Big Drop in Heart Attacks after Smoking Bans, Studies Say

[bobbythekidd]

So do I, but who the he!! am I to tell the owner of a for profit business on private property what to do with regard to my safety when the simple act of not entering the establishment will eliminate the threat....speak with your wallet....

I think this is where we were going to end up in this thread anyway... My first post said it is up to the owner. If he says smoke/ no kids allowed.

This solves the concerns for UNI88 and Dback/ AZ. Moreover it is a question of the market fixing things for people like TTBF. an example...

Smallville has two diners. One allows smoking, one does not. 1000 people live and work in smallville with 20% being smokers. 80% will choose to spend their dollars at the non-smoking place. The other 20% can only take their family out to eat at the non-smoking diner as well. The only market for the smoking diner is a small percentage of the already small 20% of the towns people.

One more diner wants to open up. Do you think the new owner is going to allow smoking or will his be a non-smoking diner?

[Appaholic]

So do I, but who the he!! am I to tell the owner of a for profit business on private property what to do with regard to my safety when the simple act of not entering the establishment will eliminate the threat....speak with your wallet....

I think this is where we were going to end up in this thread anyway... My first post said it is up to the owner. If he says smoke/ no kids allowed.

This solves the concerns for UNI88 and Dback/ AZ. Moreover it is a question of the market fixing things for people like TTBF. an example...

Smallville has two diners. One allows smoking, one does not. 1000 people live and work in smallville with 20% being smokers. 80% will choose to spend their dollars at the non-smoking place. The other 20% can only take their family out to eat at the non-smoking diner as well. The only market for the smoking diner is a small percentage of the already small 20% of the towns people.

One more diner wants to open up. Do you think the new owner is going to allow smoking or will his be a non-smoking diner?

That's ridiculous Bob...it's much more fair to make all of the businesses' (but not open air parks, sidewalks, etc) smoke free because we have a right to eat in all three like it said in the constitution...quit making sense...

[UNI88]

So do I, but who the he!! am I to tell the owner of a for profit business on private property what to do with regard to my safety when the simple act of not entering the establishment will eliminate the threat....speak with your wallet....

I think this is where we were going to end up in this thread anyway... My first post said it is up to the owner. If he says smoke/ no kids allowed.

This solves the concerns for UNI88 and Dback/ AZ. Moreover it is a question of the market fixing things for people like TTBF. an example...

Smallville has two diners. One allows smoking, one does not. 1000 people live and work in smallville with 20% being smokers. 80% will choose to spend their dollars at the non-smoking place. The other 20% can only take their family out to eat at the non-smoking diner as well. The only market for the smoking diner is a small percentage of the already small 20% of the towns people.

One more diner wants to open up. Do you think the new owner is going to allow smoking or will his be a non-smoking diner?

Can you require a private business owner that allows smoking to ban kids? How is that philosophically different than banning smoking?

Without that requirement, both diners will have smoking sections and try to appeal to 100% of the customer base.

I like smoking bans for personal reasons. I also understand and support on principle the free choice side of the argument. I don't think that the argument is as simple as some would like to make it, there is a lot of grey.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

The fact is we live in a society. A majority of that society does not smoke and doesn't like the fuckstains that used to leave a burning cigarette on the bar for those that don't like it to deal with. The majority has asked for this and it is being implemented. I do think that there should be bars that are for those that want to go and enjoy their smoke as well. A friend of mine owns Red's and although the smoking ban doesn't go in effect until Oct. 1st he went smoke free a few years ago. He hated smokers as much as anybody else in the bar did and one time I asked him why he would cater to 30% of the population that was at best a nuisance to the other 70%? He said it was basically because it was the way it had been done for so long that the 70% were just willing to put up with it. I'm glad the rest have finally grown tired of it enough to let them enjoy their liberty to smoke on their own.

[bobbythekidd]

Can you require a private business owner that allows smoking to ban kids? How is that philosophically different than banning smoking?

Without that requirement, both diners will have smoking sections and try to appeal to 100% of the customer base.

I shotened your post to make it easier to see what I am answering. Yes you can make a private business not allow kids. Look at any bar you want. Same priciple applies, and yet another reason for someone opening a new diner to pick the Non-smoking type. The issue will fix itself over time. Especially with more and more people quiting smoking.

Now smoking sections... That's does get a bit grey. I'm not sure how I feel about them, but if allowed I really like how Georgia does them.

