| Author |
Message |
    
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:21 pm: |     |
No one has been able to list one other GRADE A carcinogen that is permitted in the eneral space of restaurants.
the reason we all keep ignoring this is because it is a silly question, not meant to advance the debate, and outside the true point of this debate. this debate is not about smoking but about the parameters of the actual bill, its scope, and whether it is a restriction of freedom.
|
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 660
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:25 pm: | |
Libertarian,
You'll be happy to know that the IARC classifies alcoholic beverages as Group 1 Carcinogens.
I believe those are legal at Bunny's. |
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 384
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:38 pm: | |
Known carcinogens in cigarette smoke:
4-Aminobiphenyl, Benzene, Cadmium, Chromium, 2-Naphthylamine, Nickel, Polonium-210 (Radon), Vinyl Chloride, Acrylonitrile, Benzo[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, 1,3-Butadiene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, Formaldehyde, N-Nitrosodiethylamine, N-Nitrosodimethylamine, Acetaldehyde, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Benzo[j]fluoranthene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Dibenz[a,h]acridine, Dibenz[a,j]acridine, 7H-Dibenz[c,g]carbazole, Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene, Dibenzo(a,I)pyrene, 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine, Hydrazine, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, Lead, 5-Methylchrysene, NNK 2-Nitropropane, N-Nitrosodiethanolamine, N-Nitrosomethylethylamine, N-Nitrosomorpholine, N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN), N-Nitrosopyrrolidine, Quinolineiv, ortho-Toluidine, Urethane (Ethyl Carbamate), Chrysene, Crotonaldehyde, N'-Nitrosoanabasine (NAB) N'-Nitrosoanatabine (NAT)
Please note that these are airborne contaminants. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:43 pm: | |
the IARC classifies alcoholic beverages as Group 1 Carcinogens.
keep fighting the fight though. its cute. |
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 385
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:49 pm: | |
I'm talking Groups A - "Group A" carcinogens are the most toxic substances known to cause cancer in humans, also including benzene, radon, and asbestos.
I think Group A is different than group 1.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11894
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:53 pm: | |
I think Jamie's question is pertinent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you give smoking a pass because the smoker gets some benefit from smoking. (And he does.) But if I were to dump a keg of benzene on the bar, you'd call the cops on me because of the dangerous fumes I'm releasing. The difference is that I don't satisfy my (hypothetical) nicotine addiction by dumping the benzene.
And that's a bad distinction. I shouldn't have the liberty to dump toxins whether or not doing so gives me the jollies.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 918
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:21 pm: | |
Dr. Winston,
Suspect classes are able to assert that their challenges to a particular law are subject to strict scrutiny. I.e., The State has to justify that the claimed infringement is necessary.
In certain circumstances, persons are entitled to assert that their challenge warrants some heightened "intermediate" level of scrutiny. A somewhat vague and amorphous standard which, to the best of my understanding, is basically a balancing act between the impact of the claimed infringement, and the State's interests in imposing the claimed infringement.
In the typical run of the mill challenge to a law, the citizen is left with the option of arguing that the impact of the law is not rationally related to the State's interest. Admittedly a tough road given the Courts' deference to a State's own definition of what is a legitimate State interest.
Fourteen is not limited in its application to the groups you identified.
It applies to all persons within a State's jurisdiction. It says so. The smart guys wrote it down.
An employee union, or an employee, might prevail on the equal protection argument, or they might not. I dunno.
The argument exists, is not specious, and could prevail.
BTW, What has the restaurant lobby got to do with what we've been dicussing?
As I intimated earlier, I won't discuss the options available to restaurant owners on a public message board.
TomR |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:26 pm: | |
I think Jamie's question is pertinent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you give smoking a pass because the smoker gets some benefit from smoking. (And he does.) But if I were to dump a keg of benzene on the bar, you'd call the cops on me because of the dangerous fumes I'm releasing. The difference is that I don't satisfy my (hypothetical) nicotine addiction by dumping the benzene.
And that's a bad distinction. I shouldn't have the liberty to dump toxins whether or not doing so gives me the jollies.
read back a couple of pages. this debate isnt really about the dangers of cigarette smoke. hasnt been for a while. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11899
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:44 pm: | |
I realize it's about liberty and whether you can limit some without limiting others.
And what those of us who favor the ban are saying is that you should not have liberties that impinge on other people's liberties. We feel that smoking in a public accomodation impinges on the liberties of those who want to stay away from smoke. We feel that being told to find a smoke-free accomodation is too much. We believe that just as we have raised the standards of reasonable expectations have changed over the generations, this is yet another change. Now smoke-free is one of the standards people should adhere to in public.
