Pennsylvania bites the dust

[Cigahs]

Senate Passes Compromise Smoking Ban Bill
Governor Pledges to Sign Legislation into Law


June 11, 2008 - After a year-long debate, the Pennsylvania Senate on June 10th voted 41-9 and sent to Gov. Ed Rendell for approval a compromise bill that would prohibit smoking in public places, but with certain exemptions for workplaces and entertainment venues. Gov. Rendell has said he would sign the bill into law. The proposed measure exempts bars that derive 20% or less of their annual revenue from food sales, cigar bars, tobacco shops and private clubs. The measure also exempts private homes, residential units and vehicles that provide childcare services, and long-term care facilities, and residential facilities that provide drug and alcohol rehabilitation and mental health services. Designated outdoor smoking areas at sports or recreation facilities, theaters and other entertainment venues would also be exempt. Smoking would be permitted in up to 50% of gaming halls in casinos, and in up to 25% of hotel rooms. The smoking ban becomes effective 90 days after the governor signs the legislation into law.

 

[Breedy]

Be glad you are still allowed to smoke in bars. Not sure if you ever heard about the a$$ r@pin' we took across the board in Ohio, but your not even allowed to smoke in a private club. That means all those who fought in some many different wars for all our freedoms aren't even allowed to light up in a place they pay a membership fee to use.

 

[Cigahs]

Be glad you are still allowed to smoke in bars. Not sure if you ever heard about the a$$ r@pin' we took across the board in Ohio, but your not even allowed to smoke in a private club. That means all those who fought in some many different wars for all our freedoms aren't even allowed to light up in a place they pay a membership fee to use.

I'm sure we haven't seen the last of this, my friend.

But you make an interesting point. As Americans, how free are we today as opposed to years past? And how much freedom will be taken away until we realize we aren't truly free anymore?

 

[IBQTEE1]

That happened here in IL the beginning of the year. It is not that bad. A lot of places of set up covered smoking areas. The local police department has not written any tickets for people smoking in public areas outside because they say it is not worth it. You can still smoke in B&m here but the casinos are non-smoking. There is always my balcony!!

 

[punk_lawyer]

The Pennsylvania law is more lenient than our Ohio TOTAL BAN or some of the bans in cities in Kentucky. I wonder how they came up with the arbitrary 20% or less revenue from food?

So if I sell four beers for $1 and one hot dog for $1 then I can light up. But if I sell four beers for $1 and a patron buys a hot dog for $1 and a bag of chips for $.50 then I get cited? I am just guessing that Pennsylvania has this but most state constitutions have a clause protecting against arbitrary and capricious actions by the state. Simply picking 20% without a good and justifiable reason is a basis for attacking the law.

I could go on and on. This stuff really makes me angry.

 

[egeem2]

I can really see both sides of this argument. On the one hand as a smoker, of both cigars and cigarettes, I feel that my freedom to harm myself is being taken away. As a libertarian, I don't really like it when the government tells me where I can and can't smoke.

On the other hand, as a parent and spouse of a non-smoker, I am very aware of the effects of my second hand smoke. Personally, I don't like to smoke indoors, or go to smokey bars, but some do. I personally feel that any establishment should have the right to allow smoking or not. It really depends on their clientel.

 

[NullSmurf]

Be glad you are still allowed to smoke in bars. Not sure if you ever heard about the a$$ r@pin' we took across the board in Ohio, but your not even allowed to smoke in a private club. That means all those who fought in some many different wars for all our freedoms aren't even allowed to light up in a place they pay a membership fee to use.

Yeah, the VFW really took that law to heart here. I'm not sure they'd snuff the butts if they saw a cop knocking on the door.

 

[ironpeddler]

Another one bites the dust!

PA definitely seems more lenient than some states in the outset....but give them time, they will tighten the noose until it's a smoke free state...like Ohio, NJ, NY, ___________(fill in your state)

But I have to tell you guys, as a cigar smoker, I have felt discriminated upon for quite a while now. How many times over the years have I been at a restaurant or bar that allowed cigarette smoking...lit up my cigar... only to be told that they don't allow cigar smoking there, only cigarette smoking. I had become so apprehensive over time whether to light up or not on my own....so I figured I would ask prior to light up, the answer.... more times than not, was no.....I couldn't smoke the cigar there.

That's why it was a rush to me and my group of FOGs when the cigar boom came and cigar bars/lounges sprung up all over the place where we, the cigar enthusiasts, could go and relax while enjoying a good smoke.

What is happening now is just an outright forfeiture of our rights as American Citizens....nothing less.

 

[chainer]

...And how much freedom will be taken away until we realize we aren't truly free anymore?

All of it. :angry:

 

[flamchop]

I'm confused on the law though, does it mean all the bars in the rest of the state will be just like the bars in the city of Philly? Right now you can smoke in a bar in Philly only if they derive less than a certain % of sales from food, not sure if it's 20% or not though. Which basically makes almost all bars non-smoking because most bars are also restaurants. But people are allowed to go out front on the sidewalk and smoke.

Does this also mean I can't walk down the street smoking my cigar? WTF? Or does walking down a city street not count for this?

 

[punk_lawyer]

as a cigar smoker, I have felt discriminated upon for quite a while now. How many times over the years have I been at a restaurant or bar that allowed cigarette smoking...lit up my cigar... only to be told that they don't allow cigar smoking there, only cigarette smoking. I had become so apprehensive over time whether to light up or not on my own....so I figured I would ask prior to light up, the answer.... more times than not, was no.....I couldn't smoke the cigar there.

