Name Three Victims of Second-Hand Smoke

One of the more thought-provoking and entertainingly ornery websites I've seen of late is called The Hittman Chronicle, run by a guy called Dave Hitt. He stole my heart with a piece called "Name Three."

When I was a kid, my father used to try to get me to eat stuff I didn't like by claiming, "There are millions of starving kids in India who would love that!" One day I replied, "Name three!" I received a quick slap in the head, and later that night he spanked me to sleep. This taught me two important lessons. One: don't say that to dad again. Two: "Name Three" is a great comeback to people spewing bogus numbers.

Which is exactly what Hitt proceeds to do. With pitbullish tenacity and a Merry Prankster's fondness for provoking authority, he happily pesters tobacco experts who wax dramatic about the deaths supposedly caused by second-hand smoke. Hitt's question is the simple, time-tested "Name three."

It's not as childish as it may seem. The debate about smoking is infused with dishonesty and junk science. Critical, to-the-point questions are needed. And surely, if, according to the anti-tobacco lobby, upwards of one million people have died from second-hand smoke over the past twenty years, the experts shouldn't have the slightest trouble supplying Hitt with a few names.

You know where this is leading: Not one of the nicotine nannies can do it. Not one. "Why not?" Hitt pushes on, in an e-mail to the American Lung Association.

"If I had asked for the names of people who died from primary smoking, I'm sure you could name a dozen without giving it a second thought, and could list a hundred or two with five or ten minutes research ... It's an easy project because primary smoking really does kill people."

I should point out again that I'm not a smoker, but that the assault on smokers' rights — based as it is on lots of questionable research — has gone quite far enough, thank you.

On a related note, here's a reality that few non-smokers seem to be able to wrap their heads around: Smoking tobacco can be extremely pleasurable, irritated lungs be damned. As blogger Southern Avenger points out:

Those who don't smoke can't understand it, as they watch others hack and cough while continuing to light yet another cigarette. ... But hacking and coughing are to a smoker what a hangover is to a drinker, a fat stomach is to a food lover, or an unwanted stalker is to a womanizer — the nasty price you pay for what is otherwise an enjoyable experience."

Comments

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Name three soldiers who died of cancer because they were subjected to radiation during nuclear testing in the 50s! What, you can't do it? I guess that means it never happened. (And if you can actually come up with three names, prove they died of cancer BECAUSE of the radiation and not some other factor.)

Two points:

1.) When organic material undergoes incomplete combustion carcinogens are created. There's no way around this. Therefore, second hand smoke contains carcinogens. And before you claim there's no statistically significant link between second hand smoke and death, death itself is statistically insignificant.

2.) This debate has nothing to do with freedom of choice because... and this is a complex point so pay attention... nicotine is addictive. Once you are an addict, it's no longer about choice. If you choose to become an addict, fine. But don't pretend you smoke because you enjoy phlegm.

3.) Lastly, why is it that the pro-smokers think their right to smoke is more important that other people's right not to smell smoke? "Nothing is more important to me than my rights and freedoms. Nothing is less important to me than other people's rights and freedoms."

[Dave Hitt]

>>Name three soldiers who died of cancer because they were subjected to radiation during nuclear testing in the 50s! What, you can't do it? I guess that means it never happened. (And if you can actually come up with three names, prove they died of cancer BECAUSE of the radiation and not some other factor.)>>Two points:>>1.) When organic material undergoes incomplete combustion carcinogens are created. There's no way around this. Therefore, second hand smoke contains carcinogens. >And before you claim there's no statistically significant link between second hand smoke and death, death itself is statistically insignificant.>>2.) This debate has nothing to do with freedom of choice because... and this is a complex point so pay attention... nicotine is addictive. Once you are an addict, it's no longer about choice. >>If you choose to become an addict, fine. But don't pretend you smoke because you enjoy phlegm.>>3.) Lastly, why is it that the pro-smokers think their right to smoke is more important that other people's right not to smell smoke?>> "Nothing is more important to me than my rights and freedoms. Nothing is less important to me than other people's rights and freedoms."<<<

Nannies are compulsive liars, even in the quotes they choose. If you really placed such a high value on freedom, you'd be fighting for the right of business owners to make their own business decisions, instead of running to Big Brother and demanding laws to make them cater to your tender sensibilities.

