The smoking issue
- Thread starter Grady
- Start date
Why not...:shrug:
1. - Show me a business model for a bar that includes selling/consuming cigarettes. Their model is to push alcohol plain and simple. The smoking issue and bar business decline is horse-hockey. If drinking and smoking go hand in hand, than the business model is flawed. I think you can find data from states that have done this for a while and after the initial drop, things return to normal or better. Booze will always bring them back in.:lol:
2. DDT -- Please, I used that stuff. It was bad-news. Atrazine is another. This farm kid is glad their gone -- any residual herbicide should be used with caution. Round-up? Contact herbicide -- Inert as soon as it hits the dirt... Why do you think we use it. (among other reasons). Better ways to control mosquito's as well.
3. If I walked into the room and peed on your leg, would you be as insistent on my liberties? I should be able to do that without repercussion, right? Smoking and polluting the air for others -- ANYWHERE is pretty analogous. You can smoke and infringe, I can pee and infringe.:winknudge:
4. I do agree that a business owner should have choice to do what they please. However, we regulate the hours you can sell booze, the people you can and can't sell it too, yada, yada, yada. Keeping this mass of humanity somewhat ordered is the desire. I doubt the founding fathers had much inkling of 300+ million people running around this nation in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. 1775 didn't have the same issues. They were more worried about yellow fever and venereal disease... (another thing some of those dang regulations got rid of). Arguable less government - better. More government - not as good. However, we have to keep things orderly, otherwise dogs and cats will start living together -- Mass hysteria.
5. Life is what you make of it. Change and adapt. Whomever does that best (in business and life in general) always tend to come out smelling like a rose. Trend is no smoking inside. Build the patio, make it as easy as possible on the 'holdouts'. Trend setters and innovators always cash in. early adopters do well. LAGGARDS, not so much.
6. Tobacco -- Why is it that companies add more nicotine to the tobacco leaf?? Make it taste better?? HAHAHAHAHAHA:rotflmao1:
FWIW.
1. - Show me a business model for a bar that includes selling/consuming cigarettes. Their model is to push alcohol plain and simple. The smoking issue and bar business decline is horse-hockey. If drinking and smoking go hand in hand, than the business model is flawed. I think you can find data from states that have done this for a while and after the initial drop, things return to normal or better. Booze will always bring them back in.:lol:
2. DDT -- Please, I used that stuff. It was bad-news. Atrazine is another. This farm kid is glad their gone -- any residual herbicide should be used with caution. Round-up? Contact herbicide -- Inert as soon as it hits the dirt... Why do you think we use it. (among other reasons). Better ways to control mosquito's as well.
3. If I walked into the room and peed on your leg, would you be as insistent on my liberties? I should be able to do that without repercussion, right? Smoking and polluting the air for others -- ANYWHERE is pretty analogous. You can smoke and infringe, I can pee and infringe.:winknudge:
4. I do agree that a business owner should have choice to do what they please. However, we regulate the hours you can sell booze, the people you can and can't sell it too, yada, yada, yada. Keeping this mass of humanity somewhat ordered is the desire. I doubt the founding fathers had much inkling of 300+ million people running around this nation in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. 1775 didn't have the same issues. They were more worried about yellow fever and venereal disease... (another thing some of those dang regulations got rid of). Arguable less government - better. More government - not as good. However, we have to keep things orderly, otherwise dogs and cats will start living together -- Mass hysteria.
5. Life is what you make of it. Change and adapt. Whomever does that best (in business and life in general) always tend to come out smelling like a rose. Trend is no smoking inside. Build the patio, make it as easy as possible on the 'holdouts'. Trend setters and innovators always cash in. early adopters do well. LAGGARDS, not so much.
6. Tobacco -- Why is it that companies add more nicotine to the tobacco leaf?? Make it taste better?? HAHAHAHAHAHA:rotflmao1:
FWIW.