This has been very common for me, too. I always respected the fact that it was the owner making the call. I got to know the places that were cigar friendly and many became cigar brethren. There is something about the State saying that regardless of what the owner wants, no one can smoke. It is pathetic that trends are going toward restricting people from making choices and restricting businesses from allowing those choices to be made. 20% is nothing. 50% is difficult as a food / drink ratio.

Yeah, well, the beat goes on.

 

[KeithS]

Sounds like a fairly reasonable ban, better than some and similar to the ban in my county. What troubles me is why did they specifically exempt private residences. Was that even an option?

 

[regor1]

Looks like in addition to my lighter and cutter I'll also have to carry bail money.... These laws are bullsh*t

 

[NullSmurf]

Looks like in addition to my lighter and cutter I'll also have to carry bail money.... These laws are bullsh*t

In CO, they won't fine YOU. They fine the proprietor(s).

 

[Breedy]

My problem comes from the way the law itself. America was sort of found on freedom of choice, be it religion, politics, or even what you wanted to do as a profession. Basically what these and other laws amount to is theft. Your stealing away my rights to appease some sort of rightiousness that you feel it is your duty to impose. Can you imagine a law state that if you have BMI over 30 you can purchase a hamburger meal, it absurd.

Further, by passing said law in Ohio, you are mandated to enforce it. With a struggling economy and lack of well paying jobs and thus tax revenue (sort of) do we really need to spend money paying local health inspectors over time to spot check bars at 2:15 am.

The really crazy part of Ohio law is that it exempts places with no employees. The courts, however, ruled that by volunteering one was therefor an employee. The Governer is opposed to the ban in VFW, AL's and other private clubs, but the courts again state the intent of the law was to ban smoking.

It really should be as simple as hanging a sign on the door smoking or non, if you like stay if you don't go down the road to the other guy.

Brandon

P.S. If you think that smoking ban law is crazy you should look into the lawsuit about public employee residency.

 

[LilBastage]

Sounds like a fairly reasonable ban, better than some and similar to the ban in my county. What troubles me is why did they specifically exempt private residences. Was that even an option?

In some states (MN included) your private residence is included in the ban if you are self-employed and have 1 or more employees or if you use any part of your home as a meeting place for clients. So if you have a home office in the basement and every few days a client stops in your entire house is included in the ban as a "workplace."

You are also prohibited from smoking in your home if you run a child care service in your home, even "after hours."

 

[KeithS]

Sounds like a fairly reasonable ban, better than some and similar to the ban in my county. What troubles me is why did they specifically exempt private residences. Was that even an option?

In some states (MN included) your private residence is included in the ban if you are self-employed and have 1 or more employees or if you use any part of your home as a meeting place for clients. So if you have a home office in the basement and every few days a client stops in your entire house is included in the ban as a "workplace."

That's insane. I don't see how they could even enforce it. Legislators wasting time and money.

 

[LilBastage]

Sounds like a fairly reasonable ban, better than some and similar to the ban in my county. What troubles me is why did they specifically exempt private residences. Was that even an option?

In some states (MN included) your private residence is included in the ban if you are self-employed and have 1 or more employees or if you use any part of your home as a meeting place for clients. So if you have a home office in the basement and every few days a client stops in your entire house is included in the ban as a "workplace."

That's insane. I don't see how they could even enforce it. Legislators wasting time and money.

Welcome to MN!

 

[mrnosejoy]

Again they waste time and energy on a issue that's easy to pass so they look like they're working on something to help us. They're not helping though. We're just a easy target. That's why everyone who makes a post in places this every night should also make a post, phone call, email or send a letter everyday to till they begin to realize we're not pushovers anymore. I know Sam Johnson & Kay Bailey Hutchinson don't like me. Of course they don't even know who the hell I am they just get tired of people like me complaining. Exactly cause as much stress as possible, then maybe they'd sit down and have a cigar, relax and begin to understand how stupid this is.

 

[N2Advnture]

The problem is that law makers listen to lobbyist who spread misinformation to them. We cigar and pipe smokers need to SPEAK LOUDER!

The World Health Organization's Second Hand Smoke Study

The World Health Organization's first study on second hand smoke is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results. They responded by doing a second one, a meta-analysis, that allowed them to extract the results they wanted. This is an analysis of their first study.

Fact: The World Health Organization conducted a study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in Europe.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

Fact: This was a case control study using a large sample size.

Fact: The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer.

Fact: The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years.

Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.

Fact: Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers.

Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
-But-

• Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the RR of 1.16 is not statistically significant.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually not considered important and, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.

This rule of thumb is routinely ignored by the anti-smoker activists.

Fact: The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure.

Fact: The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.

Fact: The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.

Fact: The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.

The WHO quickly buried the report. The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks.

Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."

Finally, the WHO issued a press release. Although their study showed no statistically significant risk from ETS, their press release had the misleading headline "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You." (I say "misleading" because it would be impolite to call it an outright lie.)

Fact: In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.)

Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.

Fact: The WHO tried to blame the results on a small sample size. However, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision..."

It should also be noted that the most likely effect of a larger sample size wouldn't be a large change to the RR, but a narrowed CI.

Synopsis of the WHO Study provided courtesy of The Hitt Chronicle

More Information

An abstract, the entire study and the press release can be found on his site.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

I hope this helps

~Mark