I look forward to your reply.

Kiss kiss,

Dave Hitt

[Evan Williams]

Hold it, CS Stowbridge...let's see some credentials. SLOWLY. You're a Chewley's Gum Representative? And you're what? Stirring up all this anti-smoking sentiment to sell more gum? GET OUT OF HERE! And you people, don't you have jobs to go to? Get out of here, go commute! Bunch of easily-led automatons.

[adam s]

I was the victim of second hand smoke. I have a condition called recurrent corneal erosion that I am getting taken care of in a couple of months with laser surgery. (look it up) right, so the top layer of my cornea, called the epithelial layer, sloughs off at night while I sleep because my eyelid adheres to it and when I open my eyes the layer stays with it. it is quite painful. now, I was at a restaurant where they allowed smoking and believe it or not, this sloughing happened in the middle of the day. the first and only time I've ever had that happen, and the only logical conclusion I can draw is that it was from drying and irritation caused by the smoke in the room, because that is what I experienced. let me just say it was not pleasant, and I had to leave the restaurant.

but let me say that I don't believe the government should have provided me a smoke free environment in that restaurant. I could have found a smoke free restaurant myself and chose eat there instead. that way I reinforce a non-smoking environment with the voting power of...my dollar.

but godfuckingdamnit if that shit didn't hurt. fucking smokers. pigfuckers.

[Nacim Bouchtia]

Niiiiiice

[wallster]

My sister has asthma because my parents smoked during her childhood.

My grandmother died of lung cancer even though she never smoked in her life, because her kids, siblings, husband, and anybody who visited her smoked.

Oops, you got me, I could only name two!

I'm against all the anti-smoking laws in bars/restaurants etc. due to the facts that non-smokers are free to leave these bars if they don't like second hand smoke and bars/restaurants are private property. This "name three" argument is a loser, however.

[Tsopranos]

I think it's safe to assume C.S.Strowbridge is no libertarian...yah.

These "nanny-staters" are ignorant freedom-hating groupies who missed out on the concerts of their day. Since they can't find any friends of their own, they look to jump on the bandwagon of any group that is bitching and moaning. Sorry, that's not what politics is for, and I suggest you people get another hobby. You're rooting for Millie Vanilli (i.e. - da guvment) aby...wake the fuck up!

[ed psycho]

wallster:

You can provide proof that, for your sister, secondhand smoke is the sole and unique trigger for her asthma? And not stress, exertion, laughter, pollen, dust, household chemicals, vapors from new carpeting, etc?

You can provide proof that, for your grandmother, secondhand smoke is the proximate cause of her lung cancer? It's not radon, industrial pollution, genetics, food additives, working in an asbestos mine, etc?

No... weenbags like you are frustrated and bitter souls who are desperate to point a finger at a scapegoat for their tragic personal losses. It's easier to blame the cigarette than to accept the very real fact that sometimes bad things happen to good people for no reason at all.

Until then, you'd do well to shut the fsck up.

[Jim]

I've always thought one of the biggest drawbacks of libertarianism is that the people making the arguments more often than not sound like 8-year-olds who really just found out how to swear, which unfortunately detracts from the otherwise excellent points that underlie their rampant immaturity.

Personally, while I think the government should not be in the business of regulating smoking in privately-owned businesses, the "name three" argument is bogus, and rather obviously so. It is based entirely too much on subjectivity (as so eloquently explained by Mr. Psycho above), and ignores that fact that just because a health issue may be under-reported, or may not have happened to enough big-name celbrities for someone to name three, or is difficult in individual cases to isolate to a single cause, does not equate to the absence of an issue. I would much rather rely on science, to whatever extent that supports or conflicts with my opinions/conclusions.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

>When someone smokes two packs a day and gets lung
>cancer, it's a pretty safe assumption that cigarettes
>were the cause. It's still an assumption, but it's
>usually right, and backed by statistics.

