Hooter's Banned Our Hookah! Please Read!

[Sonthert]

Essentially, yes, Skarred.

The law is loosely defining a public place, that used to be "government property". Private property was defined as everything else. The government had no rights to come on to private property without invitation of the owner/lessor. That is, the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sexual harassment laws and the Smoking Ban are attempts by government, hell, not attempts actually doing, redefining businesses as public property. It hasn't been nor should it be. I'll prove my point. If you get pulled over by a cop and he arrests you, he can impound your car as long as its on public property. If you pull into a parking lot before the stop (like a 7-11), they can't tow your car...its private property. Government and laws should stop, more or less, when the border of public and private property is crossed. They will try to lie to you and twist things around, but these things have been and are continued infringements on us. The only rights the government has, on private property, without warrant or invitation is to uphold the constitution.

If you read the most recent ~768 pages of the most recent Surgeon General's report on second hand smoking, you will find out the future...

First, glz88, it is the most comprehensive and scholarly evaluation on the dangers of second hand smoke. While it contains data, charts, graphs, there are not a single statistic to support that second hand smoke is dangerous. They can quote scientific theories that basically "Dr. Smith, Jones and Wilson believe that this chemical in smoke has no safe level of exposure." Thats the evidence to back it up...other doctors who say there is no safe level of exposure. Look in a Merck Index some time...every chemical has LD50 data...every chemical, including plutonium, the most toxic substance known to man, has "safe" exposure limits. To quote a doctor who says there is no safe level of exposure is bunk. If I am exposed to one molecule of chemical X, it won't cause cancer. If its 2, that increases my risks. There are safe exposure limits even for something as deadly as the hypothetical Chemical X. Another classic is chromosome damage. Flash-back (Oh, that was a pun! You'll see!) to the last time they talked about chromosome damage and how there was no safe limit of exposure to a substance...L.S.D. It caused chromosomal damage. One dose and your brain would spin out forever. Hogwash then, hogwash now. The human body is remarkably resilient. There is no chemical that is absolutely permanently damaging. Chromosome damage? How do they test for chromosome damage? How do they know if somebody has chromosome damage? How do they tell, post-mortem if somebody had it? They can't. Its not observable, it can't be science. Science must be testable, observable and repeatable. Yet, the Surgeon General in his scientific evaluation of second-hand smoke puts things that are laughable to a true scientist and quotes thousands of studies that back this up...how? If I claimed an invisible frog was poisoning me, you'd think I was nuts...because nobody can see this invisible frog, its not observable, its either conjecture or the product of a sick mind. When doctors claim there's an invisible frogs, lots of suckers just agree that invisible frogs are real...even fact.

Yet there are no statistics to show how many people are dying of second hand smoke...because even the most massaged (faked) data doesn't show a scientifically significant correlation. If they were to show the scientific data, people would chuckle and close the report up, dismissing it.

They disregard information that doesn't benefit their case. The Surgeon General's report on smoking in 1967:

"The death rates for Pipe Smokers are little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even for men who smoke 10 or more pipefuls a day and for men who have smoked pipes more than 30 years."

"The death rates for men smoking less than 5 cigars a day are about the same as for non-smokers."

Report of the Surgeon General, 1967:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/K/M/_/nnbbkm.pdf

Note, my quotes are from page 7 of the report (Page 14 of the PDF).

So, we are being targeted unfairly as pipe smokers because only cigarettes or serious cigar smokers (more than 5 a day) have significant increases in death rates. Even for the primary smoke recipient, the risks are low to non-existent.

-OR-

What is portrayed as the most authoritative, scholarly work on a subject MAY BE WRONG. It is not an established fact that second hand smoke is dangerous. The people trying to ban smoking want you to believe that, but why not just believe the Surgeon General from 1967? The most current report (2006) doesn't distinguish between cigarettes and pipes (or cigars), but all their data would presumably be plucked from cigarette data...so why are hookah smokers being lumped in? The data is unclear and any data I've seen show that pipes (let alone hookahs) aren't well researched, but don't show a lot of death rate increases in any case. Yet, second hand smoke from what? Second hand smoke from cigarettes is distinctly different than second hand smoke from pipes...because primary smoke from cigarettes is different than pipes (I'm applying the same logic they used in the 2006 report...the second hand smoke is directly a subset of the the primary smoke). So why aren't there any numbers for pipes (I remember one
reference to cigars).

Easily explained. The 2006 report and/or the 1967 report are absolute garbage. The 1967 report is a lot more in depth as to characterizing the problem while the 2006 report spends a lot of time explaining metabolic pathways. The 2006 report has omitted things that make their case look bad. Low cigar consumption and pipe consumption don't increase your chances of dying. They omit that in the 2006 report...like I said before, there are no statistics about the number of people dying from second hand smoke, no projections, nothing. Look in the 1967 report...projections, statistics about the number of people dying. Real, live science. 2006...chromosomal damage and magic chemicals that are 100% carcinogenic.