Last edited:
Whats that one guy say all the time who really thinks highly of himself? Oh yeah, words, they mean things.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Yeah these people are much better off dying of malaria than being polluted by DDT.
May 4, 2009 | 19 comments
Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?
DDT should be used "with caution" in combating malaria, a panel of scientists reported today
By Marla Cone and Environmental Health News
mosquito
MALARIA KILLER: Should pesticide DDT be used to kill the mosquitoes that spread malaria?
©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/CHRISTOPHER BADZIOCH
e-mail print comment
A panel of scientists recommended today that the spraying of DDT in malaria-plagued Africa and Asia should be greatly reduced because people are exposed in their homes to high levels that may cause serious health effects.
The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be used as a last resort in combating malaria.
The stance of the panel, led by a University of California epidemiologist, is likely to be controversial with public health officials. Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President's Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program launched by former President Bush.
In many African countries, as well as India and North Korea, the pesticide is sprayed inside homes and buildings to kill mosquitoes that carry malaria.
Malaria is one of the world's most deadly diseases, each year killing about 880,000 people, mostly children in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Health Organization.
The 15 environmental health experts, who reviewed almost 500 health studies, concluded that DDT "should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available."
We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health risks," said Tiaan de Jager, a member of the panel who is a professor at the School of Health Systems & Public Health at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. "Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be phased out without putting people at risk."
The scientists reported that DDT may have a variety of human health effects, including reduced fertility, genital birth defects, breast cancer, diabetes and damage to developing brains. Its metabolite, DDE, can block male hormones.
"Based on recent studies, we conclude that humans are exposed to DDT and DDE, that indoor residual spraying can result in substantial exposure and that DDT may pose a risk for human populations," the scientists wrote in their consensus statement, published online today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
"We are concerned about the health of children and adults given the persistence of DDT and its active metabolites in the environment and in the body, and we are particularly concerned about the potential effects of continued DDT use on future generations."
In 2007, at least 3,950 tons of DDT were sprayed for mosquito control in Africa and Asia, according to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme.
"The volume is increasing slowly," said Hindrik Bouwman, a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences and Development at North-West University in Potchesfstroom, South Africa, who also served on the panel.
In South Africa, about 60 to 80 grams is sprayed in each household per year, Bouwman said.
Brenda Eskenazi, a University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health professor and lead author of the consensus statement, is concerned because the health of people inside the homes is not being monitored.
A 2007 study on male fertility is the only published research so far. Conducted in Limpopo, South Africa by de Jager and his colleagues, the study found men in the sprayed homes had extremely high levels of DDT in their blood and that their semen volume and sperm counts were low.
"Clearly, more research is needed…but in the meantime, DDT should really be the last resort against malaria, rather than the first line of defense," Eskenazi said.
The pesticide accumulates in body tissues, particularly breast milk, and lingers in the environment for decades.
In the United States, beginning in the1940s, large volumes of DDT were sprayed outdoors to kill mosquitoes and pests on crops. It was banned in 1972, after it built up in food chains, nearly wiping out bald eagles, pelicans and other birds.
Today's use differs greatly. In Africa, it is sprayed in much smaller quantities but people are directly exposed because it is sprayed on walls inside homes and other buildings.
Many health studies have been conducted in the United States, but on people who carry small traces of DDT in their bodies, not the high levels found in people in Africa.
"DDT is now used in countries where many of the people are malnourished, extremely poor and possibly suffering from immune-compromising diseases such as AIDS, which may increase their susceptibility to chemical exposures," said panel member Jonathan Chevrier, a University of California at Berkeley post-doctoral researcher in epidemiology and in environmental health sciences.
In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only for controlling malaria.
Since then, nine nations—Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and Swaziland—notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT. Five others—Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China, have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January Stockholm Convention report.
"This is a global issue," Eskenazi said. "We need to enforce the Stockholm Convention and to have a plan for each country to phase out DDT, and if they feel they can't, good reason why other options cannot work."