Excellent. So far so good. You've shown why the "Name Three!" argument doesn't work in most real world cases. The human body is way too complex to figure out a single cause. But you can look at statistics to judge the correlation.

>>>Two points: Well, three, actually, but then nannies always get
> their numbers wrong. Thanks for demonstrating that.

It's actually a very subtle form of humor. When I write lists I almost always preface it with, "Two points" regardless of the number of points that follow.

>>And before you claim there's no statistically >>significant link between second hand smoke and death,
>>death itself is statistically insignificant.I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me at all. Do you >have a Nanny-English / English – Nanny dictionary so I >can decipher it?

Sure, it's really quite simple.

The death rate in the United States is 8.34 deaths/1,000 population or 0.834%. That's statistically insignificant. I.E. if you did a study on Homeopathic medicines using 1000 people and the difference between the test and the control was 8.34 more people were cured using the Homeopathic water you would conclude there was no real effect. However, that's not true of the death rate. We know some people die, I've been to some of their funerals.

With me so far? Good.

The rate of lung cancer in the United States is even smaller at 59.3 / 100,000 or 0.0593%. The biggest study on Second Hand Smoke concluded that the rate of lung cancer among people who worked in smoke filled environments increases by ~1 / 100,000. Absolutely insignificant, even compared to the much smaller rate of lung cancer above. However, looking at the population as a whole that would result in roughly 3000 deaths a year. That's a lot of people dying for a wholly preventable reason.

>>>>2.)

> Most people smoke because they enjoy it.

Actually, if you look at the numbers you'll find most people start smoking when they are kids and are highly susceptible to peer pressure.

The people you see huddled around the street in snowy whether on their smoke break are not doing it because they are enjoying themselves, they are doing it because they are addicted. (They may think they are enjoying themselves, but that's because Cognitive Dissidence is a powerful force.)

>>>3.) Lastly, why is it that the pro-smokers think their right to smoke is more important that other people's right not to smell smoke? Where did you get this imagined right? It's not in my
> copy of the constitution.

Your right to smoke where ever you want isn't in my copy of the constitution either. Imagine that.

>The number of times you're annoyed or offended in a day
>is directly proportional to the freedom of your
>society.

Cigarette smoke is more than annoying, it's a health risk.

[Tsopranos]

"I've always thought one of the biggest drawbacks of libertarianism is that the people making the arguments more often than not sound like 8-year-olds who really just found out how to swear"

Because I said "Wake the fuck up"? How you stretch this as to equate it with someone learning about libertarianism is beyond me. Cut me some slack though, I think I would have an 8 yr. old beat even with that simple statement. So let me ask you, why wouldn't you factor in the "motive" or "attitude" behind the choice of my words? My, what a high horse you're sitting on. Take a look at this Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode, then get back to me when you've learned something. Santa Vaca!
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=profanity

"which unfortunately detracts from the otherwise excellent points"

Only to you it seems. Because you cringe at the site of four letter words, says more about you then it does about profanity used for emphasis.

"that underlie their rampant immaturity."

You sure the word rampant is appropriate? I think you've overstated your "argument", for what might have been a good point, for someone who actually cursed up a storm with little ACTUAL content.

"Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care." - William Safire

[Charles Hueter]

The rate of lung cancer in the United States is even smaller at 59.3 / 100,000 or 0.0593%. The biggest study on Second Hand Smoke concluded that the rate of lung cancer among people who worked in smoke filled environments increases by ~1 / 100,000. Absolutely insignificant, even compared to the much smaller rate of lung cancer above. However, looking at the population as a whole that would result in roughly 3000 deaths a year. That's a lot of people dying for a wholly preventable reason.

At what point - specifically - does the body count rise to mandate the coercion of property owners? Why do you choose that number rather than that number minus one? Plus one?

Actually, if you look at the numbers you'll find most people start smoking when they are kids and are highly susceptible to peer pressure.

