Actually in Helena...

Post #244,710 by admin 2/15/06 3:49:12 PM 2/15/06 5:28:16 PM Reply	Actually in Helena... The percentage of heart attacks caused by secondhand smoke is apparently 40%. And outlawing Big Macs doesn't make any sense. You're doing that to yourself, not having someone else do it to you. [Edit: fixed statistic] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 03:50:13 PM EST Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 05:28:16 PM EST Expand All History
Post #244,716 by boxley 2/15/06 4:06:34 PM Reply	60% of all heart attacks are due to 2nd hand smoke? seems like you need to bookmark snopes.com :-) thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #244,717 by drewk 2/15/06 4:09:19 PM Reply	Wait, I missed something Heart attacks caused by secondhand smoke? I missed that study. Just to change tack for a second. Why does the solution that works for hotels not work for bars? Hotels noticed people wanted no-smoking rooms. So now they have them. In fact most of the rooms in hotels are no-smoking rooms now. You can take a smoking room and not smoke in it, so they're not losing non-smoking customers to do this. The only potential losses are smokers who can't get a smoking room and go somewhere else. If hotels are able to see the financial benefit to possibly driving away smokers who simply can't go outside to smoke, why don't bars see this? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,723 by admin 2/15/06 4:17:37 PM Reply	Dunno, why don't they? I'd be perfectly happy with an actual functioning non-smoking area. Most of them don't work. It's very rare that I go to a restaurant and NOT smell smoke, even in the non-smoking section. There's one restaurant here (a Big Boy) where that happens, and that's because the whole restaurant is non-smoking. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,732 by drewk 2/15/06 4:35:39 PM Reply	So they do exist There's one restaurant here (a Big Boy) where that happens, and that's because the whole restaurant is non-smoking. If there's only one, then it's not (yet) required? Then it is possible that someone can see the benefit and do it without being forced. Does that location get more traffic than comperable smoking-allowed restaurants? Do they pay the wait staff more or less than other places? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,740 by admin 2/15/06 4:52:36 PM Reply	Re: So they do exist If there's only one, then it's not (yet) required? Then it is possible that someone can see the benefit and do it without being forced. Does that location get more traffic than comperable smoking-allowed restaurants? Do they pay the wait staff more or less than other places? Not required, no. The traffic doesn't seem any more or less since the change. I have no idea about the pay. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,746 by drewk 2/15/06 4:59:02 PM Reply	Why not? If there are people who don't go out because there's no place to go, they should be flocking to this one. If they're not, either they don't exist or they don't mind the smoke that much. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,748 by jbrabeck 2/15/06 5:02:44 PM Reply	Many times it easier to breathe the smoke and be with friends than to listen to those same friends whine and cry when they go to a smokefree area. I'm glad St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, and a few others have banned smoking in all public buildings, including resturants and bars. A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Post #244,754 by drewk 2/15/06 5:10:47 PM Reply	So you would rather breathe smoke than hear whining So everyone else is told what to do. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,932 by jbrabeck 2/16/06 10:45:19 AM Reply	Hell no The only two establishments that I visit that allow smoking are: The bowling alley, 'cuz I joined a work league. Will quit after this year as I don't like the smoke and TGIFriday's when I have to pick up items (my wife is partial to their French Onion soup). If I had my way, I'd just put a $10-$20 tax per cigarette and raise it annually by the same amount. I'd arrest anyone smoking in their vehicle, when they have children with them for child endangerment. Same for smoking at home when children are present. As I said, I have very strong anti-smoking views. A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Post #244,935 by ben_tilly 2/16/06 10:57:50 AM Reply	And you'd create a drug war to make our existing one... pale to insignificance. That is the main reason why I am for making it possible for smokers to smoke. No matter how much I dislike smoke, I'd dislike far more the increased violence from making smoking illegal. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #244,939 by jbrabeck 2/16/06 11:06:43 AM Reply	I didn't say make it illegal.... Just illegal to endanger children. Good point though on taxing it too high. How about until starts to hurt, but before it's cheaper to smuggle? :-) A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Post #244,951 by ben_tilly 2/16/06 11:37:10 AM Reply	It's already cheaper to smuggle... if you can tolerate risk for guaranteed profit. The question is when mainstream smokers will start smoking smuggled cigarettes. And that does not have a simple answer. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #244,954 by boxley 2/16/06 11:40:31 AM Reply	now? I can mail order 4 cartons a month from Israel Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #244,980 by jake123 2/16/06 12:53:29 PM Reply	Now. Smuggled and/or 'native' smokes are already a big feature here. A carton costs ~60 bucks, but I can get 200 smokes for fifteen from the right person. Mind you, they're manufactured on Mohawk reserves in the area (mostly Kahnesetake near Montreal) which is perfectly legal for them to do and sell sans federal and provincial taxes, but they do tend to be a lot harder on the lungs than tailor mades. Smuggled is because I can legally go to a reserve and buy them for cheap, but if I want to get them here in Kingston from the right person, he and I are breaking the law if we don't pay taxes. For the most part, I go with the cut rate smokes (I've been smoking a brand called Canadian Classics, manufactured north of Toronto); they cost about a buck and a half less of a mainstream brand (duMaurier or Players, for example) but are still legal and are better made than the KMT (Kahnesetake Mohawk Territory) smokes. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #244,984 by ben_tilly 2/16/06 1:26:17 PM Reply	Canada's taxes are higher than US taxes And I already knew that boxley has a high tolerance for risk if he gets guaranteed reward. Most smokers around here don't smoke smuggled cigarettes. But if the price changes enough, they would. However it isn't just price. For instance if the postal service began monitoring better, boxley might be less inclined to mail order. And if it weren't for a ready supply of untaxed legal cigarettes, Jake wouldn't face such an easy choice. But still at some point, people will break the law. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #244,985 by boxley 2/16/06 1:29:19 PM Reply	do people around you go to Indian Smokeshops? if they buy there, then dont mail a check to the california state government they are breaking the law. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #244,988 by ben_tilly 2/16/06 1:38:03 PM Reply	Not that I know of. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #245,009 by jake123 2/16/06 3:45:31 PM Reply	Not true when it comes to smokes The price of cigarettes in the border states to Ontario and Quebec are now very comparable to the price within Ontario and Quebec; in some cases they are even higher than they are in these two provinces (I'm talking about New York, Vermont, and Maine here). When the price differential was large a few years back, there was a big smuggling operation from the US to Canada across the St. Lawrence River, mostly near Cornwall. However, that trade has dried up. The history is that Ontario and Quebec dropped their taxes on cigarettes significantly after negotiating with the feds to do the same, resulting in a huge price cut in Canada, and esp. in Ontario and Quebec. This was done specifically to remove the economic incentive to cross border cigarette smuggling; the public order problem had become unmanageable, with running battles on the St. Lawrence involving automatic weapons between police and smugglers as well as between different groups of smugglers. It was becoming very risky to boat on that part of the river, and since that area is also a major tourist area, the decision was made to kill the smugglers by rendering the activity unprofitable instead of through interdiction; the lesson of prohibition (where we were the country doing the supplying) was well learned and not forgotten by law enforcement as well as by government. After that happened, in the US the states won their suit against the tobacco companies (ISTR 300 G$ being the amount won) on the basis of medical expenses or some such, which resulted in the price of smokes skyrocketing as the industry had to hit consumers to pay the legal bill at the same time that these states started charging more taxes on cigarettes to ostensibly cover the increased medical costs that smoking incurs on the part of medical consumers. Since then, Ontario and Quebec have gradually increased the prices over the course of the last four or five years to a point where they brought the price up into the range of that being charged on the other side of the border. There's more history to it than that, of course; the era of hard core smoke smuggling across The River near Cornhole is as colourful as any other smuggling story (like prohibition, for example). But the economics of it are basically as above. Right now, smokes cost marginally more in Watertown than they do in Kingston (though perhaps the recent tanking of the US dollar will have changed that). There is no impetus to smuggle across the border anymore. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #245,023 by ben_tilly 2/16/06 5:05:46 PM Reply	Good to know. My impression was out of date. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #244,749 by admin 2/15/06 5:03:03 PM Reply	The restaurant was always busy before the ban. My uncle had a book with a mathematical "proof" that you could always get one more person in a full hotel by moving everyone around. There are no conclusions to be drawn from this particular instance. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,718 by boxley 2/15/06 4:10:17 PM Reply	funny I dont even see a listing for that here [link\|http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/11029-2.asp\|http://www.emedicine...icles/11029-2.asp] thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #244,727 by admin 2/15/06 4:21:06 PM Reply	... "Cigarette smoking or other tobacco use, including cigars and chewing tobacco" Are you just trying to be funny or something? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,734 by boxley 2/15/06 4:36:24 PM Reply	doesnt mention second hand anything and 60% isnt listed anywhere thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #244,739 by admin 2/15/06 4:47:56 PM 2/15/06 4:50:54 PM Reply	Oh, right, because smoke magically only affects the smoker. [link\|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/980\|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/980] - "A substantial body of epidemiological and laboratory data indicates that, unlike the case with lung cancer, the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day." (emphasis mine) And the original study: [link\|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/977\|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/977] The [link\|http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557\|mechanism]: The mechanism for this effect is likely to be that the inhaled smoke stimulates the immediate production of macrophages - white blood cells that "clean up the system". But these break down and lead to the production of blood clotting agents. "So if someone is teetering on the brink of a heart attack, this clotting is likely to tip them over," says West. And sorry, it was 40%, not 60%. Same diff. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:36 PM EST Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:54 PM EST Expand All History
Post #244,743 by drewk 2/15/06 4:58:07 PM Reply	That's new to me I never heard that before. So basically the smoke was the last straw. Hmm, is it fair to say that the smoke is the "cause" of a heart attack when the person had to be already "teetering on the brink"? Trigger, yes. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,747 by admin 2/15/06 5:01:47 PM Reply	Re: That's new to me So if there was someone with a deadly peanut allergy, and someone else aerosolized some peanuts and sprayed them, causing anaphylactic shock, was the spray the cause of the death, or just the trigger? In other words, if the person is not dead without the extra little bit, they're still not dead no matter how close they are to the brink or not. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,752 by drewk 2/15/06 5:09:40 PM Reply	Not at all the same In your scenario the peanut was the only factor. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,757 by admin 2/15/06 5:14:52 PM Reply	Uh, no. Both situations have a pre-existing medical condition and an external exacerbation. Are you in sophist mode or something today? This is getting tiresome. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,764 by drewk 2/15/06 5:23:49 PM Reply	I'm the sophist? Someone with a peanut allergy is exposed to peanut. Peanut was the only factor. Someone with fatty deposits on their arteries is exposed to smoke. Multiple factors. One was the trigger, one was the underlying condition. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,769 by admin 2/15/06 5:32:25 PM Reply	Re: I'm the sophist? Peanut allergy is to fatty deposits as peanut is to smoke. wtfever, Drew. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,845 by Ashton 2/15/06 10:04:11 PM Reply	Ah.. It's-Good-for-You -- is Enough: OK, suppose we PROVED the proposition that ~ Organized Religion is/has been the catalyst for virtually every major war in history. (Let us say that the Boolean is done meticulously, arrayed about the Root proposition, common to all Major\ufffd 'Religions': Our God is the ONLY Real-God - ergo if you aren't with US - you WILL go to {etc. etc.} Let us suppose further, that there is so little %chance that these organizations DO NOT seduce their membership into such an inherently bellicose mindset towards Others - - - that causality is deemed to be established, (at least as inerrantly? as in the extrapolations from? '?measured?' effects of second-hand smoke inhalation, as of 2/'06.) What're the odds on the first church-closing? (Or especially, after the blood & guts are cleaned up: on the second??) Poor George Boole - he actually thought that his cute, ever-so-mechanically productive little algebra: applied to human discourse, too! and would eliminate all that Reasoning stuff, argument and thrashing.. Why .. a machine could finally end the necessity for Compromise! - (why, it all reduces to a 1 or a 0, after all the factoring-out.) er, cha :-\ufffd cha

Welcome to IWETHEY!