I'm not ignoring the issues of liberty. I am arguing them. I think your disagreement with me somehow prevents you from noticing that I am talking about liberties. It's all I've been talking about in this thread.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 3:56 pm: | |
TomR,
the chances of casino employees being designated a suspect class are so close to nil that the equal protection argument in this instance is ludicrous. it trivializes the efforts to end real discrimination. |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 661
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 4:40 pm: | |
Tom Reingold,
Libertarian isn't interested in discussing autonomy or personal liberty.
Libertarian drones on with the same tired refrain, "Blah blah...the government is restricting...yada yada...personal freedom...propogandized [sic] masses..."
Yawn.
Jamie, you, Dr. Winston, TomR, and a host of supporting characters have provided solid scientific and moral examples to refute Libertarian's mewling refrain.
Libertarian dismisses every argument as baseless, yet he fails to support his position with any solid evidence or even logical opinion.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1280
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:00 pm: | |
Libertarian isn't interested in discussing autonomy or personal liberty.
Libertarian drones on with the same tired refrain, "Blah blah...the government is restricting...yada yada...personal freedom...propogandized [sic] masses..."
Yawn.
some very intelligent and constructive input. you have advanced your argument greatly.
Libertarian dismisses every argument as baseless, yet he fails to support his position with any solid evidence or even logical opinion.
ah! blessed irony, all in one post. life is good. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6896
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:01 pm: | |
TomR:
I don't think your analogy really applies here. Rather, lets take the example of a person who is rowing the only available life raft during a flood. He has room in his raft to save some of those drowning around him but not everyone because the raft is so small. If he decides it is better to go back and build a large enough raft before trying to save anyone, everyone else is likely to drown. Shouldn't he try to save whomever he can? |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 662
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:21 pm: | |
Libertarian,
"some very intelligent and constructive input. you have advanced your argument greatly."
Sarcasm!
Your flop sweat is showing.
Tell us again about "this sort of leggislating [sic]" |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 919
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:32 pm: | |
Casey,
You keep trying to move the target.
I decline to follow.
You're either trying to bait me; you are unable to follow a line of thought; or I have totally misunderstood your point, and you have declined to elucidate.
In any event, I decline the offer of further engagement.
Do good, fare well.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 920
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:33 pm: | |
Joan,
Trenton is not rowing about in its raft trying to save those which they can.
Trenton is designing the rescue raft.
I only ask that Trenton not decide upon a design for the raft which doesn't allow some people the opportunity to get in the raft.
Also, please see above for my apology regarding my crude and rude anecdote. It was ill considered, and I again apologize.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 921
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:34 pm: | |
aquaman,
Thank you.
TomR |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 663
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:56 pm: | |
Tomr,
You're welcome, your contributions to this topic have been reasoned and intelligent.
The old saw about dickering about the price?
I didn't get how it pertained to the discussion, but it was very old-school, "toastmasters" and I like a little chuckle before the main course.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 6:09 pm: | |
aquaman,
resorting to comments about typing errors? you are truly a champion debator. |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 664
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 7:01 pm: | |
It's not about typing errors Libertarian.
Not only do you not support your arguments with fact, you go beyond typing errors.
"they clap there hands gleefully like a small kid getting a cookie."
Syntax aside, "their" is an adjective, the possesive form of 'they".
"There" is an adverb, often used as an intensifier.
I think you confused your "theirs" with your "theres"
Look up singular verbs, compound subjects, and conjunctions and we can go mano a mano on another thread.
Oh! And I'll meet you with spell-check tied behind my back.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6897
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 7:08 pm: | |
Tomr:
No need to apologise. I understand the point you were trying to make. I think the two of us have a somewhat different view of what is happening here but I also think we ultimately would like to see the same result. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 7:10 pm: | |
It's not about typing errors Libertarian.
Not only do you not support your arguments with fact, you go beyond typing errors.
"they clap there hands gleefully like a small kid getting a cookie."
Syntax aside, "their" is an adjective, the possesive form of 'they".
"There" is an adverb, often used as an intensifier.
I think you confused your "theirs" with your "theres"
Look up singular verbs, compound subjects, and conjunctions and we can go mano a mano on another thread.