I started smoking when I was about 15 and I voluntarily choose to quit when I was 20. By that time I had worked my way up to about 4-5 packs a week.

The people you see huddled around the street in snowy whether on their smoke break are not doing it because they are enjoying themselves, they are doing it because they are addicted. (They may think they are enjoying themselves, but that's because Cognitive Dissidence is a powerful force.)

There is no doubt in my mind that smoking cigarettes can and does create a powerful attachment to the act. For several months, I deeply missed the "after meal smoke" or smoking while drinking. But you are hopelessly ignorant if you wish to entirely drop the power of a human will over something like this. Smoking does not turn humans in mindless zombies who drop everything they're doing and neglect all else in order to have a puff.

Cigarette smoke is more than annoying, it's a health risk.

I'm tempted to persue a reductio ad absurdum here. Can you understand the limitless tyranny capable of such a standard of measure?

[brooke]

CS Strowbridge,
We do feel silly for not having been able to tell by the statement "death itself is statistically insignificant" that you weren't just trying to wax philosophical but that you actually had a point--which was what again? That there's no statistically significant impact of ETS on bar workers? Great, thanks for the math lesson. I like your brand of statistical nihilism. So # 1--there's no mathematical reason to believe that people who work in smoky places are at any more risk than the rest of us. 3000 people die each year according to your study (about which I'm skeptical). Well 7600 people die of over the counter anti-inflammitory drugs like asprin. You tell me which is the more pressing problem here in the realm of statistically insignificant causes of death.

# 2--I wonder, have you ever stood outside, huddled on a snowy street corner smoking a cigarette? My guess is no. I have. Recently. It was divine.

Sure, I started smoking when I was only 16 (though it was more conscious rebellion than peer pressure). And I still smoke because I ENJOY IT. I know all the risks for my health; I see the phlegm that comes up and I note its varying shades of yellow and brown. I get sick once a year and can't smoke (or even really get out of bed.) I know that smoking causes heart disease and lung cancer and just makes me generally unhealthy. I know it burns my lungs to swim laps. AND IT'S STILL WORTH IT.

Will it always be worth it to me? Probably not. There will likely come a time in my life when I have a little more to lose, or people who depend on me, or a growing fear about my own mortality. And I'll quit. But until then, the benefits outweigh the risks and the inconveniences. It is ENTIRELY a matter of choice. Certainly you know people who have quit smoking--it was a choice on their part, wasn't it?

Cognitive dissonance my ass. There is no dissonance; people who smoke today--especially the ones of bar hopping age--were raised knowing that smoking is bad for them. We aren't trying to prove that it isn't bad for us and we aren't trying to create levels of cognition on which smoking insn't unhealthy or beneficial. If anything, it's consonant cognition--the two things (smoking being enjoyable and smoking being unhealthy) exist together and people simply choose.

Please don't assume that just because you don't like smoking in the snow doesn't mean that others don't, you silly boob.

# 3 (By the way, I thought the subtle humor of labeling three points as "two points" was genius. I laughed for like an hour.) This was the stupidest point and stupidest defense of a point that you made. Of course you don't have the right to breathe clean air wherever you want to, just as I don't have the right to smoke wherever I want to. Surely we can agree on this point. For example, I do not have the right to smoke in your linen closet just as you do not have the right to breathe clean air at the bottom of a water park's wave pool. Both places are privately owned. You own your house and Six Flags owns the water park.

Now some people would say that a restaurant is different than a private home because the public are invited in to buy things at a restaurant. My personal feeling is that the proper distinction is not that a home is private and a business is public, but that a home is a private residence whereas a business is a private, er, business which requires customers in order to operate. Tomato, communist, I suppose. But moving on.

So if that's the case, that the restaurant is a PUBLIC space because people are invited in to partake of a good or service, then the water park is too. And if you have a right to breathe clean air in that PUBLIC space, then certainly you have a right to breathe clean air at the bottom of the water park's wave pool, right?

No you buffoon. The Six Flags people decided they'd prefer to cater to people who want to swim in the wave pool rather than people who want to breathe clean air in it. That was a business decision, and a good one.

