employees.
The profits are a side benefit.
>
> >Restraunts are still fine, most do better because the non-smoker avoids
> >smoke-filled places in much higher ratios than the smokers fill them.
>
> Wrong again.
Not hardly.
But I won't waste more time presenting facts to a True
> Believer. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.
>
Or a smoking idiot to see the truth.
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:98oe50dqcdf701fr8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:04:42 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4iim405bhgioii7j8...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> >> Why smoking bans kill businesses
>> >> >
>> >> >They improve business.
>> >> >Restraunts bitch, then notice profits go up when they go smoke free.
>> >>
>> >> Really? Perhaps you can explain that to Harry's Hanover Square, who
>> >> went belly up after 30 years in business because of the NYC smoking
>> >> ban.
>> >
>> >Show a cause and effect relationship for this.
>>
>> Harrys ran successfully and profitably for over thirty years. He
>> catered to cigar smokers, and his cigar sales were an important party
>> of his income. When the ban came in, his clientele disappeared. He
>> went out of business.
>So he wasn't a restraunt, he was a tobacco purveyor [retending to be a
>restraunt.
>
>Sigh.
Typical nanny. You're proven wrong as wrong can be, and are
desperately trying to weasel your way out of it.
Now, do it again.
>> I see you passed up the offer to talk to the owner directly. I can
>> only conclude you're afraid that she'll tell you the same thing she
>> told me, and that might shake your True Belief.
>DOn't need to talk to someone who can't adapt a business and wants to blame
>someone else.
Thanks.
>> >Studies show most restraunts do better.
>>
>> Only studies conducted by nanny groups. (Which is almost all of
>> them.)
>Nice refutation without fact.
>Logic is clearly a nonissue with you.
>Why not just make shit up.
>Oh yea, you are.
So you're a lying sack of shit too! There's nothing made up on any of
those pages, but just lie about it, and you can feel better about your
poor, pathetic self, instead of having to admit how wrong you are.
But then, I've never met a nanny who *wasn't* a lying sack. (Any
nanny, not just nicotine nannies.) I've documented, beyond argument,
just how badly many, many, many business have been hurt by bans. I've
given you an opportunity to follow it up. And you refuse.
Pathetic.
>> Yes they did. And they support bans. Know why? Because it puts
>> their competition, the small mom and pop operations, out of business.
>>
>No, they get more business.
>So do the locals, once they too go smoke free.
Again, I've proven this is NOT the case. But your religion won't
allow you to digest this simple fact.
>Several restraunts used to have 3/4 empty smoking sections and 3 people
>waiting for non-smoking.
>Smokers are dumb, but more importantly, they're the minority.
It depends on the venue, their clientele, and the location. Yuppie
bars are hardly affected. Blue collar bars in rural areas, or near
the border of a state that allows smoking, suffer enormously, often to
the point of closing. Many owners have told me that 80% of their
clientele smoked.
>> They talk about a "level playing field." But if bans really *were*
>> good for business, why would that be necessary? They could just go
>> smoke free and watch the profits come rolling in. 'Splain that one,
>> Loopy.
>Most bans are placed for the benefit of customers and employees.
>The profits are a side benefit.
You evaded the question. Surprise, surprise.
>> >Restraunts are still fine, most do better because the non-smoker avoids
>> >smoke-filled places in much higher ratios than the smokers fill them.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>Not hardly.
Is this the room for an argument?
I've told you once.
No you didn't.
Yes I did.
This will be my last post to you on the subject. It's trying to teach
a pig to sing.
Dave Hitt
Ken M
casino where I play regularly. 10% to 15% of the players smoke. That means
85% to 90% have to put up with the smokers.
I asked most of the smokers and all but one said they didn't have a problem if
the room went non-smoking. They would take a break to smoke outside. So five
games allow smokng to accomodate one player.
Makes a lot of sense to me.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> >> Harrys ran successfully and profitably for over thirty years. He
> >> catered to cigar smokers, and his cigar sales were an important party
> >> of his income. When the ban came in, his clientele disappeared. He
> >> went out of business.
> >So he wasn't a restraunt, he was a tobacco purveyor [retending to be a
> >restraunt.
> >
> >Sigh.
>
> Typical nanny. You're proven wrong as wrong can be, and are
> desperately trying to weasel your way out of it.
>
> Now, do it again.
You can't tell evidence from propaganda.
>
> >> I see you passed up the offer to talk to the owner directly. I can
> >> only conclude you're afraid that she'll tell you the same thing she
> >> told me, and that might shake your True Belief.
> >DOn't need to talk to someone who can't adapt a business and wants to
blame
> >someone else.
>
> Thanks.
For what exactly?
Showing the irrelevence of your request?
>
> >> >Studies show most restraunts do better.
> >>
> >> Only studies conducted by nanny groups. (Which is almost all of
> >> them.)
> >Nice refutation without fact.
> >Logic is clearly a nonissue with you.
> >Why not just make shit up.
> >Oh yea, you are.
>
> So you're a lying sack of shit too!
While I thank you for admitting that YOU are, I'm not.
There's nothing made up on any of
> those pages, but just lie about it, and you can feel better about your
> poor, pathetic self, instead of having to admit how wrong you are.
There's plenty made up in your posts.
> But then, I've never met a nanny who *wasn't* a lying sack.
You're a simpleminded fool, aren't you.
(Any
> nanny, not just nicotine nannies.) I've documented, beyond argument,
> just how badly many, many, many business have been hurt by bans.
No you haven't.
You've grabbed anecdotal evidence that doesn't prove cause and effect.
I've
> given you an opportunity to follow it up. And you refuse.
You don't show cause and effect, talking to the people won't change a thing.
>
> Pathetic.
>
Yes, you are.
>
> >> Yes they did. And they support bans. Know why? Because it puts
> >> their competition, the small mom and pop operations, out of business.
> >>
> >No, they get more business.
> >So do the locals, once they too go smoke free.
>
> Again, I've proven this is NOT the case. But your religion won't
> allow you to digest this simple fact.
You haven't proven anything.
The studies that have proven you wrong demonstrate the truth.
Small anecdotes do nothing.
>
> >Several restraunts used to have 3/4 empty smoking sections and 3 people
> >waiting for non-smoking.
> >Smokers are dumb, but more importantly, they're the minority.
>
> It depends on the venue, their clientele, and the location. Yuppie
> bars are hardly affected. Blue collar bars in rural areas, or near
> the border of a state that allows smoking, suffer enormously, often to
> the point of closing. Many owners have told me that 80% of their
> clientele smoked.
Define many.
You can't argue from hand-selected anecdotes.
>
> >> They talk about a "level playing field." But if bans really *were*
> >> good for business, why would that be necessary? They could just go
> >> smoke free and watch the profits come rolling in. 'Splain that one,
> >> Loopy.
> >Most bans are placed for the benefit of customers and employees.
> >The profits are a side benefit.
>
> You evaded the question. Surprise, surprise.
I didn't evade the question.
I pointed out the question was stupid, because "they" don't talk about
"level playing fields" to justify bans.
"They" talk about it to NOT justify bans, but only because they believe
idiots like you before bans are implimented.
>
> >> >Restraunts are still fine, most do better because the non-smoker
avoids
> >> >smoke-filled places in much higher ratios than the smokers fill them.
> >>
> >> Wrong again.
> >Not hardly.
>
> Is this the room for an argument?
The evidence says you're wrong.
>
> I've told you once.
>
> No you didn't.
>
> Yes I did.
>
>
> This will be my last post to you on the subject. It's trying to teach
> a pig to sing.
>
You mean you'll finally shut the hell up ?
Paramecium T. Nougat
>
> No, they get more business.
> So do the locals, once they too go smoke free.
You've clearly never been to a bar before.
> Several restraunts used to have 3/4 empty smoking sections and 3 people
> waiting for non-smoking.
And several restaurants don't have distinctions between sections at all.
That is the stupidest comment I've seen in these, granted, altogether
extraordinarily retarded discussions. You're the one who brought up
business adaptation. If a restaurant has a 3/4 empty smoking section and
a waiting list for the non-smoking section, the logical course of action
would be to reduce the size of the smoking section. Even a chimp could
come up with that one.
> Smokers are dumb, but more importantly, they're the minority.
And I guess the majority are mental giants like you?
> Most bans are placed for the benefit of customers and employees.
> The profits are a side benefit.
Most employees I've spoken to don't care for the bans. The bans are
placed for the benefit of moralist crusaders. There are plenty of
businesses (namely, dives) where a smoking ban is a curse, not a
blessing. These are places where the vast majority of customers and
employees are smokers, but now they can't hang out and smoke in the
place they choose.
It doesn't make sense to have an across-the-board ban on an activity
like this. If having a business be completely non-smoking is so
profitable, why would they need to make a law enforcing it? Wouldn't
laissez faire tend to make the businesses go non-smoking on their own??
> Or a smoking idiot to see the truth.
When you call someone an idiot for smoking, you just make yourself look
like an idiot. Can't we all just get along?