There is little credible evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous. There is ZERO evidence that second hand smoke from pipes, cigars and hookahs is dangerous, yet they will be banned the same as cigarettes...must be the science has little to do with it and personal prejudice has everything to do with it. Its not whether or not the "smoke" poses a risk...its whether it annoys someone or not. If it were based on science, they would only ban cigarettes, because thats all they can prove are dangerous...but they can't even do that.

What should give anybody a start is that tucked into a small corner of the 2006 report is that apartment buildings air handling systems can't filter out smoke...so tenants in apartments are breathing in hand second-hand smoke from neighbors that smoke...so...

Ban smoking in my home IF I live in an apartment.

This has nothing to do with smoking and everything to do with control. The anti-smoking people don't want us to smoke. They will use whatever slanted crap they can to make a case for banning it.

Next:"You can't smoke...God told me it's wrong."

Glz88, I understand your negative attitude, but just because a car is going over a cliff, you don't have to push. It is not a fact, nor has it been established.

Alwahoo, your point is exactly the opposite of mine...somebody else's pursuit of happiness (which you butchered ) doesn't impinge on my liberty. We have to make exceptions, so that we aren't infringed on ourselves. If you allow those exceptions in, there will be no liberty.

1. You sit down on a bus bench, the woman who was there first screams "Your breathing my air! You're making me unhappy!" Do you stop breathing because it makes her unhappy?

2. You live in an apartment, you're girlfriend likes to come over and do the nasty at noon. Your neighbor comes up and says: "I hate hearing you and your girlfriend having sex. It is making me unhappy. Stop it." Do you?

Of course not, if they don't like it they can leave. If we all stopped doing things that upset other people, there would be no liberty. The people who hate TV would have those banned. The prudes would have premarital sex banned. The crack-pots would have meat banned. It offends them, it makes them unhappy, so it should stop. Skydiving...banned. Somebody could be down below and get hurt by a skydiver falling on them...somebody could be killed without their knowledge! Pppth! I'm disappointed, Ahwahoo, that was a very trivial and poor argument!

Overall, the idea that people are protected from being offended or even their lives being endangered by someone else's exercise of liberty is absurd. Sometimes liberty is a risky business. Hopefully we can all be sensible enough and rational enough to exercise liberty when its for a good reason or refrain when not necessary, it might be dangerous or it might offend someone. No, if I infringe on their happiness, they can leave. Thats the way everyone can have liberty. They can leave a crowded restaurant if they want to, to not smell my smoke. Their rights don't exceed mine. When we start having one person's rights/requests are more reasonable than another person's then we will have a national religion, laws regarding what people can and can't say. People ignoring or walking away from what annoys them is what makes liberty possible. Intolerance is the most dangerous foe of liberty.

[jaker29902]

People this is going to sound really dickish, and Im sorry for and Ill try my best not to make it sound so dickish BUT

Smoking is bad for you it WILL cause cancer/increase the likelihood of getting cancer, if your going to argue this then just ignore the rest of my post

Okay Im assuming so far you agree with me, that being said second hand smoke IS detrimental to your health, and it is the governments right and responsibility to ban it from places such as schools, town halls, courthouses, etc. In effect property that falls under the public sector (<-- me channeling highschool econ). I am however in agreement that privately owned businesses should have the right to allow or disallow smoking BUT I also believe that they should be required to make it aware to potential customers that they allow smoking on premises (sign on doorway would be sufficient, basically same kind of sign that is a disclaimer for audio/video surveillence (sp?))

Anyways just my $0.02

[Skarredmind]

People this is going to sound really dickish, and Im sorry for and Ill try my best not to make it sound so dickish BUT

Not as much as you think... I didn't find it dickish at all, though I would like to make some points.

Smoking is bad for you it WILL cause cancer/increase the likelihood of getting cancer, if your going to argue this then just ignore the rest of my post

You're right. No one thus far has said that it wasn't bad for you though. The point unfortunately is irrelevant to the conversation. The government isn't there to protect me from myself... if I want some nice french fries cooked in trans fats I should be able to eat them. Likewise if I want to smoke, drink, hire someone to cut my skin and inject ink, Hell if I want to sit around and smash myself between the legs with a hammer, or even just off myself, its not the government's business unless I subject an unwilling party.

Okay Im assuming so far you agree with me, that being said second hand smoke IS detrimental to your health,

Funny, we were just talking about this. Check out the post directly above this one. Its not proven, so no, its not been proven to be detrimental. Unfortunately in cases like these, it falls upon the person who is claiming damage to prove the damage, not the rest of us to prove its NOT harmless. Sonthert really went into it well and said it far better than I could so I really do urge you to read the above (and like I said in one of my earlier posts, check out the episode of bullshit that goes over it)

and it is the governments right and responsibility to ban it from places such as schools, town halls, courthouses, etc. In effect property that falls under the public sector (<-- me channeling highschool econ). I am however in agreement that privately owned businesses should have the right to allow or disallow smoking

People keep saying this about the government owned properties, and no one disagrees.

In effect, most of us agree with the 2nd half too. If it's my business its my place to smoke in.

BUT I also believe that they should be required to make it aware to potential customers that they allow smoking on premises (sign on doorway would be sufficient, basically same kind of sign that is a disclaimer for audio/video surveillence (sp?))