So it is with allowing smoking in a bar. It's a business decision made by the bar owner--you and I really don't have any say, just like we don't have any say in the fact that Six Flags insists on filling its wave pool up with unbreatheable water, the bastards. Of course we can signal our approval of the decision with our dollars, but neither you nor I has any sort of right impose our will on the owner or the employees who have chosen to work there.

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR AND I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SMOKE EXCEPT INSOMUCH AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WE'RE STANDING ON ALLOWS IT.

Why is that so hard to wrap your feeble little mind around?

[Phelps]

3000 a year? Give me a break! We are doing this over 3K a year? Peptic Ulcers kill 4000 a year! Malnutrition kills 3500.

And the real problem is that I don't even buy the 3000. Lung cancer killed 157K people in 2002. 1:100K isn't a statistic. It is a rounding error. I'm not saying that to be flippant -- I'm saying it because it is a fact.

Full disclosure -- I am now a smoker. I started four months ago. I smoke about a cigar a week, maybe one every two weeks. I would be very incredulous of anyone who suggested that was addiction. A main reason I decided not to worry about it was all the BS statistics that the nanny-staters pull out. They convinced me that it really isn't a big deal to smoke occasionally.

[Brian Macker]

Question about your link http://www.davehitt.com/facts/howmany.html for a room 100m3. Am I getting this straight, the table is for a one hundred meter cubed enclosure. The size of say six football staduims stacked one on top of the other? Isn't that known as smoking outdoors?

... or did you mean a 100 cubic meters?

[adam s]

along similar lines, the west nile virus kills 25 people a year or something. the flu still kills thousands, but you don't see news headlines about that. but one elderly person gets west nile and now every standing body of water must me struck from the planet.

[wallster]

Psycho – no, I cannot prove that my sister’s asthma or my grandmother’s lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke. We know, however that second hand smoke causes both lung cancer and childhood asthma. As Strowbridge accurately points out above, one cannot prove that nuclear testing caused cancer in soldiers. After all, using your logic, their cancer may have been caused by radon or asbestos or other household chemicals.
Likewise, the lung cancer of a person who has smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years might have been caused by household chemicals as well. Does this mean that smoking does not cause cancer? Of course not. But according to the twisted logic of yourself and Dave Hitt, because it can’t be proven that any individual’s specific incidence of cancer/asthma is caused by second hand smoke, somehow second hand smoke cannot be harmful. If this logic is correct, then smoking itself might be harmless because any individual smoker’s cancer might have been caused by some other external factor.
Again, I am wholeheartedly against the ban on smoking in private taverns/restaurants, as it is an infringement upon the property rights of the proprietors of those businesses. Likewise, I believe the tobacco settlement and egregious cigarette taxes represent the shameful and disgusting fleecing of the poor, stupid, and unrepresented through a regressive tax by politicians who claim to be acting in the best interests of the health of these people. But you guys are just missing completely by trying to claim that second hand smoke is harmless, and particularly with this lame ‘name three’ rebuttal.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

"At what point - specifically - does the body count rise to mandate the coercion of property owners? Why do you choose that number rather than that number minus one? Plus one?"

"3000 people die each year according to your study (about which I'm skeptical). Well 7600 people die of over the counter anti-inflammitory drugs like asprin. You tell me which is the more pressing problem here in the realm of statistically insignificant causes of death."

These are similar questions so I'll answer them at the same time.

You do a cost benefit analysis. You also have to check for missuse. For instance, aspirin can be use to greatly reduce the risk of heart attacks, but using it can also increase the risk of other diseases.

Second hand smoke kills 3000 people a year AND HAS NO BENEFIT. None. Banning it saves lives, is good for the economy and unless you think workplace safety is infringing on your rights, there is no lose of freedoms either. You can still smoke, just not in certain places. Just like you can't masturbate in public places either.

(Yes, I know that's an Argumentum ad absurdum, but I'm trying to make a point.)