GA Method. The smoking section
- may not seat kids
- must have a seperate high volume air exchager from the rest of the place. (certain CFM's)
- must be at the back and in a way that non smokers do not have to enter them to enter/leave or get to the restroom.


There may be more rules but you ge the idea.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Can you require a private business owner that allows smoking to ban kids? How is that philosophically different than banning smoking?

Without that requirement, both diners will have smoking sections and try to appeal to 100% of the customer base.

I shotened your post to make it easier to see what I am answering. Yes you can make a private business not allow kids. Look at any bar you want. Same priciple applies, and yet another reason for someone opening a new diner to pick the Non-smoking type. The issue will fix itself over time. Especially with more and more people quiting smoking.

Now smoking sections... That's does get a bit grey. I'm not sure how I feel about them, but if allowed I really like how Georgia does them.

GA Method. The smoking section
- may not seat kids
- must have a seperate high volume air exchager from the rest of the place. (certain CFM's)
- must be at the back and in a way that non smokers do not have to enter them to enter/leave or get to the restroom.


There may be more rules but you ge the idea.

There ain't nothing wrong with that setup right there. If a business wants to do that then they should certainly be allowed to do so.

[TheDancinMonarch]

What no one has mentioned here is that now that fewer are droping dead from heart attacks, they are living longer and eventually slipping into Alzheimer's disease and becoming a burden to themselves, their families and soon, God forbid, the government. One end of the seesaw goes down; the other end goes up.

This is complete jibberish (above) and nonsense and unfounded and not based in actual medical costs associated with 100 years of documented evidence about smoking...

Did I advocate smoking in any way? No. And since the public warnings only began 40 or so years ago I doubt we have had 100 years to study the effects.

[Appaholic]

The fact is we live in a society. A majority of that society does not smoke and doesn't like the fuckstains that used to leave a burning cigarette on the bar for those that don't like it to deal with. The majority has asked for this and it is being implemented. I do think that there should be bars that are for those that want to go and enjoy their smoke as well. A friend of mine owns Red's and although the smoking ban doesn't go in effect until Oct. 1st he went smoke free a few years ago. He hated smokers as much as anybody else in the bar did and one time I asked him why he would cater to 30% of the population that was at best a nuisance to the other 70%? He said it was basically because it was the way it had been done for so long that the 70% were just willing to put up with it. I'm glad the rest have finally grown tired of it enough to let them enjoy their liberty to smoke on their own.

If the 70% kept putting up with it, then apparantly they didn't grow tired of it....instead, they asked their Mommy inthe form of big government to step in on their behalf instead of going down the street to the bar that didn't allow smoking.....seems like a large market segment was not being serviced by an entrpreneur.....but, let's ban for all so we don't have to choose....

[Appaholic]

I shotened your post to make it easier to see what I am answering. Yes you can make a private business not allow kids. Look at any bar you want. Same priciple applies, and yet another reason for someone opening a new diner to pick the Non-smoking type. The issue will fix itself over time. Especially with more and more people quiting smoking.

Now smoking sections... That's does get a bit grey. I'm not sure how I feel about them, but if allowed I really like how Georgia does them.

GA Method. The smoking section
- may not seat kids
- must have a seperate high volume air exchager from the rest of the place. (certain CFM's)
- must be at the back and in a way that non smokers do not have to enter them to enter/leave or get to the restroom.


There may be more rules but you ge the idea.

There ain't nothing wrong with that setup right there. If a business wants to do that then they should certainly be allowed to do so.

Agree...something that works without an outright ban from the government...whudda thunk?

[bobbythekidd]

There ain't nothing wrong with that setup right there. If a business wants to do that then they should certainly be allowed to do so.

It was a back alley way to get a smoking ban anyway. All the requirements made the owners damn near redesign the existing structures and install the air handlers. It just cost to much to do for so few paying costomers. Most just said, "if you have to smoke so damn bad, go the hell outside." In effect they banned smoking on their own without being forced. They did have another option, but CHOOSE not to persue it. I like it.

[Appaholic]

There ain't nothing wrong with that setup right there. If a business wants to do that then they should certainly be allowed to do so.

It was a back alley way to get a smoking ban anyway. All the requirements made the owners damn near redesign the existing structures and install the air handlers. It just cost to much to do for so few paying costomers. Most just said, "if you have to smoke so damn bad, go the hell outside." In effect they banned smoking on their own without being forced. They did have another option, but CHOOSE not to persue it. I like it.

Yes...free choice...what a novel concept....