/joe
--
The RIAA's decompiler from Gary Yngve will go to Denny's.
Paramecium T. Nougat
>
> You don't show cause and effect, talking to the people won't change a thing.
So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves business?
/joe
--
Gtpj is delightful. In Havoc's "say", Alison N. Smith completely
bastardizes the mega-queerlicious variable from Tom, and then nmaps the
syphilis. Craig Citro doubly processes Russell Parry, and then creates a
website about John Douglass for Solomon Peachy's fucking terrific variable.
Joe Long
<r...@moralminority.org> wrote:
>So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
>supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves business?
I don't know what you're "supposed" to do, and I do not claim that
smoking bans are always good for business. In fact, I suspect that
just as is the case with ANY change in business climate or
regulations, it will benefit some and harm others. Good businessmen
adapt to changing conditions, those that do not go out of business.
However, it is clear that Dave Hitt's claims here and on his website
of smoking bans being "bad for business" are nothing more than
cherry-picked anecdotes that prove, well, nothing!
Some people believe that a government regulation that benefits the
majority must not be enacted if even a tiny minority is harmed, but
that's not how a democracy works. So, even if every anecdote on
Dave's page is 100% true as he tells it, a few businesses losing
revenue or closing is a small price to pay for the benefits of
cleaning up the air in places of public accomodation.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
news:c3pm6j$gr7$2...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Bob Denver, said:
> >
> > You don't show cause and effect, talking to the people won't change a
thing.
>
> So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
> supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves business?
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Jon Beckham, said:
> >
> > No, they get more business.
> > So do the locals, once they too go smoke free.
>
> You've clearly never been to a bar before.
I drank soda though.
However, the discussion was about restraunts.
>
> > Several restraunts used to have 3/4 empty smoking sections and 3 people
> > waiting for non-smoking.
>
> And several restaurants don't have distinctions between sections at all.
> That is the stupidest comment I've seen in these, granted, altogether
> extraordinarily retarded discussions. You're the one who brought up
> business adaptation. If a restaurant has a 3/4 empty smoking section and
> a waiting list for the non-smoking section, the logical course of action
> would be to reduce the size of the smoking section. Even a chimp could
> come up with that one.
Only a moron would suggest that.
Smoking vs non-smoking has to do with ventilation, under current laws.
Simpler and cheaper to ban it outright than to remodel the building.
>
> > Smokers are dumb, but more importantly, they're the minority.
>
> And I guess the majority are mental giants like you?
Well, obviously I'm smarter and better looking than you.
>
> > Most bans are placed for the benefit of customers and employees.
> > The profits are a side benefit.
>
> Most employees I've spoken to don't care for the bans.
Anecdotal.
Also irrelevent. Osha does things for employee safety that employees don't
always like.
It's still safer for them.
The bans are
> placed for the benefit of moralist crusaders.
Wrong.
Idiotic too, but mostly just wrong.
They're for the benefit of people fond of breathing.
There are plenty of
> businesses (namely, dives) where a smoking ban is a curse, not a
> blessing. These are places where the vast majority of customers and
> employees are smokers, but now they can't hang out and smoke in the
> place they choose.
They can't run naked down the highway either.
They're better off for it.
Even if they aren't, I am.
>
> It doesn't make sense to have an across-the-board ban on an activity
> like this. If having a business be completely non-smoking is so
> profitable, why would they need to make a law enforcing it?
Never claimed it was "so profitable".
Claimed it wasn't bad for business. Or rather, independent studies have
shown that to be the case, in general.
In all cases, the employee's are of better health.
Wouldn't
> laissez faire tend to make the businesses go non-smoking on their own??
People's idiocy and bias overrules business logic on a regular basis.
Case in point : southern lunch counters circa 1960
>
> > Or a smoking idiot to see the truth.
>
> When you call someone an idiot for smoking, you just make yourself look
> like an idiot. Can't we all just get along?
Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying it kills
you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
>
Irish Mike
apparently never ending) discussion about smoking in poker rooms. "A no
smoking section in a poker room is like a no peeing section in a swimming
pool."
Irish Mike
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6oY8c.175$hS3...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Dave Hitt
>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:47:31 +0000 (UTC), "Paramecium T. Nougat"
><r...@moralminority.org> wrote:
>
>>So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
>>supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves business?
>
>I don't know what you're "supposed" to do, and I do not claim that
>smoking bans are always good for business. In fact, I suspect that
>just as is the case with ANY change in business climate or
>regulations, it will benefit some and harm others. Good businessmen
>adapt to changing conditions, those that do not go out of business.
>
>However, it is clear that Dave Hitt's claims here and on his website
>of smoking bans being "bad for business" are nothing more than
>cherry-picked anecdotes that prove, well, nothing!
You see, Joe here, being your standard "bow to big brother" and
"nannyism is good" type, simply *can't* admit he's wrong, no matter
how strong the facts are. Both of the pages I gave him prove, without
any doubt to a reasonable person, that bans are devastating to a lot
of business. But nannyism is a religion, and you just can't argue
with a religious zealot.
If you don't trust this page:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html
..because I compiled the information, you still shouldn't be able to
argue with this page:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html
...which will take you to article after article after article after
article about how badly many, many business are suffering under these
bans.
Adjusting to changing business climates is an important skill, but if
you've built your business by attaching a smoking clientele, then are
told you have to harass them, kick them out into sub-zero wind chills,
and make their lives generally miserable when they used to come to
your place for a good time, you're not going to survive, no matter how
good a businesses man you are.
>Some people believe that a government regulation that benefits the
>majority must not be enacted if even a tiny minority is harmed, but
>that's not how a democracy works. So, even if every anecdote on
>Dave's page is 100% true as he tells it, a few businesses losing
>revenue or closing is a small price to pay for the benefits of
>cleaning up the air in places of public accomodation.
For a non-existant risk. Lovely. Well, zealots have always had a
penchant for murdering unbelievers.
And the nannies are just getting warmed up. Tobacco was just the first
thing on their very long, very extensive list.
Dave Hitt
Published by anti-smoker organizations.
Every one of these studies include places that are not affected by
bans, because they are already non-smoking. Coffee houses, fast food
joints, take out joints, delicatessens, bakeries, etc.
Places that are devastated by these bans, that serve little or no food
or alcohol, are completely left out of these "studies." These include
bowling alleys, pool halls, and bingo parlors.
And there has never, ever been a study on small independently owned
taverns. Never. Why do you suppose that is?
Here's more information on the subject:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html
Dave Hitt
wrote:
>Heard a good quote at the poker table the day during the ongoing (and
>apparently never ending) discussion about smoking in poker rooms. "A no
>smoking section in a poker room is like a no peeing section in a swimming
>pool."
>
>Irish Mike
One thing that all anti smokers seem to have in common is an obsession
with bodily functions. In any conversation, it's only a matter of
time before they bring up "peeing in a pool," "farting in your face"
or "shitting on the sidewalk."
Now, most people do go through a scatological phase, starting with
toilet training and ending by age four or five, at the latest. But
nannies never seem to grow up when it comes to the ca-ca and pee-pee
references. This is an important insight into their personalities.
At their heart, they are little children who need mommy and daddy to
make all their decisions for them. When mommy and daddy aren't
around, they turn to Big Brother, who is more than willing to do the
job for them.
Dontcha think it's about time you grew up, Mike?
And BTW, how many people can you cite has having died from second hand
pee in a pool?
Dave Hitt
<r...@moralminority.org> wrote:
>It doesn't make sense to have an across-the-board ban on an activity
>like this. If having a business be completely non-smoking is so
>profitable, why would they need to make a law enforcing it? Wouldn't
>laissez faire tend to make the businesses go non-smoking on their own??
This is the key. IF smoking bans were good for business, we wouldn't
need to legislate them. The free market would guarantee that most
places became non-smoking.
And if the bans were good for business, we should be able to rescind
every ban law on the books, because what business would go back to
allowing smoking if disallowing it was so profitable?
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Never claimed it was "so profitable".
>Claimed it wasn't bad for business. Or rather, independent studies have
>shown that to be the case, in general.
>
>In all cases, the employee's are of better health.
Especially the ones who have lost their jobs. Now they don't have to
deal with working in a smoky environment.
There are no independent studies that show that to be the case. Every
one has been funded by nanny groups, and as I explained in a previous
post, they are blatantly dishonest (both the studies, and the groups
funding them). Only an idiot would believe them.
Oh. Sorry.
>Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying it kills
>you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
Long before the warnings people knew it was dangerous. They were
called "coffin nails" around the turn of the century.
Now, are you saying you're smarter than smokers?
Gary Carson
>need to legislate them. The free market would guarantee that most
>places became non-smoking.
Models of a free market assume rational actors. Decision makers don't always
make decisions based on their own financial self-interest. Decisions are often
made based on ignorance, bias, social norms, whatever.
If the real free market (as opposed to an economists model of a free market)
was allowed to work unhindered by law, bars in Manhatten would serve watered
down beer, but they wouldn't serve it to blacks, women, or irish.