Mexico, the rest of Central America and parts of Africa have combated malaria without DDT by using alternative methods, such as controlling stagnant ponds where mosquitoes breed and using bed nets treated with pyrethroid insecticides. But such efforts have been less successful in other places, particularly South Africa.
"We have a whole host of mosquito species and more than one parasite. The biology of the vectors is different and there is therefore no one-method-fits-all strategy, as is the case in Central America," Bouwman said.
For example, he said, some types of mosquitoes in South Africa breed in running water, which cannot be easily controlled.
"The area to be covered is also vast, and infrastructure in most areas is too little to allow environmental management on a sustainable basis," he said.
When a mosquito strain that had previously been eliminated returned to South Africa, it was resistant to the pyrethroid insecticides that had replaced DDT.
"The resulting increase in malaria cases and deaths was epidemic," Bouwman said. Cases soared from 4,117 in 1995 to 64,622 in 2000. "South Africa had to fall back on DDT, and still uses it in areas where other chemicals would have a risk of failure," he said.
The scientists also recommended study of possible health effects of pyrethroids and other alternatives for DDT.
"The general thoughts are that if chemicals have a shorter half-life, like pyrethroids, they are less dangerous," Eskenazi said. "This may be true, but there are virtually no studies on the health effects in humans of the alternatives."
The panel convened in March, 2008, at Alma College in Michigan, near a Superfund site where DDT was produced at a chemical plant. Their goal was "to address the current and legacy implications of DDT production and use," according to their report.
Acknowledging that some areas remain dependent on DDT, they recommended monitoring of the spraying to ensure that usage guidelines are followed and improved application techniques.
"It is definitely not a matter of letting people die from malaria," de Jager said.
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
DDT cocktail anyone?
The only message I got from that was - DDT is the nuclear option.
Notice no one is saying DDT is okay or should be used.
Bottom line - it's bad news and only should be used when no other options exist. It just stays residual too long.
Let's not derail smoking for a discussion on why 3rd world countries are not able to use technologies that we have available. or why they are concerned with trading their future health for day-to-day survival.
The only message I got from that was - DDT is the nuclear option.
Notice no one is saying DDT is okay or should be used.
Bottom line - it's bad news and only should be used when no other options exist. It just stays residual too long.
Let's not derail smoking for a discussion on why 3rd world countries are not able to use technologies that we have available. or why they are concerned with trading their future health for day-to-day survival.
Last edited:
To me this is not a smoking discussion I truly don't care if Grady makes his place smoking or non-smoking I just want it to be his decision as it is his investment. If smoking is legal then that decision should be left up to the property holder. And then let the market prevail, if there are more customers who want a non-smoking environment the business will go that way for the better income. Here we have both smoking and non-smoking rooms and both do quite well. Some customers go to each type of venue and some go to both at times.
I see both sides. I am a non smoker. I have had relatives die from smoking. But I still think it should be up to the proprietor of the establishment. I am far more concerned about how second hand alcohol use can put a damper on my health. :frown:
I total disagree with the comment that it is my extablishment and I should be able to do what I want. If that was truely the case we would be selling beer and pot to 13 year olds out of those establishments. Anything for a profit. The problem with the smoking ban is that for those individuals or establishment the fine is not set high enough to stop people from breaking the ban. You need the higher standard to make sure everyone is on a level playing field. Other place of businesses needs to follow certain rules as well and you don't hear them crying. Grady instead on crying over the spilled milk figure out why they are really going it sounds to me you have a problem with your business model. And really the goverment officals should get off their a$$ and make the fines hurt. If they catch you selling beer to a minor, they don't give you a warning. They take the license so you can not sell it. They should say if you don't want to play by the rules (that was voted in) you lose your chance of owning a bar or poolhall that sell beer.
that other issue
Not sure if anyone brought up safety in the workplace.