[UNI88]

The fact is we live in a society. A majority of that society does not smoke and doesn't like the **** that used to leave a burning cigarette on the bar for those that don't like it to deal with. The majority has asked for this and it is being implemented. I do think that there should be bars that are for those that want to go and enjoy their smoke as well. A friend of mine owns Red's and although the smoking ban doesn't go in effect until Oct. 1st he went smoke free a few years ago. He hated smokers as much as anybody else in the bar did and one time I asked him why he would cater to 30% of the population that was at best a nuisance to the other 70%? He said it was basically because it was the way it had been done for so long that the 70% were just willing to put up with it. I'm glad the rest have finally grown tired of it enough to let them enjoy their liberty to smoke on their own.

Highlighted the problem with letting the market take care of it. I don't doubt that it will happen it just seems to be taking longer than it should due to apathy.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

The fact is we live in a society. A majority of that society does not smoke and doesn't like the fuckstains that used to leave a burning cigarette on the bar for those that don't like it to deal with. The majority has asked for this and it is being implemented. I do think that there should be bars that are for those that want to go and enjoy their smoke as well. A friend of mine owns Red's and although the smoking ban doesn't go in effect until Oct. 1st he went smoke free a few years ago. He hated smokers as much as anybody else in the bar did and one time I asked him why he would cater to 30% of the population that was at best a nuisance to the other 70%? He said it was basically because it was the way it had been done for so long that the 70% were just willing to put up with it. I'm glad the rest have finally grown tired of it enough to let them enjoy their liberty to smoke on their own.

If the 70% kept putting up with it, then apparantly they didn't grow tired of it....instead, they asked their Mommy inthe form of big government to step in on their behalf instead of going down the street to the bar that didn't allow smoking.....seems like a large market segment was not being serviced by an entrpreneur.....but, let's ban for all so we don't have to choose....

That's right Appa. All bars were smoking bars until fairly recently and they did organize and ask "mommy" to do something about it. Why do they have organize another way when going through the channels that are already in place to take care of it? It goes too far when they just ban and don't give the option for a bar or restaurant to do what btk put up a few posts ago.

FWIW, that is what Mike did at Red's. He asked his customers for several months if they would like the bar to be smoke free and it was overwhelming that it go smoke free. I like that route a lot better as well.

Saying the majority ran to mommy is a bit over the top though. They used the tools that are in place to accomplish what the majority wanted. It's really that simple.

[Appaholic]

If the 70% kept putting up with it, then apparantly they didn't grow tired of it....instead, they asked their Mommy inthe form of big government to step in on their behalf instead of going down the street to the bar that didn't allow smoking.....seems like a large market segment was not being serviced by an entrpreneur.....but, let's ban for all so we don't have to choose....

That's right Appa. All bars were smoking bars until fairly recently and they did organize and ask "mommy" to do something about it. Why do they have organize another way when going through the channels that are already in place to take care of it? It goes too far when they just ban and don't give the option for a bar or restaurant to do what btk put up a few posts ago.

FWIW, that is what Mike did at Red's. He asked his customers for several months if they would like the bar to be smoke free and it was overwhelming that it go smoke free. I like that route a lot better as well.

Saying the majority ran to mommy is a bit over the top though. They used the tools that are in place to accomplish what the majority wanted. It's really that simple.

Yeah, I think I misread your earlier post. Mike did it the correct way. My question is, why can't other facilities do it that way? Mike should be pissed that the government is mandating his idea to all other facilities thereby eliminating a competitive advantage that Mike had the balls to implement without a mommy mandate....

[Appaholic]

The fact is we live in a society. A majority of that society does not smoke and doesn't like the **** that used to leave a burning cigarette on the bar for those that don't like it to deal with. The majority has asked for this and it is being implemented. I do think that there should be bars that are for those that want to go and enjoy their smoke as well. A friend of mine owns Red's and although the smoking ban doesn't go in effect until Oct. 1st he went smoke free a few years ago. He hated smokers as much as anybody else in the bar did and one time I asked him why he would cater to 30% of the population that was at best a nuisance to the other 70%? He said it was basically because it was the way it had been done for so long that the 70% were just willing to put up with it. I'm glad the rest have finally grown tired of it enough to let them enjoy their liberty to smoke on their own.

Highlighted the problem with letting the market take care of it. I don't doubt that it will happen it just seems to be taking longer than it should due to apathy.