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Ken M
>
>One thing that all anti smokers seem to have in common is an obsession
>with bodily functions. In any conversation, it's only a matter of
>time before they bring up "peeing in a pool," "farting in your face"
>or "shitting on the sidewalk."
>
>Now, most people do go through a scatological phase, starting with
>toilet training and ending by age four or five, at the latest. But
>nannies never seem to grow up when it comes to the ca-ca and pee-pee
>references. This is an important insight into their personalities.
>At their heart, they are little children who need mommy and daddy to
>make all their decisions for them. When mommy and daddy aren't
>around, they turn to Big Brother, who is more than willing to do the
>job for them.
>
>Dontcha think it's about time you grew up, Mike?
You seem to have a fascination with nannies. And an obsession with things you
stick in your mouth. I wonder what that means?
Jay Jerome
there was a drop in business in the neighborhood bars I frequent,
where at least half of the regular customers were heavy smokers. But
after a lot of grumbling and cursing and hair-pulling, the bars
adjusted. Most set up areas outside, or in open air patios, where
patrons could smoke. And the regulars all came back. In addition, the
bars picked up new business, especially on the weekends, from a lot of
non-smokers who had avoided the smoke filled rooms previously. Food
sales also picked up at both places.
Although I wasn't in favor of the anti-smoking law (on libertarian
grounds) overall the smoking bans are beneficial. There may have been
a disruption of business at first, but all the restaurants and bars in
my neighborhood are jammed with customers now -- so I don't believe
the smoking bans had long term negataive effects on those places.
JJ
>
> Really? Perhaps you can explain that to Harry's Hanover Square, who
> went belly up after 30 years in business because of the NYC smoking
> ban. How about Fiddlers Green, also in NYC, dead because of the ban.
> Would you like to make that argument to the owners of Harry's Hanover
> Square, in NYC? They had been open over for over a century. They
> survived *prohibition*, but could't survive the smoking ban. How
> about The Middleport in, which was doing great guns in Middleport NY,
> until the ban caused their business to drop to the point it was no
> longer sustainable. I've got her e-mail, if you'd like to write and
> tell her how good it was for her business.
>
>
>
>
> Dave Hitt
> ----
> Why smoking bans kill businesses
Paramecium T. Nougat
>
> Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying it kills
> you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
I am not going to bother even trying to rebutt the many points we
clearly disagree widely on, but this particular statement stands out to
me as silly. There are plenty of things people choose to do even though
those things are bad for them. There is a perceived benefit to the
person. In the case of smoking, they trade off physical health for a
nicotine buzz or the therapeutic feeling of puffing or whatever. In the
case of eating fatty foods, they trade off physical health for instant
gratification of taste. In the case of drinking, they trade off physical
health for the alcohol buzz and perhaps lowered inhibitions. In the case
of some relationships, they trade off mental health for emotional
validation and fulfillment. In the case of newsgroups, they trade off
mental health for the pleasure/irritation of verbally sparring or
getting validated by their friends.
I think if you are going to call smokers idiots for that you should call
everyone idiots for most everything. It's all about trade-offs.
And I suspect in advance that you will reply that they are trading off
other people's physical health for their pleasure in the case of
cigarettes. Well what about exhaust pipes on cars and factories? And
that's just the tip of the iceberg. We trade off a lot for convenience,
even impacting millions of other people, all the time.
But in the case of the smoking bans, I think it can be reasonably argued
that there are establishments affected in such a way that no one is
benefited but many people are inconvenienced. Bar/restaurants, as I
mentioned, are often full of clientele and employees who smoke, drink,
and do far "worse" things (at least healthwise) in their spare time.
People who dine/work there make a trade-off just like anyone else. And
when a place specifically caters to a smoking clientele, such as in the
case of a cafe which is really just a glorified cigar bar, I don't see
how that business is supposed to "adapt" to a smoking ban. That business
is destroyed, and they would have to start a new business from scratch
if they want to proceed.
What this really comes down to is whether you think people are too
stupid to take care of themselves, and whether you think that the
government should protect people from themselves and their own
decisions. For instance, should someone have the right to commit suicide
(or even just euthanize themself)? Many people would say no, and many
people would say yes.
/joe
--
In the gray market, Graham Coleman hardly and doubly asks for help from
alexdata. 101 is mega-great.
Paramecium T. Nougat
>
> after a lot of grumbling and cursing and hair-pulling, the bars
> adjusted. Most set up areas outside, or in open air patios, where
> patrons could smoke.
...and let me tell you how great those open-air patios are when you're
in a place where it's below freezing outside all winter.
/joe
--
In /dev/null, a randomized tool is monstrous. The ridiculous zen koan from
the Moral Minority discussion forum is monochrome.
Ken M
>What this really comes down to is whether you think people are too
>stupid to take care of themselves, and whether you think that the
>government should protect people from themselves and their own
>decisions. For instance, should someone have the right to commit suicide
>(or even just euthanize themself)? Many people would say no, and many
>people would say yes.
>
saving the smokers. I like the idea of a ban and I really don't care if every
smoker on earth kills himself. It is about the non-smokers having to put up
with the smokers. Whether the non-smoker is a customer or employee.
I'm repeating myself, but, Saturday I'm playing poker in a casino. About ten
percent of the players smoke. There is a 30-player list for just my game. Why
should the 90% of us have to put up with the 10%'s smoke?
Paramecium T. Nougat
>
> I think you're totally missing the point of the arguement. Its not about
> saving the smokers. I like the idea of a ban and I really don't care
> if every smoker on earth kills himself. It is about the non-smokers
> having to put up with the smokers. Whether the non-smoker is a
> customer or employee.
And I think you missed the entire point of my comments, as well as the
paragraph where I referred to the non-smokers being affected just as
much if not more by other things that are somehow not considered a
priority by anti-smoking lobbies.
> I'm repeating myself, but, Saturday I'm playing poker in a casino. About ten
> percent of the players smoke. There is a 30-player list for just my
> game. Why should the 90% of us have to put up with the 10%'s smoke?
You shouldn't. So get the business to change their policy, or go to
another business. Don't make the government tell everyone they can't
have smoking rooms. The reverse of your argument applies as well: in an
establishment where 90% of employees/patrons smoke, why should they have
to go outside to appease 10%?
Yes, I am advocating smoker/anti-smoker segregation. Note that I said
anti-smoker rather than non-smoker because there are a fair portion of
non-smokers who don't care either way.
/joe
--
The sorority house is spectacular, sweaty, and Hitlerific. The speedy blog
from Bunger-Henry is ghetto in the Masquerade.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:55:46 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
> >news:c3pm6j$gr7$2...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> >> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Bob Denver, said:
> >> >
> >> > You don't show cause and effect, talking to the people won't change a
> >thing.
> >>
> >> So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
> >> supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves business?
> >>
> >He's citing anecdotal evidence, I'm citing published studies.
>
> Published by anti-smoker organizations.
I thought you were done with your incoherent ranting.
>
> Every one of these studies include places that are not affected by
> bans, because they are already non-smoking. Coffee houses, fast food
> joints, take out joints, delicatessens, bakeries, etc.
>
> Places that are devastated by these bans, that serve little or no food
> or alcohol, are completely left out of these "studies." These include
> bowling alleys, pool halls, and bingo parlors.
Bans tend to be restraunts.
Or all businesses.
Never once seen bowling alley's targetted.
>
> And there has never, ever been a study on small independently owned
> taverns. Never. Why do you suppose that is?
>
Because it would be anecdotal to the main issue.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:02:48 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Never claimed it was "so profitable".
> >Claimed it wasn't bad for business. Or rather, independent studies have
> >shown that to be the case, in general.
> >
> >In all cases, the employee's are of better health.
>
> Especially the ones who have lost their jobs. Now they don't have to
> deal with working in a smoky environment.
>
> There are no independent studies that show that to be the case. Every
> one has been funded by nanny groups, and as I explained in a previous
> post, they are blatantly dishonest (both the studies, and the groups
> funding them). Only an idiot would believe them.
>
That's bullshit.
You define any group that demonstrates this as a nanny group.
> Oh. Sorry.
>
Yeah, you are.
>
> >Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying it
kills
> >you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
>
> Long before the warnings people knew it was dangerous. They were
> called "coffin nails" around the turn of the century.
>
Actually, no, they didn't.
The prevailing belief was "moderation is ok".
But hell, why start telling the truth now?
> Now, are you saying you're smarter than smokers?
>
Sure
I don't smoke
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Sherlock Holmes, said:
> >
> > Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying it
kills
> > you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
>
> I am not going to bother even trying to rebutt the many points we
> clearly disagree widely on, but this particular statement stands out to
> me as silly.
You're an idiot smoker, aren't you?
There are plenty of things people choose to do even though
> those things are bad for them.
Bad for them is relative.
Smoking does no physical good whatsoever.
There is a perceived benefit to the
> person.
No, there is a satisfaction of an artificially begun addiction.
The idiocy began the habit.
