BY MIKE CETERA
A law is only effective if someone is out there enforcing it. I'd argue motorists speed because they know the odds are good they won't get caught. Perhaps the same will be said for the new smoking law, which went into effect this week.
The ban seemed to get a bit of a shrug from one local tavern owner, who equated the ban to laws against jaywalking.
"After a week of this, it's going to be like jaywalking," said Sean Gorman, owner of Tavern on the Fox in downtown Aurora. "You're not supposed to do it, but you still do."
Unlike jaywalking, however, I'm guessing non-smokers are going to be quick to report violations of the law. Even so, do we expect -- or even want -- police to respond to such complaints? Don't they have better things to be doing?
i've been a smoker for over 30 years. i hated this law in the beginning just like i complained about the tougher dui laws. i thought they were unfair. i learned to take cabs and i learned to go outside to smoke. we, as a people, do not like change. there is a reason, however, for change. people will actually enjoy walking into establishments without that sick blue cloud floating over them. so, smoke em if you got em, but do it outside.
Of course it will work. Just travel to Connecticut or California or any of the other states that have no-smoking laws and you'll quickly see the broad social acceptance that has evolved.
People like Mr. Gorman will quickly adapt and conform...
I think the smoking ban is just stupid,why for the life of me they do not ban drinking which is far worst then smoking,think about it drinking causes innocent people to die, drinkers cause fights,domestic fights,underage drinking.ect.I for one do not like going to a place to eat or fly where there are obscene drunks but I have to live with that.The reason drinking is not ban is most all politicians drink and thats ok how much more can the goverment take away from us.I am not a smoker but the people who do smoke should be able to just like drinking.I remember when you could smoke on air planes, hospitals ect.I for one feel that my tax dollars are going to waste chasing people who smoke I think there are far more inportant things for the police to do like fight crime not chasing smokers I really find this to be a joke. The police should be parked outside bars when drunks leave and and give them a ticket because they might save a life by keeping them off the road,and all the other crimes drinking causes.
Second hand smoke does pose a risk, and can kill people, even non-smokers. Especially at risk are those that work in establishments where smoking has been allowed and fills the air. If I'm in a restaurant with a bar, or where people seated next to me are consuming alcohol, their consumption does not waft over to my table, into my lungs and through my hair and clothing. If these people become so inebriated that their behavior infringes in my space and safety, then call the cops. If there is a domestic dispute, call the cops and help the victims to the best of our ability. Will banning alcohol change domestic violence? No, the alcoholic will find a way. We are not banning cigarettes from private places, only public. We do have laws against vehicular manslaughter and DUI, public intoxication, providing minors with alcohol, and underage drinking. We don't ban drinking. We ban smoking only in public places, not outside, not at home, not in private vehicles. Banning substances does not eliminate addiction. I don't drink and I don't smoke, just my own private opinion here. We do still live in the Land of the Free, just don't smoke up my freedom :-)
they tried banning alcohol once before. it was called prohibition. it didn't work then either. there is no alcohol in colorado city. maybe that lifestyle would be more suited for kathleens needs?
One thing that I have heard nothing about is the dollar benefits of the smoking ban. It certainly will provide a great savings in health care, supported by studies from the American Cancer Society and various insurance companies.
Why then doesn't the smoking ban also include a mandatory drop in health insurance premiums corresponding to the insurance industries own studies used to help pass this bill?
Is this about public health, or simply a legislated windfall profit for the already greedy health insurance industry?
coyote, Sean will have to adapt and conform ???? That is very Borg-like thinking, will "resistance be futile" as well ??
Just wondering....
Kathleen,
Aurora has budgeted $1.4 million 'LESS' due to decrease in anticipated gambling revenues due to the smoking ban. I trust that you will not mind being taxed to make up the difference.
Alcohol does evaporate and you do get the benefit of other people's drinking. Where do you suppose the term 'booze breath' came from?
Gary--you are saying that evaporated alcohol and someone's bad breath is going to get me drunk, or perhaps give me lung cancer? I can smell it on myself, after walking through the casino, if I have not been drinking? Wow.