So let's reward apathy by implementing laws that only a small percentage of the population feel passionate enough to do anything about....sorry, if it was such a big problem, then they could have organized a protest, picket the place, get signatures of support and present them to ownership...if he doesn't comply, then take your fokking business elsewhere...at some point, the people of this country need to realize it's not necessary to use mommy government to insure you get equal amount of time on the swing set...it's basically admitting that you are powerless over the success of a business....

[Chizzang]

This is complete jibberish (above) and nonsense and unfounded and not based in actual medical costs associated with 100 years of documented evidence about smoking...

Did I advocate smoking in any way? No. And since the public warnings only began 40 or so years ago I doubt we have had 100 years to study the effects.

Again you know not of what you speak...
Smoking effects on health were initiated by a clinic in Baltimore Maryland in 1902
107 years ago - Historical Medical research shows that in the early 1900s the main causes of death in America were respiratory, infectious and parasitic diseases

and I am in no way anti-smoking

[TheDancinMonarch]

Again you know not of what you speak...
Smoking effects on health were initiated by a clinic in Baltimore Maryland in 1902
107 years ago - Historical Medical research shows that in the early 1900s the main causes of death in America were respiratory, infectious and parasitic diseases

Anyone ever hear of these studies besides you? Whatever! Anyone with any sense knew, long before the '60's that smoking was not good for you whether the government agreed or not. But all that is besides the point. My original comment

What no one has mentioned here is that now that fewer are droping dead from heart attacks, they are living longer and eventually slipping into Alzheimer's disease and becoming a burden to themselves, their families and soon, God forbid, the government. One end of the seesaw goes down; the other end goes up.

was just an observation about additional consequences that may ensue with fewer people smoking and hence living longer.

But life is too short to get into a fruitless argument with an obviously angry person, upon whom I have no time to waste.

So with all the sincerity I can muster I say to you, have a nice day.

[Chizzang]

What no one has mentioned here is that now that fewer are droping dead from heart attacks, they are living longer and eventually slipping into Alzheimer's disease and becoming a burden to themselves, their families and soon, God forbid, the government. One end of the seesaw goes down; the other end goes up.

I guess I must have miss understood your point... it seems like you are implying that even if people quit smoking they are still just as expensive to provide health care for

which as I point out - has not been true ever - and was widely observed by Medical experts over 100 years ago
And as far as studies on smoking try Google...

[travelinman67]

Ah, the Helena study, yes. Montana to go smokeless in all indoor public places on Oct. 1. Lots of chatter on the radio about it yesterday while I was in Billings town.

Maricopa County is already there. It's nice to be able to go to a bar now and not have to become a smoker.

...yet...

...since alcohol consumption causes health problems as well as costing hospitals and local governments billions annually...

...let's ban drinking too.














(...and since verbose banking documents filled with millions of unnecessary and confusing words/sentences costs American's billions in lost productivity from the time wasted reading [but failing to comprehend] such legalese...let's ban all banking documents containing an excess of 100 words...)

[travelinman67]

What no one has mentioned here is that now that fewer are droping dead from heart attacks, they are living longer and eventually slipping into Alzheimer's disease and becoming a burden to themselves, their families and soon, God forbid, the government. One end of the seesaw goes down; the other end goes up.

I guess I must have miss understood your point... it seems like you are implying that even if people quit smoking they are still just as expensive to provide health care for...

Simply put...whether via cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, congestive heart failure, or other organ failure...man will never be immortal. Extending someone's life beyond their "normal" max. maturation age rarely provides the elder a quality of life that's either functional or enjoyable. While smoking has been found to increase the risk of some life ending illnesses...given the choice of dying of cancer at age 72, or living in a bed, non-ambulatory, lying in your own urine and feces (often for hours at a time), fearful the fecal bacteria will get into their painful bed sore possibly developing into sepsis, and having to face these pain and worries day after day, year after year after year...while all your friends die around you....

...makes death by cancer at an earlier age seem like a tolerable option.

[Chizzang]

I guess I must have miss understood your point... it seems like you are implying that even if people quit smoking they are still just as expensive to provide health care for...

Simply put...whether via cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, congestive heart failure, or other organ failure...man will never be immortal. Extending someone's life beyond their "normal" max. maturation age rarely provides the elder a quality of life that's either functional or enjoyable. While smoking has been found to increase the risk of some life ending illnesses...given the choice of dying of cancer at age 72, or living in a bed, non-ambulatory, lying in your own urine and feces (often for hours at a time), fearful the fecal bacteria will get into their painful bed sore possibly developing into sepsis, and having to face these pain and worries day after day, year after year after year...while all your friends die around you....

