anti-smoking law in california

[burningwheel]

can someone please tell me the specifics? it's banned in all public and work places?

[Anders]

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2004/02/22/lifestyle/4-l22arnold.jpg

[Powerdoc]

Hmm interesting, you have the right to eat cigar, but not to smoke it in california ;) :p

[Anders]

I think his teeth whitening agent may be against the Kyoto protocol

[trumptman]

Originally posted by burningwheel
can someone please tell me the specifics? it's banned in all public and work places?

What more do you need to know? The statement is pretty clear.

Nick

[applenut]

same in NY. thank God.

[burningwheel]

is it banned in all public places including ALL bars,restuarants and concert venues?

i'm trying to help get it banned in Michigan, though the current potential bill doesn't go far enough

I'm quoted here! (http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw99932_20040622.htm)

Michigander's go sign the petition at the end of the article!

[burningwheel]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Hmm interesting, you have the right to eat cigar, but not to smoke it in california ;) :p
:lol:

[applenut]

Originally posted by burningwheel
is it banned in all public places including ALL bars,restuarants and concert venues?

yes, and stadiums

[faust9]

Ahhh nothing like the oppression of the majority using unsound data to justify quashing the rights of the little guy. Penn & Teller had a pretty good Bullshit about this. Now my personal view is Non-smoking bars are so much more pleasant. I loved dropping into San Diego because a night of bar hopping didn't result in a week of smelling like smoke. Did they change the law because it used to be no smoking in businesses with employees. Businesses run solely by the owner where allowed smoking environments if the owner allowed it.

[mrtwistor]

Ahhh nothing like the oppression of the majority using unsound data to justify quashing the rights of the little guy

Unsound data? Oppression of the majority? It is the majority that was forced to breathe the carcinogens spewed by smokers. No smoking in Delaware too, and it is great.

[faust9]

Originally posted by mrtwistor
Unsound data? Oppression of the majority? It is the majority that was forced to breathe the carcinogens spewed by smokers. No smoking in Delaware too, and it is great.

Yep, I said unsound. Us Courts have found the data the shows second hand smoke to be the evil to end all evils is a lie. The data shows virtually no change in smoking related diseases among those who breath second hand smoke than those who don't.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html


Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year.
...
The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the "cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as the agency had boldly asserted.


Breathing second hand cigarette smoke is no more dangerous than roasting marshmellows around a campfire.

Now, Olsons ruling was vacated on appeal because he "overstepped the bounds of judicial review" not because of his findings on second hand smoke in and of itself.

Second hand smoke has been linked with every disease from cancer to SIDS... So has the consumption of bread.

I love smoke-free bars and restaurants. Woo-Whoo!!! I feel though the data used to justify the FUD about second hand smoke is as yet inconclusive at least and shows minimal risk at most.

PS... I misspoke in that I meant opression by the majority.


[edit]
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/funny/noofficesmoke.jpg

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by faust9
Yep, I said unsound. Us Courts have found the data the shows second hand smoke to be the evil to end all evils is a lie. The data shows virtually no change in smoking related diseases among those who breath second hand smoke than those who don't.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html



Breathing second hand cigarette smoke is no more dangerous than roasting marshmellows around a campfire.

Now, Olsons ruling was vacated on appeal because he "overstepped the bounds of judicial review" not because of his findings on second hand smoke in and of itself.

Second hand smoke has been linked with every disease from cancer to SIDS... So has the consumption of bread.

I love smoke-free bars and restaurants. Woo-Whoo!!! I feel though the data used to justify the FUD about second hand smoke is as yet inconclusive at least and shows minimal risk at most.

PS... I misspoke in that I meant opression by the majority.

Second hand smoking is bad for health. Perhaps there is no proof for an increase in cancer, but there is an improve of breathing diseases. For example asthmatic people suffer of second hand smoke. Kids leaving in tabacco smoke environnements have more infections of the breathing system than kids leaving in a normal environnment.

For me tabacco smell no good, and I don't see why I'll support this odor in restaurant : it ruins great food. Note that in some restaurants , there is a special room for smoking the cigar after the meal.

[mrtwistor]

Right, Bocuse banned smoking at his restaurants more that 25 years ago.