<div><span class="articletext"><b><b><a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n1/full/nm0199_15.html">http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n1/full/nm0199_15.html</a></b></b></span></div>
<div><span class="articletext"><b><b></b></b></span> </div>
<div><span class="articletext"><b><b>The largest study ever undertaken to examine the health effects of tobacco finds that there are already a million deaths a year from smoking in China, and it predicts large increases in mortality over the next few decades. This pattern is likely to be repeated in other developing countries. </b></b></span></div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and produces substantial health-related economic costs to society (<i><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm">1</a>,2</i>). </div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>Well, at least its a form of population control! And I have heard serious economic arguments that the premature deaths from tobacco use are a benefit to society, reducing the long term costs of Medicare and Social Security that are increasing with a longer life span.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that this is even a subject for apparently serious debate (exposing workers and customers in bars to the smoke of tobacco), the use of which is associated with the deaths (often ugly drawn out deaths) of hundreds of thousands of people prematurely in the US every year, is an example of the contradictions, blind-spots and obfuscation, regarding establishing rational legal and social policies based on the facts of the harm from drug use and abuse, common in the US. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tobacco prematurely kills more people than heroin, cocaine and meth combined, many times over. I have often gone to a bar and after a few hours could feel the drug effects of the nicotine from the second hand smoke, as though I had smoked one or two, though I never held a cigarette in my hand. Of course, I did not have to be there... But the peer pressure and cultural influences to go to bars is significant, especially for young adults.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bucers "smoking room" does not expose the workers at Bucers, as far as I have been able to see, to the smoking of those in that room, or at least not very much. The room is not attended by "bar persons," that I have seen, to use a gender neutral form of the phrase "bar maid," which is often assumed is who will be waiting tables in a bar, the sexier the female the better (more drinks are ordered with sexual arousal of the male patrons). Of course Bucers is not really a "bar." There is no hard liquor sold there.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most bars have employees working in the area where smokers will smoke. Some bars have non-smoking areas, but this does not stop workers in the smoking section from exposure. What workplace allows workers to be exposed to tobacco smoke? Does Microsoft, Ford or McDonalds allow smoking in their workplaces?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The U of I once allowed smoking, if I recall correctly, in Brink Hall. Then they banned smoking in this building. Then after the smokers crowded the entrances, creating a gauntlet of smoke for those entering the building, they requested smokers move a number of feet away from entrances.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No workplace should expose employees to a drug (of course tobacco smoke is more complex than just nicotine, with numerous compounds) that kills more people prematurely than any other single cause.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have a pack of cigarettes. I bought it several years ago. Shermans Naturals. Occasionally I smoke one. About half the pack is gone. I have been lucky. For whatever reason(s), though I have smoked on and off, at one time smoking about 5 cigarettes a day, I have never become addicted. When I was smoking about 5 cigarettes a day, I noticed that my wind and endurance when running was impaired. And that was the end of that... I dropped the habit very easily. Again, I was lucky. I have known people who were owned by tobacco addiction, two or three packs a day. Who pledged over and over to quit. Who hated how they smelled, how they tasted when being kissed... Who tried nicotine patches, distractions of one sort or another, who fought themselves daily over their compulsion to smoke repeatedly off and on all day, the coughing and lung irritation. And this went on for years...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/19/09, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Ted,<br><br>What about something less draconian than a ban? What about a physical<br>separation with air exchangers? What do you think about the way Bucers has<br>
their set up?<br><br>I can tell you that as a smoker, I am less inclined to compromise with<br>total bans and advocates of total bans when their interests are up for<br>consideration later. And I vote. There has to be a middle ground<br>
somewhere.<br><br>And you mention that keeping bars smoke free is a benefit to the workers<br>in these businesses who need the jobs yet are exposed to second hand<br>smoke. In the case here in Moscow, I don't even think the employees were<br>
even asked. Based on the tape I saw of the meeting before city council on<br>the 18th of May, it was an individual that is a bar customer, and from his<br>comments, I have to believe he was talking about Mingles. So, because he<br>
doesn't like the smoky atmosphere in Mingles, all of the bars in Moscow<br>have to ban smoking?<br><br>I just think much more research needs to be done to see IF there is a<br>problem before the Council passes a ban. The quick, knee jerk reaction,<br>
the simple solution to the problem IF there is one, is to pass a ban.<br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> New York City has banned tobacco smoking in bars and restaurants. There<br>
> have been some negative consequences, but New York still has a night life<br>> for drinkers:<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm</a><br>
><br>> From website above:<br>><br>> New York City is still coming to terms with smoke-free night life three<br>> months after a ban went into effect outlawing smoking in virtually all<br>> workplaces, including restaurants and bars.<br>
><br>> Five states — New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California — have<br>> passed similar smoking restrictions that include bars and taverns. New<br>> York<br>> state's ban, which echoes the city's anti-smoking law, goes into effect<br>
> July<br>> 24.<br>> ------------------------<br>> I am in favor of banning tobacco smoking in bars (and workplaces).<br>> Keeping<br>> bars smoke free is a benefit to the workers in these businesses who need<br>
> the<br>> jobs yet are exposed to second hand smoke. The workers in bars are not<br>> forced to drink the drinks the customers order; yet they must breathe the<br>> air polluted by customers smoking. Furthermore, the damage to peoples<br>
> lives<br>> and society from tobacco abuse/addiction (the single largest cause of<br>> premature death) is so huge that laws blocking smoking tobacco in what are<br>> publicly oriented businesses (even if privately owned) is reasonable, if<br>
> practical. I would not support criminalizing tobacco. Any adult wishing<br>> to<br>> smoke in their homes or on their property should be free to do so (but not<br>> to expose children to second hand smoke, of course). But a ban on smoking<br>
> in bars (and on all advertising) would limit encouragement of tobacco use.<br>> If someone wants to form a private smoking/drinking "club" on private<br>> property, they should be free to do so. Just don't expect workers who<br>
> need<br>> jobs to have to breathe second hand smoke for a paycheck.<br>><br>> Ted Moffett<br>><br>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Chasuk <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>>> I'm not surprised that those in the grip of the smoking addiction<br>>> would drive drunk. There is no human behavior so pathetic that<br>>> someone won't indulge it.<br>>><br>>> However, I am against outright smoking bans. Yes, I should be able to<br>
>> enjoy my evening without the stink of cigarettes, but the smoker<br>>> should be able to commit slow suicide if he or she chooses.<br>>><br>>> There are plenty of places that I can publicly eat or socialize where<br>
>> I will not be bothered by smokers.<br>>><br>>> No more bans, please.<br>>><br>>> =======================================================<br>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
>> =======================================================<br>>><br>><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>