[colson]

Banning it saves lives - at what expense, the business owner's right to serve the public as he sees fit? If second-hand smoke truly does all of the things you say it does, and the public is well aware of your misleading figures and ideas, then let the free market run the business owner out.

As someone already stated in a previous post, the almighty dollar is controlled by the person spending it. If what you say is true, then let the non-smokers spend their dollars elsewhere. Unfortunately, as the market has shown in places where no anti-SHS laws exist, businesses are not going out of business. Smokers and non-smokers alike have the opportunity to make their own decision.

What scares most of us libertarians is not only the amount of useless propaganda has been used to drive this hate machine, but what comes next? When you've won, what right, choices and freedoms will you take next?

You take and take and take but have nothing worthwhile to give.

[ed psycho]

CS Stowbridge: Second hand smoke ... HAS NO BENEFIT.

Bzzt. You can't assert subjective opinion as fact.

CS Stowbridge: You can still smoke, just not in certain places.

What a load of passive aggressive horseshit. When "certain places" means entire parks, golf courses, ski resorts, beachfronts, airports, parking lots, malls, building complexes, public businesses, private clubs, entire college campuses, stadiums, 50 feet from any strucutre, and 24 hours in your own home or car before the arrival of a foster child or state worker, what you offer is a Hobson's choice and you know it.

CS Stowbridge: Just like you can't masturbate in public places either.

But yes, you can. Theatrical performances. Movie studios. Strip clubs. Bathroom stalls. Hotel rooms. Doctor's offices.

CS Stowbridge: (Yes, I know that's an Argumentum ad absurdum, but I'm trying to make a point.)

So you admit then that for you, style is more important than substance? Now, that's EASY to believe.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

colson, when places ban smoking in bars and restaurants the business goes up. So obviously people are talking with their wallets.

"What scares most of us libertarians is not only the amount of useless propaganda has been used to drive this hate machine, but what comes next? When you've won, what right, choices and freedoms will you take next?"

Slipery slope fallacy.

"So you admit then that for you, style is more important than substance? Now, that's EASY to believe." - Ed Psycho.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about banning smoking in Bars, Restaurants and other workplace environments un OSHA guidelines. When did I ever mention golf courses?

And an Argumentum ad absurdum isn't a style over substance fallacy. Get a clue.

Stowbridge, here's what the fuck I am talking about:
http://www.sanfrancisco.com/sports/index.shtml
Note the item for San Juan Oaks golf club.

Furthermore, if we were to in fact go by OSHA guidelines, even the worst smoky bars in James Repace's latest study meet the OSHA criteria for CO and PM2.5 levels for a workplace. They do not meet the ***EPA*** criteria, which is a big, huge fucking difference.

Yes, Stowbridge, bars *and* restaurants, when *aggragated* do show gains resulting from overall economic growth and inflation after a smoking ban. But why do all the popular studies aggregate bars *and* restaurants together? Because bars lose big time.

In the state of Maine, there were a total of 552 licensed liquor establishments at the end of 2003. They they banned smoking.

At the end of 2004, there were 525. That's 27 fucking bars closing in ONE YEAR, after gaining or remaining basically steady for years...

See the other jump in 1999? That's when it was banned in restaurants. You are a fucking liar.

---- From the State of Main Liquor Control Board

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX

I have researched the information you requested and I hope that the following is of use to you.

YEAR
LOUNGE REST/LOUNGE
CLASS X CLASS XI

1994 123 220
1995 135 307
1996 141 346
1997 144 345
1998 140 364
1999 164 345
2000 317 225
2001 318 199
2002 319 207
2003 318 234
2004 213 312

Jeffrey R. Austin

[C.S.Strowbridge]

> Stowbridge, here's what the fuck I am talking about:
> http://www.sanfrancisco.com/sports/index.shtml
> Note the item for San Juan Oaks golf club.

Wow! So one golf course out of 50+ bans smoking on their course so that means I want smoking banned in ALL golf courses. By the way, what the fuck happened to allowing businesses to choose how they do business? (On a side note, this ban probably has more to do with the health of the grass than the health of the golfers.)