In the case of smoking, they trade off physical health for a
> nicotine buzz or the therapeutic feeling of puffing or whatever.
No such theraputic feeling exists.
Nicotine is available in other ways.
In the
> case of eating fatty foods, they trade off physical health for instant
> gratification of taste.
Actually, some metabolisms need more calories.
It's also generally cheaper.
In moderation, it isn't harmful.
In the case of drinking, they trade off physical
> health for the alcohol buzz and perhaps lowered inhibitions.
Booze, in low volume, has some health benefits.
You do the apples and oranges thing well, but ain't nuthin like smoking.
In the case
> of some relationships, they trade off mental health for emotional
> validation and fulfillment. In the case of newsgroups, they trade off
> mental health for the pleasure/irritation of verbally sparring or
> getting validated by their friends.
None of these things are physical health risks.
Sigh.
>
> I think if you are going to call smokers idiots for that you should call
> everyone idiots for most everything. It's all about trade-offs.
>
I'm going to repeat that you're an idiot for even positing your position.
> And I suspect in advance that you will reply that they are trading off
> other people's physical health for their pleasure in the case of
> cigarettes. Well what about exhaust pipes on cars and factories?
EPA regulates them, and does what it can to minimize it.
Like, say, smoking bans for public places.
And
> that's just the tip of the iceberg. We trade off a lot for convenience,
> even impacting millions of other people, all the time.
>
Well, your iceberg melted paragraphs ago.
> But in the case of the smoking bans, I think it can be reasonably argued
> that there are establishments affected in such a way that no one is
> benefited but many people are inconvenienced
Wrong.
Patrons benefit.
Employees benefit.
. Bar/restaurants, as I
> mentioned, are often full of clientele and employees who smoke, drink,
> and do far "worse" things (at least healthwise) in their spare time.
> People who dine/work there make a trade-off just like anyone else. And
> when a place specifically caters to a smoking clientele, such as in the
> case of a cafe which is really just a glorified cigar bar, I don't see
> how that business is supposed to "adapt" to a smoking ban. That business
> is destroyed, and they would have to start a new business from scratch
> if they want to proceed.
So if they sold rat poison to people and they were told not to any more,
it'd be destroying their business?
Swell.
>
> What this really comes down to is whether you think people are too
> stupid to take care of themselves, and whether you think that the
> government should protect people from themselves and their own
> decisions
No,
It comes down to whether businesses can allow some patrons to poison other
patrons, and the answer is no.
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lbu860d9sqcrnos8a...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:55:46 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
>> >news:c3pm6j$gr7$2...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>> >> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Bob Denver, said:
>> >> >
>> >> > You don't show cause and effect, talking to the people won't change a
>> >thing.
>> >>
>> >> So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
>> >> supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves business?
>> >>
>> >He's citing anecdotal evidence, I'm citing published studies.
>>
>> Published by anti-smoker organizations.
>Done by health organizations.
>I thought you were done with your incoherent ranting.
It is sad that you can't tell which health organizations are also
nanny organizations. But you're so blissful in your ignorance, that I
wonder if I should keep trying.
>
>>
>> Every one of these studies include places that are not affected by
>> bans, because they are already non-smoking. Coffee houses, fast food
>> joints, take out joints, delicatessens, bakeries, etc.
>>
>> Places that are devastated by these bans, that serve little or no food
>> or alcohol, are completely left out of these "studies." These include
>> bowling alleys, pool halls, and bingo parlors.
>
>Bans tend to be restraunts.
>Or all businesses.
>Never once seen bowling alley's targetted.
There's that ignorance again.
Bans tend to be on everywhere the public goes. They almost always
include bowling alleys, bingo halls, and pool halls.
>
>>
>> And there has never, ever been a study on small independently owned
>> taverns. Never. Why do you suppose that is?
>>
>Because it would be anecdotal to the main issue.
Keep dancing, ignorant boy. Keep dancing.
And when they come for you, remember that you were warned.
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:8uu8605h063j5m3ah...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:02:48 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Never claimed it was "so profitable".
>> >Claimed it wasn't bad for business. Or rather, independent studies have
>> >shown that to be the case, in general.
>> >
>> >In all cases, the employee's are of better health.
>>
>> Especially the ones who have lost their jobs. Now they don't have to
>> deal with working in a smoky environment.
>>
>Lack of lung cancer is a good thing.
No one has ever got lung cancer from Second hand smoke. It's never
happened.
Non smokers in smokey environments inhale the smoke of six to ten
cigarettes per *year*. That's based on actual measurement, not ass
numbers. (I.e. numbers the nicotine nannies have pulled out of their
asses.)
>> There are no independent studies that show that to be the case. Every
>> one has been funded by nanny groups, and as I explained in a previous
>> post, they are blatantly dishonest (both the studies, and the groups
>> funding them). Only an idiot would believe them.
>>
>That's bullshit.
Ok, spunky, prove me wrong. Find me a study that only included small
restaurants and bars. Or one what concentrated on bingo halls, or
pool halls, or bowling alleys.
We're waiting.
>> Now, are you saying you're smarter than smokers?
>>
>Sure
>I don't smoke
Good. Now you get to prove it.
Here is a list of smokers, past and present. Pick one, any one, and
provide some proof that you are smarter than they are. A link to
something on the net is preferable. It can be an essay better than
one of the writers, a tune better than one of the musicians, a
painting better than one of the artists, a discovery better than one
of the scientists, a review of a performance that says you're better
than one of the performers, whatever, you get the idea.
Ready?
Alexander Graham Bell, Mark Twain, Neils Bohr, John Cheever, Albert
Einstein, Arthur Miller, Charlie Mingus, Fran Lebowitz, Ernest
Hemingway, Groucho Marx, W.C. Fields, Sir Isaac Newton, P. J.
O'Rourke, A.A Milne, Alfred Lord Tennyson, H.L.Mencken, David Bowie,
James Thurber, Robert Oppenheimer, Gen. George Patton, Winston
Churchill, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Edison, Richard P. Feynman, Dorothy
Parker, Edward G. Robinson, Cary Grant, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong,
Lucille Ball, "Count" Basie, Errol Flynn, Frank Sinatra, Babe Ruth,
Michael Jordan, Mel Gibson, John F. Kennedy, George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Charles Darwin, Dale Carnegie, Rod Serling,
Peter O'Toole, Alfred Hitchcock, Arthur John Gielgud, George Burns,
Jerry Lewis, Eubie Blake, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Frank Zappa, Robert
Heinlein, Harlan Ellison, John, Paul, George, Ringo, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Kurt Vonnegut,
Pierce Brosnan,Danny Devito, Matt Dillon, Michael Douglas, Linda
Evangelista, Lawrence Fishburne, Wayne Gretzky, Orlando Hernandez,
Dennis Hopper, John F. Kennedy, Groucho Marx, Demi Moore, J.P. Morgan,
Jack Nicholson, Michael Richards, Claudia Schiffer, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Tom Selleck, Sylvester Stallone, John Travolta, Denzel
Washington, James Woods, Paul Anka, Anne Archer, Red Auerbach, Kevin
Bacon, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Milton Berle, Terry Bradshaw, Peter Falk,
David Frost, Dizzy Gillespie Jean-Luc Godard, Whoopi Goldberg, "Mean"
Joe Greene, George Hamilton, Milton Hershey (Founder, Hershey
Chocolates), Gregory Hines, Phil Jackson, Raul Julia, Emeril Lagasse,
Susan Lucci, Vince McMahon, LeRoy Neiman, Luciano Pavarotti, Stephanie
Powers, Dan Rather, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Charles M. Schultz, Joe
Torre, Daryl Zanuck, George Gershwin, George Westinghouse, Eli
Whitney, Isaac Newton, Ernie Kovacs, Ed Sullivan, Douglas MacArthur,
John D. Rockefeller, Sir Walter Raleigh, Clarence Birdseye, D.W.
Griffith, Samuel Goldwyn, both Warner brothers, Tex Avery, W.C.
Fields, Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Schroeder, Marlene Dietrich, Charles
Lindbergh, Kinky Freedman, Studs Terkel, Richard Harris, Jackie
Gleason, C.S. Lewis, Pablo Picasso, Alexander Calder, Norman Rockwell,
James Dean
Now, put your money where your mouth is.
Dave Hitt
You don't.
You can open your own casino.
Until you do, then you have to abide by the rules set up by the
owners. At least, until you get Big Brother to do your bidding and
forces the owners, at the point of a gun, to do things your way.
There is no right to not be offended, inconvenienced or annoyed. In
fact, the number of times you are offended, inconvenienced or annoyed
is directly proportional to the amount of freedom in your society.
Dave Hitt
<r...@moralminority.org> wrote:
>> I'm repeating myself, but, Saturday I'm playing poker in a casino. About ten
>> percent of the players smoke. There is a 30-player list for just my
>> game. Why should the 90% of us have to put up with the 10%'s smoke?