Oh! And I'll meet you with spell-check tied behind my back
i think faster than i type, things can get a little jumbled. i always mix words up when i speak cause i am already thinking about the next sentence while i am speaking. it can end with hilarious results.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 7:40 pm: | |
TomR,
I'm not moving the target. I think we're posting across each other. I keep referencing the restaurant lobby because they, not the casino workers, initiated the idea of an "equal protection" lawsuit.
either way, I don't believe anyone has put forth a credible rationale for such a case, and I don't see any precedent for it.
maybe we just need to agree to disagree. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 922
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 12:08 am: | |
Joan,
I believe we want very different results.
Whatever the result, I'd like to see the rules of the game observed.
TomR |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 1:44 am: | |
Why not work to have cigarettes made illegal, rather than a smoking ban? As much as I hate smoke, and on a visceral level think it should be banned everywhere, cigarettes are a legal product. That is what should be changed, IMNSHO. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:00 am: | |
regulation of legal products is perfectly appropriate. I can smoke a cigarette on the sidewalk in town, but I can't drink a beer. just as I can't drive my car in certain parts of the reservation. not to mention that legal adults age 18-20 can't purchase alcohol. as I've been saying, not one person has advanced a rational reason that has any legal chance of success at overturning this ban. all of the arguments boil down to essentially "I don't like it." and that isn't going to cut it in court. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10245
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:59 am: | |
Rqastro, ever hear of prohibition? Abramoff can find a new career as the next Al Capone. 
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:33 am: | |
Bob K, I have. But while you can make a ton of moonshine in a backyard still, I think it would be tougher to hide a few acres of contraband tobacco. Marijuana used to be legal. Somehow that was made illegal successfully. Besides, the rationale for banning alcohol was very different from the rationale for banning smoking products.
As for regulating a legal product, the only place this product is safe and non-imposing for nonusers (when used properly), is when the user is alone in their home.
Dr. W, actually, TomR has offered a very valid reason for this ban to be overturned. it does not provide equal protection under the law for casino workers. While I don't agree with The Lib's position on this, TomR has, IMHO, a valid, rational reason why this law could be considered unconstitutional.
Don't get me wrong. I know that realistically, cigarettes and other smoking material will no be banned outright. There is too much money in both Washington and within our economy that depends on the industry. But that doesn't make it better to go for these kinds of bans, rather than an overall ban. |
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 388
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 1:48 pm: | |
City by City - State by State - here's one of the latest:
St. Paul (MN) Enacts Smokefree Workplace Law
Mayor Coleman carries out campaign pledge by signing bill into law
St. Paul (MN) Councilman Dave Thune knows about tobacco addiction. He's been trying to quit smoking (unsuccessfully) for 30 years. But for the last two years, Thune has been a major supporter of St. Paul's smokefree workplace proposal.
Last year, Thune succeeded in getting enough votes to pass St. Paul's smokefree workplace proposal, but St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly vetoed it. In November, Kelly was voted out of office, partly due to his opposition of clean indoor air. In the meantime, twin-city Minneapolis overwhelmingly enacted a similar law.
Yesterday, Thune's constant battle for clean indoor air paid off. New Mayor Chris Coleman, who ran on the promise of supporting clean indoor air, carried out his campaign pledge. “Today, I will sign into law an ordinance that will strengthen protections for the health of workers and patrons. We know that secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and a leading cause of heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease and infant death. It would be wrong for us to stand back and do nothing.”
“It is very important to recognize Councilmember Dave Thune and his peers on the City Council for their leadership on this issue. Their efforts, especially Dave’s stewardship of this effort, have made the difference in passing this landmark ordinance that will protect the health of Saint Paul hospitality workers and level the playing field for all bars and restaurants across the city."
“Now that we have made this decision to move forward as a community, it will be my focus to do everything in my power to work with the business community to ensure a smooth transition to a smokefree Saint Paul. Now that the two largest cities in Minnesota join thousands of cities across the country with similar smokefree ordinances, I will work to urge the state legislature to take the next step and pass a statewide law.”
For Thune, it's one battle down, one battle left to go. "Not a bad day," said Thune, as about 30 supporters gave him a standing ovation at a celebration at Dixie's on Grand after the vote.
Saint Paul joins other cities such as Minneapolis, Boston, New York, Dallas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles in passing smokefree workplace legislation. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 1:56 pm: | |
Rastro,
I never said the equal protection argument wasn't rational. it's rational, but it's wrong. there is about as much chance of snow in Miami in July as there is that this ban is going to be overturned on 14th amendment grounds. if anyone has precedents to cite that prove me wrong, I'd be very happy to post that I've been wrong and TomR was right.
but I have one precedent I'd like to share that illustrates how hard it is for the plaintiff to win such a case:
Quote:To cite the classic example, in Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., the Court upheld a law granting optometrists but not opticians the right to replace eyeglass lenses, even though opticians were perfectly capable of doing so. Still, the Court upheld the law because it believed a non-insane legislature might have believed that overall, the more highly-trained optometrists might perform this simple function better.