> Furthermore, if we were to in fact go by OSHA
> guidelines, even the worst smoky bars in James
> Repace's latest study meet the OSHA criteria for CO
> and PM2.5 levels for a workplace. They do not meet the
> ***EPA*** criteria, which is a big, huge fucking
> difference.

And why are OSHA guidelines less strict that EPA guidelines? Doesn't make sense to me. It would make more sense if OSHA used the EPA guidelines in this instance.

> At the end of 2004, there were 525. That's 27 fucking
> bars closing in ONE YEAR, after gaining or remaining
> basically steady for years...

Did you read the data? 1999 they ban smoking in restaurants, 2000 the total jumps by 6.48%.

Also, the number of bar / restaurants doesn't necessarily translate into how profitable each of them are.

Lastly, you do know more places than Maine have banned smoking in bars and restaurants, right? I you didn't know that and your knowledge of the subject is so poor that you are not worth debating with. Or you did know then it looks like you were cherry picking your data.

[ed psycho]

Yes, Stowbridge, we have only one golf course. I'm sure it won't be the only one before too long. The San Francisco county board held off on golf courses... this year.

You ask: "what the fuck happened to allowing businesses to choose how they do business?" and then you advocate state-sponsored blanket smoking bans? What a fucking hypocrite!

Let's talk about the OSHA regulations, shall we? The OSHA standard for PM2.5 - airborne particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller - otherwise referred to as "Particulates not otherwise regulated" in OSHA parlance - is 5 mg/m3. Converted to micrograms, this is 5000 ug/m3.

Consider the work of the master charlatan and smoke hating whore James Repace, and his highly publicized "Seven Cities" study. In the smoke free venues, he found an average of 53 ug/m3 of PM2.5. In smoking venues, he found 293 ug/m3 PM2.5.

Now, the EPA's limit on PM2.5 is 15 ug/m3 average annually, or 65 ug/m3 24 hour peak exposure. Why is there a difference between this and the OSHA regulations? because, it is a measure of OUTDOOR air quality.

Imagine, how much pollution from cars or factories there must be for an IMMENSE geographic area such as Los Angeles County in California to have such a high concentration of particulate matter in the OUTDOOR AIR? Literally, TONS and TONS! And that's what the EPA air standards are about, measuring the effects of TONS and TONS of industrial and transportation pollution.

Even without smoking, the non-smoking venues still push the high end limit for the EPA guidelines. Why? From deep friers, grills, candles, dust, machinery, vacuum cleaners, etc. all manner of things which exude airborne particulate matter aside from cigarettes.

That's why OSHA has a more realistic limit at 5000 ug/m3 daily peak exposure, to determine harmful amounts in an enclosed building, not the great outdoors.

Furthermore, unless tobacco smoke has some amazing magic quality that other types of smoke don't, it can be abated through this marvelous technology we have developed called a ventilation system.

Did Repace measure the smoke in a ventilated smoking room or establishment? Of course not. That would have spoiled his fun.

Instead, GASP operatives Poin and Givel did this to the smoking lounges at Lambert St. Louis Airport, claiming to find exposure of about 3/4 a MICROgram (not MILLIgram, mind you) of nicotine (0.72 ug/m3) of over a four hour period, compared to smoke-free Seattle-Tacoma airport's .15 microgram exposure over a similar 4 hour period.

Now, a Marlboro Lights brand cigarette - which I do believe is the most popular brand in the USA - contains .8 MILLIgrams of nicotine according to the FTC testing method. This converts to 800 MICROgrams.

So this dude from the Poin and Givel study, over a four hour period, was exposed to the smoke of more or less 1/1000th of a cigarette when standing outside the smoking room at Lambert St. Louis airport. Why, over the course of NEARLY THREE YEARS, he'll have inhaled a single entire cigarette's worth of nicotine at that rate! Egad! Call the mortician! Call the coroner!

Oh, and what's the OSHA limit for nicotine anyway? Oh, that would roughly be .5 mg/m3, or 500 MICROgrams, or roughly over 600 times the Poin and Givel study.