Taxes on gambling is never a sure bet.
Consider; there are cancer causing toxins in alcohol,just as in cigarette smoke(SHS). If there is no safe level of exposure to SHS; a whiff from across the room is supposed to be dangerous,there can also be no safe level of exposure to the toxins in alcohol fumes,either from someone's breath or from evaporation.
That's just not even worth a reply, as far as levels go.
Well I guess I upset a few drinkers out there,all I am trying to get across to people is that lets be equal and fair to all of our VICES we have,be it drinking, smoking,gambling,drugs,chewing tobacco and spitting in a cup or on sidewalk,ect.Our troops are fightng for our freedoms,and now goverment is taking it away,Please explan to me why I should not fight for our freedom here maybe more of us should do the same because more is yet to come.
Gary show me the research that states exposure to alcohol fumes from drinkable alcohol products in a restaurant setting will cause cancer.
Kathleen I don't think you upset anyone. What Oswego mom is and I am saying is my "not smoking" doesn't affect your health. Your smoking does affect my health. You have not lost the right to smoke, you have only been restricted from affecting my health in public. You haven't lost a freedom, you can still smoke. Based upon your logic people with AIDS should be able to have unprotected sex and not have to tell their partners. Is that one of the freedoms you want to fight for? Freedom in a society does not mean can do whatever you want.
Wes,
Thank you for your insight,but could some of you look outside the box,I guess smoking has been around for a long time and I feel it should be up to the owner of eateries and bars to choose if they want to allow smoking just like they choose to have drinking. I own my busniess and I have a non smoking ban in effect for 4years now, this was my choice because I respect the rights of non smokers and the people I hire have there smoking room away from the rest of my non smoking people,if the non smoker wants to go to the smoking room thats there choice but I am very firm on my smokers only smoking in that room or outside.There are ways to resolve this problem in a fair way but the non smokers only want it there way. Most smokers are respectfull of non smokers and do ask if they mind if they smoke and have no problem leaving the area to smoke I guess I think it should not be a law and let the casino,bars and other places have a smoking room area for smokers it would solve alot of problems for all of us not just some of us.
Heres a thought could someone please tell me who is going to pick up all the lost tax revenue that we are going to lose if we get another say 50% of smokers to quit smoking....hummm has anyone thought of the ramifications of this????
Of course not, well look out all you non-smokers but the more people who quit will just increase what the goverment lose's and where do you think they will go looking for the lost revenue???? Well be careful what you non-smokers ask for you might just get it and then some....
We smokers pay a premium to smoke...is it our choice? Yes it is and just as it is your choice not to smoke....
Just think after the government gets all us smokers to quit by hounding us for something which is LEGAL to purchase may I remind you...but they will come looking for some place else to get all those lost tax dollars.....
Lets see maybe they will start to hound people who chew gum, how annoying it is to have someone smacking their jaws around a wad of gum, then they spit it out on the sidewalk or worse stick it to the underside of a table.....I know this is a ridiculous example but think about what our free country will block, take away or ban as it could be some habit you have.....
If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen! How about bars open a smoking club??? Smokers Only Non-smokers need not join....But that won't make it past our FREE GOVERNMENT will it??
My 2 cents :)
Personally I feel it should be up to each establishment to decide if they want to be a smoking or non smoking. If it's a smoking establishment non smokers can go somewhere else (I have a good place in mind!) and vice versa.
Wes wrote:
"Gary show me the research that states exposure to alcohol fumes from drinkable alcohol products in a restaurant setting will cause cancer."
I did not say that it does cause cancer. In fact; if there were studies on the matter,they would probably show the same results as studies on SHS and Cancer.