>
>You shouldn't. So get the business to change their policy, or go to
>another business. Don't make the government tell everyone they can't
>have smoking rooms. The reverse of your argument applies as well: in an
>establishment where 90% of employees/patrons smoke, why should they have
>to go outside to appease 10%?
That is precisely the situation in small taverns, restaurants and
diners that cater to a blue-coller clientele. I've had owners tell me
that 90% of their patrons smoke. Yet, that's not allowable under the
current laws.
>Yes, I am advocating smoker/anti-smoker segregation. Note that I said
>anti-smoker rather than non-smoker because there are a fair portion of
>non-smokers who don't care either way.
That's an important distinction. There are non-smokers, who are the
majority. There are smokers, who are a minority. And there are
anti-smokers, who are an even smaller minority (although they work
very hard to recruit.) Why should we cater to this smaller, mouthy
minority?
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
>news:c4280u$c27$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Sherlock Holmes, said:
>> >
>> > Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying it
>kills
>> > you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
>>
>> I am not going to bother even trying to rebutt the many points we
>> clearly disagree widely on, but this particular statement stands out to
>> me as silly.
>
>You're an idiot smoker, aren't you?
And you're an idiot anti, aren't you?
Unless, of course, you can answer the challenge in my previous post.
>
> There are plenty of things people choose to do even though
>> those things are bad for them.
>
>Bad for them is relative.
>Smoking does no physical good whatsoever.
Spoken like a true idiot.
Leaving aside the discovery that smokers get parkinsons and alzheimers
at 1/2 the rate of non-smokers, (no one knows why, yet) there are
plenty of advantages to smoking. I find a nice cigar, enjoyed at my
leisure, relaxes me tremendously, and significantly reduces stress.
Stress is a killer.
I also find it tends to keep idiot nannies at bay, further reducing my
stress.
>There is a perceived benefit to the
>> person.
>
>No, there is a satisfaction of an artificially begun addiction.
Smokers spend thousands of dollars a year to do something that is
increasingly socially unacceptable. Are you stupid enough to think
they get no benefit from it?
That's a rhetorical question.
That means you're not expected to answer it.
>Actually, some metabolisms need more calories.
>It's also generally cheaper.
>In moderation, it isn't harmful.
Neither is smoking. The problem is, it's difficult to do in
moderation if your chosen method is cigarettes.
Cigars, OTOH, are much easier. I've had one all week. I usually have
two in a given week.
> In the case of drinking, they trade off physical
>> health for the alcohol buzz and perhaps lowered inhibitions.
>
>Booze, in low volume, has some health benefits.
As explained above, so does tobacco.
>
>You do the apples and oranges thing well, but ain't nuthin like smoking.
Actually, there are a lot of things like smoking.
You really aren't very bright, are ya, boy?
>None of these things are physical health risks.
>Sigh.
Stress is a huge physical risk.
>> I think if you are going to call smokers idiots for that you should call
>> everyone idiots for most everything. It's all about trade-offs.
>>
>I'm going to repeat that you're an idiot for even positing your position.
You realize, don't you, that being called an idiot by an idiot is
simply amusing?
Again, that's a rhetorical question.
And again, that means you're not expected to answer it.
>> But in the case of the smoking bans, I think it can be reasonably argued
>> that there are establishments affected in such a way that no one is
>> benefited but many people are inconvenienced
>
>Wrong.
>Patrons benefit.
Only whiney nannies, who don't begin to make up for the losses caused
by losing the partying smokers.
>Employees benefit.
How about asking them? You'll find that those who still have jobs are
really struggling because their tips are down anywhere between 1/2 and
2/3ds.
Now, how about an analogy so ridiculous it removes any doubt that
you're a complete idiot?
>So if they sold rat poison to people and they were told not to any more,
>it'd be destroying their business?
>
>Swell.
Thanks.
So be sure to answer the previous post. I want to see just how much
smarter you are than just one of those smokers I listed.
da pickle
I know I'm smarter than Mel Gibson and James Dean (isn't he dead?) ... and I
don't smoke. But I am not smarter than most of those guys and gals. I went
to college with Terry Bradshaw and play golf with his lawyer and I am pretty
darn sure most all of us are smarter than he is ... if you only count IQ
tests ... but if you count money ... then he wins by far. He is funny and
down-to-earth and one of the best speakers available ... and he charges a
LOT. I pretty sure a lot of the people on the list are dead. I really
sure, as a matter fact. I don't know if smoking and intelligence are
correlated ... but maybe. I think that might be your point ... but I could
be wrong. (You didn't list Dennis Miller!)
Dave Hitt
Carson) wrote:
>>This is the key. IF smoking bans were good for business, we wouldn't
>>need to legislate them. The free market would guarantee that most
>>places became non-smoking.
>
>
>Models of a free market assume rational actors. Decision makers don't always
>make decisions based on their own financial self-interest. Decisions are often
>made based on ignorance, bias, social norms, whatever.
But the beauty of a free market is that wrong decisions are
self-correcting. If I decide to open a bar in rural upstate NY that
plays nothing but rap and serves only one brand of beer, then the
market will determine if I get to stay open or not.
Likewise, if bans really WERE good for business, then the decisions
made by the owners would affect them in such a way that they'd all go
smoke free. The fact is nannies need Big Brother to enforce their
will, at the point of a gun. If their claim were valid, that wouldn't
be necessary - the market would take care of that.
I suspect, that if the free market were left intact, that gradually
more and more places would become smoke free, but there would still be
a few places smokers could puff in peace. That would be reasonable.
And the anti-smokers want no part of it.
>If the real free market (as opposed to an economists model of a free market)
>was allowed to work unhindered by law, bars in Manhatten would serve watered
>down beer, but they wouldn't serve it to blacks, women, or irish.
Absolute nonsense.
Would you go to a place where the beer was watered down? If they told
you you could come in, but you had to leave your black friend or your
girlfriend/wife outside, would you patronize them?
Me neither. And neither would anyone else.
Dave Hitt
wrote:
>Dave, here in Los Angeles, when they first initiated the smoking bans,
>there was a drop in business in the neighborhood bars I frequent,
>where at least half of the regular customers were heavy smokers. But
>after a lot of grumbling and cursing and hair-pulling, the bars
>adjusted. Most set up areas outside, or in open air patios, where
>patrons could smoke. And the regulars all came back. In addition, the
>bars picked up new business, especially on the weekends, from a lot of
>non-smokers who had avoided the smoke filled rooms previously. Food
>sales also picked up at both places.
Except for the places that went out of business.
>Although I wasn't in favor of the anti-smoking law (on libertarian
>grounds) overall the smoking bans are beneficial. There may have been
>a disruption of business at first, but all the restaurants and bars in
>my neighborhood are jammed with customers now -- so I don't believe
>the smoking bans had long term negataive effects on those places.
Except for the places that went out of business.
You're also comparing two very different climates, weather wise, and
attitude wise. In LA you've got a nearly perpetual summer, and it's
almost always nice enough to step outside for a smoke. Many places
simply expanded their outdoor areas to allow it. In NY, much of the
year features sub-zero wind chills. Add to that the fact that the NY
law is much stricter than the CA law. Private clubs are included.
ANY kind of a cover, awning, or shelter is expressly prohibited. (How
mean spirited is *that?*)
And a recent study observed smoking in about half the places that were
visited. Imagine that, after all these years, even in the far left
land of CA, the ban still isn't really, honestly implemented.
Why is that? If bans are so good for business, why don't the owners
enforce them strictly, everywhere, all the time?
Your libertarian instincts were bang on. It's simply none of the
governments business whether a business allows smoking or prohibits
it. Even if it was good for business, they are greatly overstepping
their bounds with such laws and regulations.
stanl...@yahoo.com
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>Bans tend to be restraunts.
>>Or all businesses.
>>Never once seen bowling alley's targetted.
>
>There's that ignorance again.
>
>Bans tend to be on everywhere the public goes. They almost always
>include bowling alleys, bingo halls, and pool halls.
Not only indoor areas, but also some beaches and public parks.
How stupid is that?
Jay Jerome
>
> ...and let me tell you how great those open-air patios are when you're
> in a place where it's below freezing outside all winter.
>
> /joe
Are you taking about you, personally, having to go outside and freeze
your ass off all winter? I got a solution for that: Stop smoking, and
you can stay inside where it's warm and cozy.
It's inevitable -- smoking is going to be banned in most public
spaces. The same thing happened in the early 1900s when states passed
anti-spitting ordinances. There was a big outcry from the spitters and
spittoon mfg-ers and chewing-tobacco suppliers. Lots of the same "let
me do my thing and spit where I want to" arguments. Same outcry from
saloon owners with walrus-mustaches and slicked back hair bemoaning
the business that would be lost because the phlem-chuckers would have
to make deposits outside, and might not come back inside to guzzle
down another pail or two of ale...
JJ
Gary Carson
>self-correcting
No they aren't.
They are self-correcting in models which assume rational actors.
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:56:32 -0700, Joe Long <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>>However, it is clear that Dave Hitt's claims here and on his website
>>of smoking bans being "bad for business" are nothing more than
>>cherry-picked anecdotes that prove, well, nothing!