If a carnival owner wants to have his highwire act without a net it may sell more tickets then having his employees perform with a net.It is not his choice however since he pays the performers OSHA will fine him and or shut down the show.
There is a bar around here,the only one as far as I know,that gets around the smoking ban by classifying the place as a club.The customers pay a membership fee of some sort.Not realy sure of the law exactly but people say they took advantage of a loop hole.I don't know how this bar can employ people in a hazardous work enviremet but they are open for buisness.Maybe the employees are "volunteers" or something.
Not sure if anyone brought up safety in the workplace.
If a carnival owner wants to have his highwire act without a net it may sell more tickets then having his employees perform with a net.It is not his choice however since he pays the performers OSHA will fine him and or shut down the show.
There is a bar around here,the only one as far as I know,that gets around the smoking ban by classifying the place as a club.The customers pay a membership fee of some sort.Not realy sure of the law exactly but people say they took advantage of a loop hole.I don't know how this bar can employ people in a hazardous work enviremet but they are open for buisness.Maybe the employees are "volunteers" or something.
This issue has little to do with selling beer and pot to minors. The laws on that have not changed. What has changed are the rules which bar and pool room owners are required to follow. How can the govt. say its ok to invest your life in a business, and then change its mind overnight? I equate this more with something along the lines of: "Ok, from now on....no more fast food, no more liquor, and no more pornography." Sorry, but there have been too many rape incidents this year, and drunk driving is on the rise. Besides, alcohol is bad for you. No longer will the public be forced to smell your second hand, stinky breath. And oh yeah, red meat is also bad for you....so no more of that. See, we figured all this out. Here, look at this study done by xyz. Supermarkets, starting today you may only sell organic products. One last thing: Since unemployment is up, from now on only documented workers are allowed to work in kitchens.
So to all of you restaurant owners, butchers, porn dealers, liquor distributors, and food vendors: We know we said it was ok for you to do this. We know you have invested your entire life in this trade. We know you own the building personally and all, and have been a law abiding tax payer for years now. However, we the govt. feel that you are too stupid to make your own decisions regarding your life and your business. So, we have made these decisions for you. Don't like it? Tough toenails, the great Oz has spoken.
Its one thing to grandfather a clause in for new business owners, that I could understand. It's another thing to take away the rights which small business owners have always enjoyed, and based their lives on.
The Isle of Man TT is an annual motorcycle race first held in 1907.
From 1907 to 2009 there have been 227 deaths.
Spectators sit on the edge of the course. Sometimes spectators are killed in the crashes.
No one is forced to race, no one is forced to watch. Fortunately people are given the opportunity to make their own decision.
This race could not be held in the nerf-covered United States of America.
Land of the Free? Home of the Brave?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE7H6f9PVwk
From 1907 to 2009 there have been 227 deaths.
Spectators sit on the edge of the course. Sometimes spectators are killed in the crashes.
No one is forced to race, no one is forced to watch. Fortunately people are given the opportunity to make their own decision.
This race could not be held in the nerf-covered United States of America.
Land of the Free? Home of the Brave?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE7H6f9PVwk
Sounds like you should have researched the property a bit more before you chose to locate your pool hall there. Just saying.
I'm not sure about Grady's situation but this same type of situation is one of the things that closed Breaktime Billiards in Greenville SC and he had been in business for some time. The city passed a smoking ban and the county did not so the place a quarter mile down the road had smoking and Jimmy Hodges at Breaktime didn't so his business fell of so bad he had to close. Another great room busted by the 'do gooders' who know what's best for you.
Here is another second hand smoke don't hurt you.
My neighbor smokes and so does his wife. They don't think twice about lighting up or throwing their butts around. One day we were talking over the fence. He got done with his cig and threw the butt into my yard. I pick it up and threw it back and he got mad. I told him that I don't smoke and that I don't want his trash in my yard. He started on a rant about us non smokers and how we take offense to everything and there is nothing wrong with smoking or the smoke and how everything is blown out of proportion. The other day he was outside in the cold smoking. I was shoveling the snow and stopped to chat with him. I asked why he was outside. Guess what? His grand children were over and he didn't want them breathing the smoke.