"Suspect" classifications were those that discriminated against "discrete and insular minorities" - including racial minorities. (The minorities had to be "discrete" and "insular" for special protection to be justified; otherwise, the idea was, they could fight for their rights in the legislatures like everyone else.)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20030626.html
In this instance, I am sure the state will argue that the legislature considered casinos a different type of business that would be impacted more negatively by a smoking ban. I think that rationale is wrong, but at least it is a rationale. and that should be sufficient to explain why the casinos were exempted. (even though we all know the real reason was their clout in Trenton) |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 924
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:23 pm: | |
Rastro,
Thanks. I'm glad to know I haven't been whistling in the wind.
But as you see, a poster brings up the potential claims of employees, and gets a response relating to business and/or suspect classes.
Thanks again anyway.
TomR |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1678
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:54 pm: | |
Not sure why everyone is getting in a twist over this. Sure, I want a blanket ban, but selective restrictions have always been part of the law -- particularly when it comes to regulating tobacco. States have long dictated which types of businesses are allowed to sell cigarettes, and which aren't. (Thus, the ban on sales at certain types of businesses doesn't apply to every type of business.) Ditto on alcohol. Many locales don't allow the sale of alcohol within a certain number of feet of a school. Well, why not also near parks? Or churches? Or movie theaters?
Banning smoking in NJ restaurants is a good thing, that over the long run will save the state a tremendous amount of money. There should of course be a ban in casinos, too, and in due time there no doubt will be.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 925
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:07 pm: | |
Which types of businessses are allowed to sell cigarettes?
TomR |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 3596
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:46 pm: | |
I didn't think the smoking ban included where cigarettes are sold. I only thought is was where they can be smoked. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:02 pm: | |
Banning smoking in NJ restaurants is a good thing, that over the long run will save the state a tremendous amount of money.
please show the data to support this claim
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 926
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:43 pm: | |
JTA,
You're yanking our chain, aren't you?
TomR |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 9:25 pm: | |
TomR,
please explain how you think an equal protection lawsuit would proceed, and how I haven't addressed it.
since you're the one saying it makes sense, I'd like to know how you think it does, and on what possible grounds it could be successful.
I don't get why you think my mention of the businesses that are being regulated isn't relevant. of course it is the law applies to businesses, in order to (the lawmakers claim) protect employees. so any lawsuit would necessarily lead to the state explaining its rationale for exempting certain businesses.
I'm at the point of thinking that you continue to say I'm not addressing your point not because I haven't (because I have), but because you don't have a response of your own.
so how 'bout it? why do you think an equal protection lawsuit would have a prayer? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 929
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:07 pm: | |
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3127&post=520767#POST5207 67 |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:11 pm: | |
Turns out that whatever economic benefit comes from a lifetime of purchasing cigarettes can't begin to approach the health-care costs of treating diseases that come from smoking.
Though, as a libertarian, I assume you don't participate in public insurance plans. Personal choices, personal responsibility... right? You shouldn't be paying for anyone else's health care, and they certainly shouldn't be paying for yours.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:20 pm: | |
that is correct. i am privately insured. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:21 pm: | |
Turns out that whatever economic benefit comes from a lifetime of purchasing cigarettes can't begin to approach the health-care costs of treating diseases that come from smoking.
show your data please.
everyone knows that the economy would crash without tobacco money |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 930
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:32 pm: | |
Lib,
"everyone knows that the economy would crash without tobacco money
Show your data please.
TomR
It was too rich to pass up. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11940
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:22 pm: | |
I guess also that the economy would crumble if there were no vandalism. The people who rebuild stuff represent a big part of the GNP.
Let's go bomb the George Washington Bridge for the good for the economy.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 4:19 pm: | |
Lib,
"everyone knows that the economy would crash without tobacco money
Show your data please.
USDA report on U.S. agriculture: "Tobacco is one of the top ten U.S. cash crops"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Tobacco/Data/table22.pdf
Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:22 pm:
I guess also that the economy would crumble if there were no vandalism. The people who rebuild stuff represent a big part of the GNP.
Let's go bomb the George Washington Bridge for the good for the economy.
you are a silly silly man. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page