>
>You see, Joe here, being your standard "bow to big brother" and
>"nannyism is good" type, simply *can't* admit he's wrong, no matter
>how strong the facts are. Both of the pages I gave him prove, without
>any doubt to a reasonable person, that bans are devastating to a lot
>of business. But nannyism is a religion, and you just can't argue
>with a religious zealot.
And here you have Dave's typical Ad Hominem attack, so typical of
those who have no real facts or logic on their side, nothing but
pseudoscience and scare tactics.
His pages, of course, prove nothing to any "reasonable" person with
any familiarity with science and statistics.
>If you don't trust this page:
>http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html
>
>..because I compiled the information, you still shouldn't be able to
>argue with this page:
>
>http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html
>
>...which will take you to article after article after article after
>article about how badly many, many business are suffering under these
>bans.
Which are still nothing but cherry-picked anecdotes, and still don't
make any reasonable, substantive case against smoking bans.
>Adjusting to changing business climates is an important skill, but if
>you've built your business by attaching a smoking clientele, then are
>told you have to harass them, kick them out into sub-zero wind chills,
>and make their lives generally miserable when they used to come to
>your place for a good time, you're not going to survive, no matter how
>good a businesses man you are.
Buggy-whip manufacturers didn't survive the coming of the automobile,
either. But the Coors Brewery survived prohibition, by changing their
line of business while drawing on their strengths and expertise.
The point being that some businesses go out of business, and new
businesses come along, all the time. Protecting a few niche
businesses at the expense of the health and concerns of the vast
majority of citizens is not good public policy.
>>Some people believe that a government regulation that benefits the
>>majority must not be enacted if even a tiny minority is harmed, but
>>that's not how a democracy works. So, even if every anecdote on
>>Dave's page is 100% true as he tells it, a few businesses losing
>>revenue or closing is a small price to pay for the benefits of
>>cleaning up the air in places of public accomodation.
>For a non-existant risk. Lovely. Well, zealots have always had a
>penchant for murdering unbelievers.
Non-existent only to those like yourself who blind yourselves to the
truth when you find the truth inconvenient. If you want to see the
real zealot here, just look in any mirror.
>And the nannies are just getting warmed up. Tobacco was just the first
>thing on their very long, very extensive list.
Yeah, your tired old scaremongering line. Blllpphhhttt!!!
--
Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:06:39 GMT, "Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net>
>wrote:
>>Heard a good quote at the poker table the day during the ongoing (and
>>apparently never ending) discussion about smoking in poker rooms. "A no
>>smoking section in a poker room is like a no peeing section in a swimming
>>pool."
Brilliant! I love it. An excellent analogy.
>One thing that all anti smokers seem to have in common is an obsession
>with bodily functions. In any conversation, it's only a matter of
>time before they bring up "peeing in a pool," "farting in your face"
>or "shitting on the sidewalk."
Because they are good analogies that make a good point. That is
essentially what smokers do to the air in public rooms that they smoke
in.
And if you want to talk about infantile obsessions, what about grown
men who have uncontrollable cravings to suck on cylindrical objects?
; ^ >
Joe Long
>Not only indoor areas, but also some beaches and public parks.
>How stupid is that?
When I first heard about it, that was my reaction too. Then I saw
some news reports, which pointed out the reason for the bans is all
the cigarette butts discarded in the sand. It seems many smokers
mistake the beach for a big ash tray. So although I wouldn't go out
of my way to encourage a smoking ban on a beach ( I seldom go to
beaches anyway), I understand that there is good reason for them.
Joe Long
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
...
>There is no right to not be offended, inconvenienced or annoyed. In
>fact, the number of times you are offended, inconvenienced or annoyed
>is directly proportional to the amount of freedom in your society.
I agree 100% that there is no right to not be offended,
inconvenienced, or annoyed. There is also no "right" to smoke in
public places. So in a democratic society, We the People can choose
to make it illegal to smoke in public places -- we DO have that right.
And we are exercising it, whether you like it or not.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:48:21 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:lbu860d9sqcrnos8a...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:55:46 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> >> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:c3pm6j$gr7$2...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> >> >> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Bob Denver, said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You don't show cause and effect, talking to the people won't
change a
> >> >thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> So his claims that smoking ban harms business are invalid, but we're
> >> >> supposed to automatically accept your claims that it improves
business?
> >> >>
> >> >He's citing anecdotal evidence, I'm citing published studies.
> >>
> >> Published by anti-smoker organizations.
> >Done by health organizations.
> >I thought you were done with your incoherent ranting.
>
> It is sad that you can't tell which health organizations are also
> nanny organizations. But you're so blissful in your ignorance, that I
> wonder if I should keep trying.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Every one of these studies include places that are not affected by
> >> bans, because they are already non-smoking. Coffee houses, fast food
> >> joints, take out joints, delicatessens, bakeries, etc.
> >>
> >> Places that are devastated by these bans, that serve little or no food
> >> or alcohol, are completely left out of these "studies." These include
> >> bowling alleys, pool halls, and bingo parlors.
> >
> >Bans tend to be restraunts.
> >Or all businesses.
> >Never once seen bowling alley's targetted.
>
> There's that ignorance again.
Ibid
>
> Bans tend to be on everywhere the public goes. They almost always
> include bowling alleys, bingo halls, and pool halls.
>
Idiot
"Targeting" isn't the same as "all businesses".
Can you read?
Go look up.
> >
> >>
> >> And there has never, ever been a study on small independently owned
> >> taverns. Never. Why do you suppose that is?
> >>
> >Because it would be anecdotal to the main issue.
>
> Keep dancing, ignorant boy. Keep dancing.
>
> And when they come for you, remember that you were warned.
They'll come for you first.
Propagandist go before informed citizens.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:51:40 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:8uu8605h063j5m3ah...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:02:48 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> >> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Never claimed it was "so profitable".
> >> >Claimed it wasn't bad for business. Or rather, independent studies
have
> >> >shown that to be the case, in general.
> >> >
> >> >In all cases, the employee's are of better health.
> >>
> >> Especially the ones who have lost their jobs. Now they don't have to
> >> deal with working in a smoky environment.
> >>
> >Lack of lung cancer is a good thing.
>
> No one has ever got lung cancer from Second hand smoke. It's never
> happened.
Whom is more credible?
>
> Non smokers in smokey environments inhale the smoke of six to ten
> cigarettes per *year*. That's based on actual measurement, not ass
> numbers. (I.e. numbers the nicotine nannies have pulled out of their
> asses.)
Based on whos number?
All the government numbers are exponentially higher.
Only the asses who pimp for the tobbacco industry disagree.
>
> >> There are no independent studies that show that to be the case. Every
> >> one has been funded by nanny groups, and as I explained in a previous
> >> post, they are blatantly dishonest (both the studies, and the groups
> >> funding them). Only an idiot would believe them.
> >>
> >That's bullshit.
>
> Ok, spunky, prove me wrong. Find me a study that only included small
> restaurants and bars. Or one what concentrated on bingo halls, or
> pool halls, or bowling alleys.
WHy would I use anecdotal evidence in a serious study?
>
> We're waiting.
You like to make up your own facts and criteria, don't you?
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
> >> Now, are you saying you're smarter than smokers?
> >>
> >Sure
> >I don't smoke
>
> Good. Now you get to prove it.
>
> Here is a list of smokers, past and present. Pick one, any one, and
> provide some proof that you are smarter than they are.
In one specific area.
A link to
> something on the net is preferable. It can be an essay better than
> one of the writers, a tune better than one of the musicians, a
> painting better than one of the artists, a discovery better than one
> of the scientists, a review of a performance that says you're better
> than one of the performers, whatever, you get the idea.
Don't need to.
They willingly chose a form of suicidal behavior.
I didn't.
There's proof there.
Don't need to be a great artist to be smarter than one IN THAT AREA.
Go cull the list of all the people who didn't know smoking was lethal when
they started.
> Now, put your money where your mouth is.
Pull you head from where your ass is.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:05:43 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
> >news:c4280u$c27$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> >> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Sherlock Holmes, said:
> >> >
> >> > Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying
it
> >kills
> >> > you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
> >>
> >> I am not going to bother even trying to rebutt the many points we
> >> clearly disagree widely on, but this particular statement stands out to
> >> me as silly.
> >
> >You're an idiot smoker, aren't you?
>
> And you're an idiot anti, aren't you?
>
> Unless, of course, you can answer the challenge in my previous post.
>
You just love to look stupid, don't you.
> >
> > There are plenty of things people choose to do even though
> >> those things are bad for them.
> >
> >Bad for them is relative.
> >Smoking does no physical good whatsoever.
>
> Spoken like a true idiot.
Nope.
Like anyone with even 3 working brain cells.
Guess you have only 2.
>
> Leaving aside the discovery that smokers get parkinsons and alzheimers
> at 1/2 the rate of non-smokers, (no one knows why, yet)
This is false.