My neighbor smokes and so does his wife. They don't think twice about lighting up or throwing their butts around. One day we were talking over the fence. He got done with his cig and threw the butt into my yard. I pick it up and threw it back and he got mad. I told him that I don't smoke and that I don't want his trash in my yard. He started on a rant about us non smokers and how we take offense to everything and there is nothing wrong with smoking or the smoke and how everything is blown out of proportion. The other day he was outside in the cold smoking. I was shoveling the snow and stopped to chat with him. I asked why he was outside. Guess what? His grand children were over and he didn't want them breathing the smoke.
This time, property rights are defending a non-smoker. That was the point of my last post where someone thought that the libertarians here only want liberty when convenient....that ain't how it works in a just world.
That's the beauty of liberty and property: it doesn't care who you are, just that you own yourself....that is, EVERYone is covered.
Jeff Livingston
just a note to Jerry, so others just skip on by...
yeah Jerry, i feel pretty much as you do...
and it so disheartening, like me, trying to explain to my kids what FREEDOM was, used to mean in this country...
but for the record, i was born a liberal, but i am not anymore...
and i believe most/all of this is due to 'liberalism'
all the best,
smokey
yeah Jerry, i feel pretty much as you do...
and it so disheartening, like me, trying to explain to my kids what FREEDOM was, used to mean in this country...
but for the record, i was born a liberal, but i am not anymore...
and i believe most/all of this is due to 'liberalism'
all the best,
smokey
At least he's come to some senses.
Our repographics person found out yesterday she has lung cancer.
Chain smoker and 36 years old.
She's getting chemo starting today.
I think she quit smoking two weeks ago when the doctor hinted she has lung cancer.
Its really sad to see that people think politians know whats best for them. Its sad to see people think the government is looking out for whats best for them. Looks like many would have no problem with a police state if they think it would be safer for them. A great wise man once said someone who would give up freedom for a little security deserves neither. We are at that crossroad now and it is truly sad to see many would fall for the security trap that will do nothing but continue to take all our freedom away. How many people have more than one drink while out? If you have more than one aren't you breaking the law and also putting the lives of others at risk if you drive or assult someone? How many families are effected by drinking in some way? Would having a two drink limit have a effect on business? I mean we don't want to break any laws and put others at risk by our bad decisions do we? Do people really think the seatbelt law was looking out for the safety of the people and had nothing to do with the power of insurance companies? Just like the health care bill will put billions into the insurance companies pockets! Also,these same experts that tell you the danger of second hand smoke also gave us the global warming hoax! With that said, i also respect opinions of others i disagree with to say what they want, because if i didn't i wouldn't really be for free speech would i?
They list the people who quit smoking every day in the newspaper. It is the death notices.
TAP TAP WELL SAID SIR QUOTE=supergreenman;2310942]The problem with your logic is that if the place was smoke free, the 10% would still go and a good portion of the 90% would go as well. This would be a win for the business owner.
Yet 10% are allowed to have behavior that discourages the other 90% from showing up.
Selfish people, that's what it comes down to. Most smokers don't give a crap about the discomfort and harmfull effects thier habit has on other people.
I'm glad we have smoking bans here in Canada. I'm a non-smoker, but often just to be social I'll go outside with my smoker friends and get some fresh air.[/QUOTE]
Yet 10% are allowed to have behavior that discourages the other 90% from showing up.
Selfish people, that's what it comes down to. Most smokers don't give a crap about the discomfort and harmfull effects thier habit has on other people.
I'm glad we have smoking bans here in Canada. I'm a non-smoker, but often just to be social I'll go outside with my smoker friends and get some fresh air.[/QUOTE]