I sort of agree with this, the problem is are we going to require hookah or cigar bars or tobacconists to put signs like these up too? What about bars? I guess my point is that if you are too dumb to figure this kind of thing out without a sign, maybe you should remove yourself from the gene pool anyway... why does the government need to spend all sorts of money to force me to do it? Even if you can't figure it out, the 30 seconds exposure that it would take for you to realize that, "whoa this cigar place sells and uses tobacco!" isn't going to be enough exposure to have any effect.

I suppose I am being the dickish one... but in the end, as much as I think anarchists are retards, the less the government is involved in my life, the happier my day is.

Ooooh! I've thought of an instance that the government should get involved with my smoking!! If I hold a gun to someone and make them breathe my second hand smoke, then haul me away. Otherwise, if I am there first smoking, and somone doesn't like it they can take a hike. That's all it takes to solve this problem without the guv'mint's help.

[Sonthert]

I like the way you think, Skarred.

Jaker...second hand smoke has not been shown to be dangerous. You are correct...first hand smoke from cigarettes is dangerous. According to the Surgeon General's report (old, I know), pipe smoking and light cigar smoking...first hand smoking...don't pose a significant health risk...just cigarettes. You can always tell hogwash statistics/science because they refer to "smoking", better researched stuff refers to "smoking cigarettes". The anti-smoking people want to tell you how bad "smoking" is, the scientists have to establish a clear, concise methodology, which involves picking whether they will be testing cigarettes, cigars, pipes, hookahs, whatnot. Therefore, their data, conclusions, etc. will refer to "Smoking cigarettes" because thats what they tested...not smoking in general...that would be a hasty generalization. The 1967 report, if you read it, is EXCELLENT. It is thorough, scientific and based on rationale and good science. The more recent Surgeon General's reports are nowhere near that good. Read the 1967 report to see what a scientific paper should read like.

The Surgeon General's 2006 report follows the same logic as you...faulty, but the same one. First hand smoke is deadly and contains dangerous chemicals, second hand smoke contains all the same chemicals as first hand smoke, so it is deadly too. The logic is fine, but we are talking about dosage differences.

If I took a shot of booze and drank it in one pull, I would get a buzz, more or less...right? If I took that same shot of booze and took tiny, tiny little sips so that it took me a whole day (assuming no evaporation) to drink it, I would never get buzzed, right? Same amount of chemical (ethanol, grain alcohol), yet because the administration is different, the results are different, too. Same for smoking cigarettes. Yes, if you smoke cigarettes you are getting X amount of dangerous chemicals in 5 minutes or how ever long it takes to smoke those nasty things. Just because you get X amount of chemicals, as a second-hand smoker, if it takes a lot longer to get X than smoking a cigarette doesn't insure that you will be getting the same health effects.

Copper is another example, in small doses, its a nutrient, in larger doses, its a deadly poison. If you took a lethal dose and spread it out over enough time, it would be beneficial. (this isn't to say smoking has a beneficial side...it does, but not much and that wasn't my implication). How a dose is administered makes all the difference in the world.

Carbon Monoxide, which poses a significant risk in hookah smoking and cigarette smoking, was measured as part of a British team's research into a smoking ban in Great Britain. Carbon Monoxide is found in extremely small amounts, naturally, in the Earth's atmosphere. This team went into crowded pubs, filled with smoke, you could see it in the air it was so bad. Their equipment registered no change in carbon monoxide levels. The first hand smoker is getting a potentially threatening dose of carbon monoxide...the second hand smoker (from the perspective of the equipment to register carbon monoxide levels) sees no increase. Carbon monoxide detectors, installed in some houses, won't go off from simple cigarette smoking.

Further, in the 2006 Surgeon General's Report, they claim there are chemicals that there is no safe threshold in the human body...therefore second hand smoking is dangerous. Thats the gist of their argument. If they can't show Chemical Y is always dangerous, independent of dose, then second hand smoking can't be always dangerous. Look up the sources they quote that Chemical Y is always dangerous...doctors, studies, universities...no, just a doctor's OPINION. What's that opinion based on? biochemical pathways. My father smoked a pipe for 62+ years...didn't die of cancer, not of heart disease, he was 79 years old. Where are those universally deadly chemicals? My father didn't die from them...so they can't be universally deadly...so the doctor's opinion that there is no safe level is WRONG. Proved it. Right there. So, without that, the 2006 Surgeon General's Report is a mush of hogshit. Oh yeah, Chromosome damage...I already addressed that...no way to see it, test for it, no way to prove that it actually exists. A scientist's opinion that it causes chromosome damage doesn't mean or prove that chromosome damage exists or is caused by smoking cigarettes. Without data, all these theories are just theories...not proof of second hand smoke being dangerous.

So, no, I don't agree. There is zero proof that second hand smoke is dangerous. There is a little data and a lot of theories. Sure, there is data to show how many people get cancer from second hand smoke, but those statistics aren't statistically significant and the methodology to extract them has been called into question, rightfully so, in my opinion.