Studies show they die before the onset.
there are
> plenty of advantages to smoking.
No, thee aren't.
I find a nice cigar, enjoyed at my
> leisure, relaxes me tremendously, and significantly reduces stress.
No it doesn't.
Medical fact : nic is a stimulant, it IN NO WAY reduces stress.
> Stress is a killer.
Yes.
Lucky for you, lying isn't, or you'd be dead a long time.
>
> I also find it tends to keep idiot nannies at bay, further reducing my
> stress.
>
While killing you.
>
> >There is a perceived benefit to the
> >> person.
> >
> >No, there is a satisfaction of an artificially begun addiction.
>
> Smokers spend thousands of dollars a year to do something that is
> increasingly socially unacceptable. Are you stupid enough to think
> they get no benefit from it?
>
Are you stupid enough to even try this claim?
Substitute millions and heroin users.
Of course they get NO BENEFIT from it.
They're idiot addicts.
They don't pay for pleasure, they pay to avoid pain.
> That's a rhetorical question.
Did you have help spelling it?
>
> That means you're not expected to answer it.
Since it's flawed and dumb, I had to.
Didn't think you'd be insane enough to ask it.
>
> >Actually, some metabolisms need more calories.
> >It's also generally cheaper.
> >In moderation, it isn't harmful.
>
> Neither is smoking.
Yes it is
The problem is, it's difficult to do in
> moderation if your chosen method is cigarettes.
It's an addiction.
No moderating an addiction.
>
> Cigars, OTOH, are much easier. I've had one all week. I usually have
> two in a given week.
And they cause cancer of the mouth.
Enjoy!
>
> > In the case of drinking, they trade off physical
> >> health for the alcohol buzz and perhaps lowered inhibitions.
> >
> >Booze, in low volume, has some health benefits.
>
> As explained above, so does tobacco.
No, it doesn't.
>
> >
> >You do the apples and oranges thing well, but ain't nuthin like smoking.
>
> Actually, there are a lot of things like smoking.
Well, heroin and cocaine maybe.
But noone's saying using them is ok.
>
> You really aren't very bright, are ya, boy?
Light years ahead of you, cancer-dweeb.
>
> >None of these things are physical health risks.
> >Sigh.
>
> Stress is a huge physical risk.
Stress is increased by smoking.
Medical fact, loser boy
>
> >> I think if you are going to call smokers idiots for that you should
call
> >> everyone idiots for most everything. It's all about trade-offs.
> >>
> >I'm going to repeat that you're an idiot for even positing your position.
>
> You realize, don't you, that being called an idiot by an idiot is
> simply amusing?
Yeah, I find you funny as hell.
>
> Again, that's a rhetorical question.
>
> And again, that means you're not expected to answer it.
Well, since it was about you being an idiot, or it was an untruth...
>
>
> >> But in the case of the smoking bans, I think it can be reasonably
argued
> >> that there are establishments affected in such a way that no one is
> >> benefited but many people are inconvenienced
> >
> >Wrong.
> >Patrons benefit.
>
> Only whiney nannies, who don't begin to make up for the losses caused
> by losing the partying smokers.
Wrong.
Studies show otherwise.
>
> >Employees benefit.
>
> How about asking them?
Don't need to.
Safety is a benefit. Period.
You'll find that those who still have jobs are
> really struggling because their tips are down anywhere between 1/2 and
> 2/3ds.
That's a lie.
Numerous studies show otherwise.
Indeed, nonsmokers tip better than smokers, statistically.
>
> Now, how about an analogy so ridiculous it removes any doubt that
> you're a complete idiot?
Well, since all you do is lie and fabricate things....
>
> >So if they sold rat poison to people and they were told not to any more,
> >it'd be destroying their business?
> >
> >Swell.
>
> Thanks.
>
> So be sure to answer the previous post. I want to see just how much
> smarter you are than just one of those smokers I listed.
Very much so, as non-suicidal.
Irish Mike
including pubs. Parting the Red sea and walking on water were parlor
tricks compared to enforcing this law.
Irish Mike
"Joe Long" <s...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:bkoc60d6de3spv530...@4ax.com...
Ken M
up another casino here, you're ass is going to be in jail.
Dave Hitt
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:42:56 GMT, Dave Hitt
><BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:06:39 GMT, "Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Heard a good quote at the poker table the day during the ongoing (and
>>>apparently never ending) discussion about smoking in poker rooms. "A no
>>>smoking section in a poker room is like a no peeing section in a swimming
>>>pool."
>
>Brilliant! I love it. An excellent analogy.
>
>>One thing that all anti smokers seem to have in common is an obsession
>>with bodily functions. In any conversation, it's only a matter of
>>time before they bring up "peeing in a pool," "farting in your face"
>>or "shitting on the sidewalk."
>
>Because they are good analogies that make a good point. That is
>essentially what smokers do to the air in public rooms that they smoke
>in.
So you're in the ca-ca pee-pee camp.
Why am I not the least bit surprised?
Dave Hitt
It makes perfect sense when you realize what this campaign *really*
is.
It has nothing to do with health. These people hate smokers the way
arabs hate jews. They despise them. They loath them. At least twice
a week I get mail from The Facts where some nanny rants "I HOPE YOU
ALL DIE!!!!!!" or something to that extent.
This isn't about heath. It is about hate.
Dave Hitt
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:35:41 GMT, Dave Hitt
><BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:56:32 -0700, Joe Long <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>>However, it is clear that Dave Hitt's claims here and on his website
>>>of smoking bans being "bad for business" are nothing more than
>>>cherry-picked anecdotes that prove, well, nothing!
>>
>>You see, Joe here, being your standard "bow to big brother" and
>>"nannyism is good" type, simply *can't* admit he's wrong, no matter
>>how strong the facts are. Both of the pages I gave him prove, without
>>any doubt to a reasonable person, that bans are devastating to a lot
>>of business. But nannyism is a religion, and you just can't argue
>>with a religious zealot.
>
>And here you have Dave's typical Ad Hominem attack, so typical of
>those who have no real facts or logic on their side, nothing but
>pseudoscience and scare tactics.
Point out one fact on my page that is inaccurate. Just one.
We're waiting.
>
>His pages, of course, prove nothing to any "reasonable" person with
>any familiarity with science and statistics.
>
>>If you don't trust this page:
>>http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html
>>
>>..because I compiled the information, you still shouldn't be able to
>>argue with this page:
>>
>>http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html
>>
>>...which will take you to article after article after article after
>>article about how badly many, many business are suffering under these
>>bans.
>
>Which are still nothing but cherry-picked anecdotes, and still don't
>make any reasonable, substantive case against smoking bans.
You can't tell the difference between real news stories and anecdotes?
You are hopeless.
The links page has not one or two or three stories, but at last count
over 75 links to news stories, from a wide variety of sources, about
business that are either hurting, or in many cases, shutting down
completely. Most stories cover two or three different business. And
that's not enough for you?
None so blind as a zealot.
>
>>Adjusting to changing business climates is an important skill, but if
>>you've built your business by attaching a smoking clientele, then are
>>told you have to harass them, kick them out into sub-zero wind chills,
>>and make their lives generally miserable when they used to come to
>>your place for a good time, you're not going to survive, no matter how
>>good a businesses man you are.
>
>Buggy-whip manufacturers didn't survive the coming of the automobile,
>either. But the Coors Brewery survived prohibition, by changing their
>line of business while drawing on their strengths and expertise.
>
>The point being that some businesses go out of business, and new
>businesses come along, all the time. Protecting a few niche
>businesses at the expense of the health and concerns of the vast
>majority of citizens is not good public policy.
If the health concerns were valid, you'd have a point. But they're
not, they're as bogus as homeopathy. If you could see past your own
bigotry for a moment you'd be able to understand that.
>
>>>Some people believe that a government regulation that benefits the
>>>majority must not be enacted if even a tiny minority is harmed, but
>>>that's not how a democracy works. So, even if every anecdote on
>>>Dave's page is 100% true as he tells it, a few businesses losing
>>>revenue or closing is a small price to pay for the benefits of
>>>cleaning up the air in places of public accomodation.
>
>>For a non-existant risk. Lovely. Well, zealots have always had a
>>penchant for murdering unbelievers.
>
>Non-existent only to those like yourself who blind yourselves to the
>truth when you find the truth inconvenient. If you want to see the
>real zealot here, just look in any mirror.
What truth? The truth is that NO ONE has ever died from second hand
smoke.
I've recently sent e-mail to several nanny/health organizations asking
them to name three people who have died from SHS. Considering that,
according to their numbers, over a half million people are victims of
it during the past twenty years, that should be easy.
Most of them ignored the request. The American Lung association
answered, but evaded the question. One group, after a bit of a go
around, admitted they couldn't provide any names.
Gee, if it's that deadly, why can't they name anyone?
>
>>And the nannies are just getting warmed up. Tobacco was just the first
>>thing on their very long, very extensive list.
>
>Yeah, your tired old scaremongering line. Blllpphhhttt!!!
