or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › anti-smoking law in california
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

anti-smoking law in california

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
can someone please tell me the specifics? it's banned in all public and work places?
post #2 of 14
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #3 of 14
Hmm interesting, you have the right to eat cigar, but not to smoke it in california
post #4 of 14
I think his teeth whitening agent may be against the Kyoto protocol
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #5 of 14
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #6 of 14
same in NY. thank God.
post #7 of 14
Thread Starter 
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!

Michigander's go sign the petition at the end of the article!
post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Hmm interesting, you have the right to eat cigar, but not to smoke it in california

post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by burningwheel
is it banned in all public places including ALL bars,restuarants and concert venues?

yes, and stadiums
post #10 of 14
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.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #11 of 14
Quote:
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.
post #12 of 14
Quote:
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

Quote:
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]
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #13 of 14
Quote:
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.
post #14 of 14
Right, Bocuse banned smoking at his restaurants more that 25 years ago.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › anti-smoking law in california