...makes death by cancer at an earlier age seem like a tolerable option.

Sounds good to me...

[FargoBison]

Fargo banned smoking a few years ago and I definitely like it a lot. I had asthma as a kid and about the only thing that bothers me now is being in a smokey place. I still don't see what the big deal is, it is not too hard to go outside and smoke.

[Appaholic]

Fargo banned smoking a few years ago and I definitely like it a lot. I had asthma as a kid and about the only thing that bothers me now is being in a smokey place. I still don't see what the big deal is, it is not too hard to go outside and smoke.

Why didn't you complain to the manager and take your business elsewhere? Now, even if a bar owner wanted to allow smoking in his bar and was willing to accept the loss of non-smoking clientele, the law will not allow....even though it's his property....and should be his choice.....that's the big deal, you're allowing the government to remove a yet another right (private property) with barely a whimper.....if the gov't is so concerned, then the government should ban smoking on common public property (even outside) and get the hell out of people's private property... why should I have to wade through smoke due to smoker's being forced outside of govt buildings due to smoking ban? Same difference you say? No. The difference is to abide by laws, I have to conduct business on government property, therefore wade through a sea of smoke to go inside. People don't have to patronize a particular bar.....

[FargoBison]

Fargo banned smoking a few years ago and I definitely like it a lot. I had asthma as a kid and about the only thing that bothers me now is being in a smokey place. I still don't see what the big deal is, it is not too hard to go outside and smoke.

Why didn't you complain to the manager and take your business elsewhere? Now, even if a bar owner wanted to allow smoking in his bar and was willing to accept the loss of non-smoking clientele, the law will not allow....even though it's his property....and should be his choice.....that's the big deal, you're allowing the government to remove a yet another right (private property) with barely a whimper.....if the gov't is so concerned, then the government should ban smoking on common public property (even outside) and get the hell out of people's private property... why should I have to wade through smoke due to smoker's being forced outside of govt buildings due to smoking ban? Same difference you say? No. The difference is to abide by laws, I have to conduct business on government property, therefore wade through a sea of smoke to go inside. People don't have to patronize a particular bar.....

There is a huge difference between people smoking outside vs inside(especially a poorly ventilated bar). As for take my business elsewhere, at the time Fargo had one smoke-free bar, not really many options. You think my friends are all going to want to go to the same bar every time? Yeah right.

I don't really care about their rights in this instance, secondhand smoke isn't at all healthy, let the smokers make the short walk outside. Problem solved. Most bars in Fargo have accommodated them anyway with special areas that have seating and heating to keep them warm in the winter. I've never had to wade through a sea of smoke.

[Appaholic]

Why didn't you complain to the manager and take your business elsewhere? Now, even if a bar owner wanted to allow smoking in his bar and was willing to accept the loss of non-smoking clientele, the law will not allow....even though it's his property....and should be his choice.....that's the big deal, you're allowing the government to remove a yet another right (private property) with barely a whimper.....if the gov't is so concerned, then the government should ban smoking on common public property (even outside) and get the hell out of people's private property... why should I have to wade through smoke due to smoker's being forced outside of govt buildings due to smoking ban? Same difference you say? No. The difference is to abide by laws, I have to conduct business on government property, therefore wade through a sea of smoke to go inside. People don't have to patronize a particular bar.....

There is a huge difference between people smoking outside vs inside(especially a poorly ventilated bar). As for take my business elsewhere, at the time Fargo had one smoke-free bar, not really many options. You think my friends are all going to want to go to the same bar every time? Yeah right.

The only difference legally is not inside vs outside, but should be public property vs private property. Whether or not the students in Fargo have choices with regard to smoke-free bars is inconsequential. Sounds like there was a golden opportunity for an entreprenuer to offer a much-needed service....

I don't really care about their rights in this instance, secondhand smoke isn't at all healthy, let the smokers make the short walk outside. Problem solved. Most bars in Fargo have accommodated them anyway with special areas that have seating and heating to keep them warm in the winter. I've never had to wade through a sea of smoke.

I know it's not healthy. I don't smoke & have little sympathy for Smokers as well & don't believe they have "rights". But that is beside the point. The issue is the government implementing a law forbidding a business owner to allow a legal activity with a government approved product (cigs are taxed & legal to purchase), if he chooses, at his business on private property. The government is over-stepping their authority IMO & the sheeple sit on their hands.