Brilliant comeback.
When they came for the smokers...
Anyhow, I'm waiting for you to back up your claim that my pages are
psudoscience. List one error, please, or admit that you are little
more than an ignorant windbag.
Dave Hitt
I haven't updated the list in quite a while, it's something I've had
hanging around from years ago.
Yes, quite a few of them are dead. Hell, at least a couple of them
are dead from illnesses that could have been caused by their smoking.
But that's not the point - the point is that people who claim they're
smarter than smokers just because they don't smoke are idiots.
As for a connection between smoking and IQ, I don't think there is one
either way. I strongly suspect, though, there is a correlation
between smoking and risk taking - those who like to take other risks
are more comfortable with the risk of smoking.
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> No one has ever got lung cancer from Second hand smoke. It's never
>> happened.
>You and OSHA disagree.
>Whom is more credible?
Please give us the names, from OSHA, of anyone who has died from SHS.
>> Non smokers in smokey environments inhale the smoke of six to ten
>> cigarettes per *year*. That's based on actual measurement, not ass
>> numbers. (I.e. numbers the nicotine nannies have pulled out of their
>> asses.)
>
>Based on whos number?
>All the government numbers are exponentially higher.
>Only the asses who pimp for the tobbacco industry disagree.
The studies I referred to were conducted in Britain and by the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. In the 1993 EPA report that started this
jihad, the EPA *themselves* claim non-smokers inhale the smoke of 1/5
of a cigarette a day.
If you had any sense, you'd now be embarrassed that you've shown
yourself to be an ignorant schmuck, but my guess is you don't even
have the brains to realize it.
>> >> There are no independent studies that show that to be the case. Every
>> >> one has been funded by nanny groups, and as I explained in a previous
>> >> post, they are blatantly dishonest (both the studies, and the groups
>> >> funding them). Only an idiot would believe them.
>> >>
>> >That's bullshit.
>>
>> Ok, spunky, prove me wrong. Find me a study that only included small
>> restaurants and bars. Or one what concentrated on bingo halls, or
>> pool halls, or bowling alleys.
>WHy would I use anecdotal evidence in a serious study?
Keep dancing, ignorant boy. I didn't ask for anecdotal evidence, did
I? I asked for a study. Just one.
And you can't find one, can you?
Everyone has known smoking was dangerous right from the start - there
were health warnings 400 years ago. Around the turn of the century
they were called "coffin nails." Sound lethal enough for ya, boy?
So that little sidestep won't work, and the challenge remains - prove
you're smarter than any one of these people, in their field. Just
one.
If you can answer this challenge, you will be the very first nanny who
has ever been able to.
But I'm not expecting much from you. I doubt anyone ever does.
>> Now, put your money where your mouth is.
>Pull you head from where your ass is.
That's one complete failure. Being such a nice guy, I'm going to give
you a second chance.
I bet you'll fail again.
Dave Hitt
You the people choose to steal the property rights from private owners
who have invested their time, money, and sweat into their businesses.
In a free country, they would have the right to run their business as
they see fit. In the US, they are not.
Dave Hitt
wrote:
>They just passed a law in Ireland that bans smoking in public places
>including pubs. Parting the Red sea and walking on water were parlor
>tricks compared to enforcing this law.
>
>Irish Mike
I am really, really hoping the Irish fight this tooth and nail. We'll
have to wait and see.
Dave Hitt
Top posting is the sign of an idiot.
Given your argument, no one could ever open a new casino. And yet,
they do. How is that possible?
I never said it would be *easy* to do. Opening any business is
difficult, expensive, risky and time consuming. (Which is why
business owners, who are talking all the risks, should have as much
lassitude as possible in their business decisions.)
Dave Hitt
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hitt" <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:vtnb60hqucp32krrk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:05:43 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Paramecium T. Nougat" <r...@moralminority.org> wrote in message
>> >news:c4280u$c27$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>> >> Beldin the Sorcerer, doing a poor impression of Sherlock Holmes, said:
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyone born after they put the warning labels on the package saying
>it
>> >kills
>> >> > you who willingly breathes said chemical into them is an idiot.
>> >>
>> >> I am not going to bother even trying to rebutt the many points we
>> >> clearly disagree widely on, but this particular statement stands out to
>> >> me as silly.
>> >
>> >You're an idiot smoker, aren't you?
>>
>> And you're an idiot anti, aren't you?
>>
>That's an oxymoron, moron.
Get the to a dictionary, boy. It's a redundancy.
>>
>> Leaving aside the discovery that smokers get parkinsons and alzheimers
>> at 1/2 the rate of non-smokers, (no one knows why, yet)
>
>This is false.
>
>Studies show they die before the onset.
Good lord, boy, you have NO idea what you're talking about at all, do
you?
Do you play online? If so, what's your handle? If your knowledge of
poker is anywhere near your knowledge of, well, everything else, I'd
love to sit at a table with you.
> I find a nice cigar, enjoyed at my
>> leisure, relaxes me tremendously, and significantly reduces stress.
>
>No it doesn't.
>Medical fact : nic is a stimulant, it IN NO WAY reduces stress.
Dumber and dumber and dumber, boy. Dumber and dumber and dumber.
Keep spewing, spunky, it's amusing.
Most nannies are ignorant, but only a few are as downright stupid as
you are.
>> Stress is a killer.
>Yes.
>Lucky for you, lying isn't, or you'd be dead a long time.
>
>>
>> I also find it tends to keep idiot nannies at bay, further reducing my
>> stress.
>>
>While killing you.
>
>>
>> >There is a perceived benefit to the
>> >> person.
>> >
>> >No, there is a satisfaction of an artificially begun addiction.
>>
>> Smokers spend thousands of dollars a year to do something that is
>> increasingly socially unacceptable. Are you stupid enough to think
>> they get no benefit from it?
>>
>Are you stupid enough to even try this claim?
>Substitute millions and heroin users.
>Of course they get NO BENEFIT from it.
>They're idiot addicts.
>They don't pay for pleasure, they pay to avoid pain.
Wrong again. Heroin users do perceive a benefit from their use.
That's why they do it.
So, we've determined you know nothing about economics, human nature,
science, biology, epidemiology, are severely lacking in common sense,
and, by your evasion of the challenge, are stupider than a long, long
list of smokers.
What a sterling human being. Your patents must be SO proud.
Dave Hitt
Carson) wrote:
>>But the beauty of a free market is that wrong decisions are
>>self-correcting
>
>No they aren't.
>
>They are self-correcting in models which assume rational actors.
Where do you get that from?
They are self correcting in that they succeed if they sell enough
goods and services to make a profit after expenses, and fail if they
don't. It has nothing at all to do with how rational the customers
are, the owners are, or the products are.
It's pretty irrational to spend enormous amounts of your hard earned
money an small bits of shiny metal and rocks, yet a jeweler can make a
pretty nice living.
Now, care to address the points I made in my last post?
Dave Hitt
wrote:
>RE THIS:
>>
>> ...and let me tell you how great those open-air patios are when you're
>> in a place where it's below freezing outside all winter.
>>
>> /joe
>
>Are you taking about you, personally, having to go outside and freeze
>your ass off all winter? I got a solution for that: Stop smoking, and
>you can stay inside where it's warm and cozy.
No, not at all. I just stay home. As do many, many smokers, and
that's why bans have killed so many businesses.
Gary Carson
>garyc...@wmconnect.comtras
>>>But the beauty of a free market is that wrong decisions are
>>>self-correcting
>>
>>No they aren't.
>>
>>They are self-correcting in models which assume rational actors.
>
>Where do you get that from?
>
From what I know about economic theory. I'm not an economist, but know enough
ecomomics to have taught a college course in prin of econ.
>They are self correcting in that they succeed if they sell enough
>goods and services to make a profit after expenses, and fail if they
>don't. It has nothing at all to do with how rational the customers
>are, the owners are, or the products are.
I thought you were arguing that owners would always act to maximize profits.
That's where the ideas about economic systems tendency to self correct comes
from.
If you were arguing that bar owners would prefer to have smoking and that's
okay because it won't bankrupt them, then whether or not the market is a
self-correcting system isn't really relevant.
If you were arguing that bar owners would prefer to have smoking because that
maximizes profit, then I don't know whether or not it's true that would
maximize profit, but I do know the arguement assumes bar owners are rational
actors -- and there is no evidence that business owners in general act
rationaly to maximize profits.
Gary Carson
All your doing with a question like that is demonstrating an ignorance of
statistical analysis and what it's all about.
The relationship between shs and health is statistical in nature, as is the
relationship between smoking itself and health.
The relationship can be established within accepted degrees, you can establish
risk and likelihood, not certainty. And the relationship is a general one, you
can establish it without identifying any specific person.
If you can establish that the lung cancer rate among those with significant
exposer to SHS is 2% while the overall rate is 1% then you've pretty clearly
established a risk but havn't identied any particular individual that you know
got lung cancer from SHS.
Whether or not it's an acceptable risk is a political question, not a
scientific one.