That's only for industrial nicotine exposure of course, whatever the fuck that might consist of. It must be worse when it comes from cigarettes, most likely because you really, really hate cigarettes and need to justify this hatred somehow.

Now, let's talk about Maine. Did you bother to check what the desginations for Class X and Class XI liquor licenses indicate? I did, Stowbridge. Class X are bars. Class XI are bar/restaurants. Since you're a fucking moron, I'll try to help you with the math. I'm sure you'll point out any arithmetic errors I make, though the overall trend will be clear in any case.

In 2000, when smoking was banned in restaurants, Maine GAINED 153 smoking bars, and LOST 120 non-smoking bar/restaurants. 33 total establishments were gained overall, ALL SMOKING. Yep. Really proves your point.

The next year, one more SMOKING bar opened. And 26 NON-SMOKING bar/restaurants SHUT THEIR DOORS. Yep. Really proves your point.

In 2004, when we banned smoking in bars, Maine LOST 105 bars and GAINED 78 bar/restaurants, presumably from former bars which added food and became bar/restaurants so as to draw customers. Can't say as I blame them, as Maine overall LOST 27 licensed establishments. Yep. Really proves your point.

Yeah, Stowbridge, it's REALLY FUCKING GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

It's sooooo good for business that nearly one out of every 10 bars in Maine SHUT THEIR FUCKING DOORS and WENT OUT OF BUSINESS After GAINING EVERY YEAR for the PAST 10 YEARS.

No, of course it does not state how profitable a particular establishment is. But if it was so fucking profitable, why did all those bars close, Stowbridge?

Regardless, since you want to be informed about states other than Maine, let's try another state near and dear to your smoke hating heart, how about, oh, let's say CALIFORNIA. I have statistcs from there too, from the State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.

Here's a list of the number of Type 48 and Type 42 liquor licenses in California for the past 10 years. A Type 48 license is a traditional bar that serves beer, wine, and liquor, but does not serve food. Type 42 only serves beer and wine. This is compared to the number of total bar/restaurants, the type 41 and 47 licenses:

Total Rest. Total Bars
41 and 77 48 and 42
94 30742 5028
95 31545 5033
96 30739 4894
97 30724 4836
98 30796 4692
99 30976 4558
00 31079 4463
01 31330 4384
02 31562 4345
03 32032 4297
04 32556 4275
5.57% -13.12%

Guess when they banned smoking in California bars? Oh, that would roughly be 1996. 100 drop off the THE VERY FIRST YEAR. See how the number of traditional bars in smoke-free California has DROPPED by an average of 75 PER YEAR, EACH YEAR, for the past EIGHT YEARS since smoking was banned?

See how OVERALL, California has gained 6% more bar/restaurants over the 10 year period. And lost 13% of it's bars?

Note that California's population has GROWN over 12% in the same period. The net number of bar/restaurants per capita is SMALLER than it was 10 years ago. Why didn't bar/restaurants grow 12%, to keep in proportion to the population?

As far as cherry picking? I don't see how you can say this. I got my figures straight from the ME and CA state governments themselves. I did not make any of this up and it is INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE.

Nah, I'll leave the cherry picking to folks like you, pretentious fucks who cite *aggregate* totals of bars and restaurants (which include not just bars, and bar/restaurants, but things like pizza delivery and drive-through fast food establishments) as evidence for their blanket claim that "banning smoking does not hurt businesses" when it clearly does hurt a certain category of business disproportionately.

But that doesn't matter, because for people like you, the end justifies the means when it comes to forcing people not to smoke because of the ridiculously overstated risks you hysterically claim to be associated with envoironmental tobacco smoke.

The world, however, would be a better place if whiny weenbags like you would simply shut the fuck up.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

"You ask: "what the fuck happened to allowing businesses to choose how they do business?" and then you advocate state-sponsored blanket smoking bans? What a fucking hypocrite!"

YOU are the fucking hypocrite. And you fucking lied about my position again.

If you are the average Libertarian, no wonder they're not a political force.