So far, this thread has posted quite a few studies and reports trying to quantify just how bad, or how harmless (depending on the point of view) second-hand smoke can be. All these reports seem to be on the same side of the fence, however. Does anyone want to point out any good statistical study that shows second-hand smoke is actually good for you? If not, then all the arguments seem to be about the same thing, which is - It's not a good thing, but just how bad is it?

I will concede that second-hand smoke is not good for anybody, but it is less damaging than we are led to believe. Has anybody done a study on the effects of gunpowder smoke?? Would you believe that it is good or bad for you?? After a quick Google, I could find articles showing that gunpowder & the cleaners we use to be somewhat toxic. I also discovered why shooting may relax someone temporarily and guess what?? It's one of the SAME chemical compounds found in tobacco products!!

One thing that does annoy me about so many studies is they only study cigarettes. I smoke a pipe and an occasional cigar. I don't inhale, so the lung cancer risk is significantly less. I've read studies that say pipe and cigar smokers live longer than non smokers, as its such a relaxing activity. It lowers your pulse and blood pressure during the activity and it does keep it low afterwards...

I can do some digging for the reports later, but I'm on vacation and paying by the minute for access.. I'm hooked apparently. I'm in Paris and still logging in to check on the carry board

I have noticed that a number of you have found my website:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

The government air quality testing and OSHA's air quality standards for every component in secondhand smoke speak for themselves. Feel free to distribute any of the air quality research found on my weblog.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

And feel free to research the agenda behind smoking ban lobbying efforts:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html

Getting away from the actual topic, but one that parallels it, what about the stuff that the Government REQUIRES to be infused into our drinking water?? Things like fluoride, chlorine, etc.??? The Government has required fluoride treatment added to water "for our teeth", due to a discovery in a Texas(?)community. And yet, despite historical data against fluoridation and numerous scientific studies showing fluoride is hazardous to us, they continue to do so. We, as citizens, have NO say in what is being added to our water. Personally, if my teeth need a fluoride treatment, I can go to the dentist. Of course, following the typical rhetoric of the Government, they ALWAYS know what's best for us Like Reagan said, one of the scariest things to hear is; "I'm from the Government and I'm here to HELP" !!!!

BTW, an edit: There is little or no way to filter out the fluoride in our drinking water according to my water guy that recently had our water purification system installed. Ramsey well water really sucks!!

http://www.stopfluoridation.homestead.c ... tions.html

So a 49% increase among those occasionally exposed only at work, and a 92% increase among those regularly exposed (but still only at work), aren't significant? Almost doubling the chance of CHD isn't significant?

How did they torture the statistics to claim that?

If some preventive measure <B>decreased</B> the chance of CHD by 92% they'd be praising it to the skies.

Smoking kills people. We know this. Some people don't seem to die in spite of it, but a lot do. This isn't germane, however, to the issue of whether or not smoking should be allowed in public establishments.

People who don't like or cannot tolerate smoke should not go into places where there is smoking, provided the place is a location of voluntary association -- in other words, you don't need to go there. This would make it fair game to exclude smoking from places people don't have any choice about -- busses, trains, hospitals, elevators, etc.

If catering to people who do not like smoking is something that providers of public establishments believe is economically viable to them, they will provide smoke-free facilities. Prior to the ban, MOST restaurants I went to in Minneapolis were smoke free. Some places like The Egg and I, which used to attract a large crowd of bohemian smoker types had been smoke-free for several years prior to the ban.

In other words, the market was sorting this out already.

What's so infuriating about the Minneapolis ban (or any total ban) is that it makes no mechanism for people to voluntarily acknowledge smoking is bad, but we want to do it anyway. In this regard it is acting as the government nanny, telling me that to be "safe" I need to ensure that "bad stuff" is kept away from me.

Doesn't that sound JUST LIKE gun control to anyone?

EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my previous posts:

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:46 am & Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:36

This Sunday night on channel 9 there is supposed to be some kind of "sting" operation on a bar that has been ignoring the ban. The teaser for the story had some chick saying how terrible it was when she walked in there, and it was soooo smoky! So now we have undercover cameras to bust this guy running his own damn business! I feel like opening the equivalent of the speakeasy- a smoke-easy. Have to have a secret knock, smuggle people and smokes in, hide from the coppers.

There goes my blood pressure again. This is just so wrong. Those of you who were at the CCRN meeting don't know how hard I had to bite my lip when that lobbyist started talking about pushing zoning law reform and "Property Rights". What property rights?? I don't suppose a business deciding whether or not they will allow smoking would count in that, now would it.

Can't sell a gun in a shop in Mpls, can't smoke, all by decree. What exactly is the difference? GRRRRRRRR.

IIRC- Private clubs are exempt from the smoking ban. It only effected public "food establishments" (including bars).

I recall back in the late 70's and early 80's that many clubs in Texas turned into "Private Clubs". I suppose this was in order to get away from the countless city, county & state regulations. In addition, Texas has "dry" counties and "wet" counties, as well. No liquor can be sold in a "dry" county to the "public".

My understanding is that this isn't true; the ban is technically about protecting the *employees*, not the patrons, and even private clubs have employees.

Back when Kalifornia implemented their ban, there was an exception for basically owner-operated businesses (ie, you were allowed to endanger yourself). I can remember visiting that kind of bar in San Fran around 1996/7.

I was curious about that, so I went to look it up a few days back, and you are correct (as far as I can tell).


No delineation for public or private. There is a pretty good amount of information about it here: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/smoking-ban/


What caught my eye is section c of the exceptions...where exactly does the federal government expressly authorize smoking? Also this is specifically the Minneapolis ban, and the county ban may be different.

The county ban specifies private club exclusions (but interesting enough, not if the private club was formed to specifically defeat the ordinance).

http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/vgn/portal ... 52,00.html


Just for the record i'm a non-smoker, but the idea of government regulation for someplace you choose to visit (or work at) annoys me.

If a resturant bans guns, I can show my convictions by not eating there, just as I could choose to not eat there if they allow smoking.

In the same manner I could choose to work somewhere else (since my company does not allow firearms on premise) but I do not.

Wow, they just go ahead and say it right in the ordinance. But, included is the patrons.