For instance:
In 1981 and again in 1988, the American Cancer Society did two major US studies (CPS-1 and CPS-2) and "major" means major: the first studied 1 million people, the second. 1.2. In addition to looking into the correlations of secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it also looked for links to heart disease. And found no connection. In either study. -"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Mortality," Lee; Karger, 1992
- also LeVois and Layard, "Publication Bias in the Environmental Tobacco Smoke/Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiologic Literature," Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 1995; 21
Further, the subjects from CPS-1 continued to be followed through 1998, for a total of 39 years. Focusing on a large (35,561 subject) subset of California never-smokers married to smokers for the full period, a statistical analysis, peer-reviewed and published in the British Medical Journal in 2003, repeated these results-- showing incontrovertibly (0.97 @ 95% confidence) that there was no increased risk of coronary heart disease from lifelong exposure to secondhand smoke.
Similar non-associations with secondhand smoke were found for lung cancer, asthma, and other allegedly tobacco-related diseases, leading the authors to state in their conclusion:
"The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality."
-"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Tobacco-Related Mortality In A Prospective Study Of Californians, 1960-98," Enstrom & Kabat, BMJ 5/17/03
PASSIVE SMOKE STUDIES 1981-2006
Here are all the studies available to date concerning the exposure to PS and LUNG CANCER
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
This chart lists 149 studies on PS and Lung Cancer. Only 12 show a RR of 2.0 or greater. Only 2 show a RR of 3.0 or greater. That is a ratio of about 12 to 1 against any association.
That is a ratio of about 74 to 1 against a statistically significant association.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDIES ON PASSIVE SMOKE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
(complete list updated May, 2006: 42 primary studies)
http://www.forces.org/evidence/financial-ties/index_cardio.htm
This lists 40 studies that show Relative Risk (RR).
Of these 40 studies, only 2 have RR's of 3.0 or higher.
That is; only 5% show a significant risk elevation, "95% DO NOT SHOW A SIGNIFICANT RISK ELEVATION."
These studies run 20-1 against a significant association between passive smoke and cardiovascular disease!!
I totaly agree with Pat,I am glad to see there are some people that still have good old fashion common sense.
Getting back to the original question, "Will the smoking ban work?" Yes, it will work, as people will report and fines will need to be paid, if the ban isn't enforced. No business owner will want to pay higher and higher fines, per report. People used to smoke at the ball game, at work, while shopping, at college, even in hospitals...many areas that have been smoke-free for a long time. We adjusted. Tax dollars will adjust. Business owners on the borders will have to adjust. It used to be much more tolerated to drink and drive than it is today, times change and people adjust or pay huge fines/lose licenses/go to jail. No one is telling anyone that they can't smoke, no one is telling anyone that they can't be naked, no one is telling anyone that they watch pornography, just do it in your own private space, without subjecting others to your choices. If you play your music too loudly in most neighborhoods, the cops will eventually be at your door, telling you to quit.
I sure hope so! My family and I went to a restaurant the other night that is always so smoky that I have to change into clothes that I don't mind getting smoky before we go. When we got there we noticed "something was different!" It wasn't smoky! We could see each other! Our clothes didn't smell horribly when we got home! We didn't have to wait for a table that was far away from the smoking section so that we could breathe! Fantastic!
I don't care if you smoke, just don't do it near me and don't forget that your breath and your clothes stink after you do!
Please give me a break,The non smokers are really being Drama Queens about the smell and air.I find there comments really funny.If I go to a bar for a soda,why should I have to put up with drunks next to me why because it was my choice to go to a bar and have a soda,and there are tons of places where I could of went to. My point is if there is non smoking bars and eateries you then have choice.Please Non smokers quit being overly DRAMATIC,And by the way I am a Non smoker and I dont mind that people smoke in the same place I am at because they DID have smoking areas and non smoking area,and the smoke never bother me.It should be up to the owners of bars and eateries to decide how they want to run there place.
I think Non smokers should sit outside a bar about closing time and watch what comes out, now thats scary it is proven that drinking and driving kills more innocent people then SHS. I much rather have a smoker next to me then a drunk that I know will get in a car and endager many people.I still have not seen enough data on SHS to convince me I am killing you and your air.But I do pick up the paper every day and see what a drunk driver has done,so non smokers think twice before drinking I might be the one you kill and I as a smokerI will think twice befor smoking next to you,at least you can just walk away but I cant if I am in a car and a drunk is headed towards me and my family.Just food for thought.