Quit harassing smokers

  • Follow Letters

Again, Augusta commissioners have been tasked with the decision to ban smoking in bars and, once again, I feel compelled to act.

Bar patrons are adults, and as adults can make up their own minds whether they will patronize a smoking establishment. Again, I remind bar owners that if they wished to go nonsmoking, they can do so at anytime – without an ordinance. It is not necessary to hide behind an ordinance and blame the government for losing business.

As far as workers’ “rights,” there are more nonsmoking establishments than smoking. A bartender (and, by my personal experience, more bartenders smoke than not) has the opportunity to find employment at a nonsmoking establishment. Leave it up to the free market.

At best, require smoking establishments to post a sign – that I will provide free of charge – announcing that they allow smoking in their establishments. There are more important issues in this county than smoking at a privately owned business.

Amy Lewis

Augusta

Comments (62) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
oldredneckman96
5115
Points
oldredneckman96 10/28/13 - 04:52 am
4
14
Amy Lewis misses the point on
Unpublished

Amy Lewis misses the point on smoking in public. Just what part of “Public” she does not understand I do not know. Any property owned by we voters; sidewalks, parks, libraries, buildings owned by any public agency and so, is public property. Any one that takes out a business license for any kind of business is opening the business to the public and does not have the same rights as a private home owner in their home.
Now there are certain rules we all follow to be in public and be a citizen and not a criminal and smokers have ignored these rules too long. Example; everyone has certain body functions we must do but, we go to certain places to do these things. It is written into our Constitution that we have a right to bear arms; again, we have places where we can use them and certainly not in public. We have licensed drivers to drive cars from one end of this country to the other, there are rules that make this possible and let people live. Let people drive anywhere and anyhow and we would not have cars very much longer.
If a person with a disease such as TB had an infectious case, that person would not be allowed in public to protect the health of the public. Under what distorted reasoning should we allow a person to spray a known poison in public? If smoking had never been introduced to us by the Native Americans (revenge, I truly believe) and someone just now tried to introduce it, I would hope that person would be jailed.

ymnbde
10758
Points
ymnbde 10/28/13 - 06:21 am
7
9
next we could ban the most successful parasite

in biological history-
cats
many people are allergic to cats
cats ruin flower beds
they kill small furry mammals
we spend way too much money on their food
and litter
and if even one person is spared an inconvenience
by their banishment
it will all be worth it

burninater
9948
Points
burninater 10/28/13 - 07:04 am
5
8
Ymndbe, get back to us when

Ymndbe, get back to us when data show that lung cancer rates increase by simply sitting in the same room as a cat.

gaflyboy
5365
Points
gaflyboy 10/28/13 - 07:32 am
9
4
Responses:

Amy- Good letter

oldredneckman96 10/28/13- 05:52 am- Talk about missing the point! Since when does "public" = government intrusion?

ymnbde 10/28/13 - 07:21 am- Good analogy

burninater 10/28/13 - 08:04 am- Unlike the cat, if you leave that room, the bar will not follow you.

deestafford
32291
Points
deestafford 10/28/13 - 07:36 am
9
4
The letter writer is right on target.

The owner of an establishment puts his capital at risk on opening up a business that he believes enough of the public wants that he can make a profit. If enough people don't support him he will go out of business. If enough support him he will make a profit. Let him and his customers decide where they want to spend their money. It's called freedom of choice.

Bizkit
35764
Points
Bizkit 10/28/13 - 08:06 am
8
2
Cigarette smoke produces ten

Cigarette smoke produces ten times more pollution than the exhaust from a car. But the big difference is there are way more than ten times more cars than smokers. Ban cars and no one can run a car within 20 ft of a building and second hand car exhaust from those who don't drive is a major problem. Just kiddin'.
But tobacco is really bad and a leading cause of deaths-followed by alcohol . So for safety purposes we should regulate the amount all alcohol personal alcohol consumption. It is a means to prevent violence too according to WHO. Now there are a lot of drinkers, like smokers, but your personal choices are killing others , just like tobacco, and we can't tolerate it anymore. Ban tobacco and alcohol use would be the ultimate. Then change peoples diets because obesity is the next killer, then alter peoples sexual activity because STD are at a epidemic and now antibiotic resistance. If we can manipulate smokers, then drinkers, eaters, and sex is next because of all the health risks associated with each. The CDC addresses the health issues of each and suggestions to change current habits.

burninater
9948
Points
burninater 10/28/13 - 08:28 am
8
6
"Unlike the cat, if you leave

"Unlike the cat, if you leave that room, the bar will not follow you."
------
Actually, the second-hand carcinogens in your lungs DO leave with you.

When I was a smoker, it was my right to expose myself to the risk, but it was never my right to expose others to that risk.

Bizkit
35764
Points
Bizkit 10/28/13 - 08:55 am
4
1
Most statistics look at the

Most statistics look at the overall risk of lung cancer, combining both people who smoke and those who have never smoked. Based on United States statistics, the lifetime risk that an individual (men and women combined) will develop lung cancer is 6.9%, or 1 in 13 people. People who smoke have a ten fold higher risk of developing cancer compared to non-smokers.
Lets be clear smoking does not cause cancer-it increases the risk of developing cancer-the reason is we don't understand fully what cause cancer. Now we find cardiovascular disease may have nothing to do with previously known risk factors and it all maybe associated with gut flora. Funny too nicotine has medical uses and there is the "Smokers Paradox" where ulcerative colitis, Kaposi' sarcoma, breast cancer, uterine fibroids all are reduced risks by smoking.

aintryt
189
Points
aintryt 10/28/13 - 09:00 am
12
2
When did society want their cake and other's cake too?

If one enters a bar that is known to be a smoking establishment instead of going to a bar that doesn't allow smoking, then one is putting their own health at risk - not the smokers.

Kind of like getting mad at a restaurant for cooking seafood on the hibachi when one is allergic to shellfish, even though it is posted that they do so.

dichotomy
37662
Points
dichotomy 10/28/13 - 09:32 am
11
3
oldredneckman........"Under

oldredneckman........"Under what distorted reasoning should we allow a person to spray a known poison in public?"

I would say the same reasoning that we allow cars to spew poisons, and factory smoke stacks, and how about tattoo parlors spreading hepatitis, or fast food joints spreading heart disease and obesity.

Oh, you say you don't have to get a tattoo or eat 10 Whoppers, a pizza, and a couple of ice cream cones every day. And I guess you could wear gas mask to avoid the auto and smoke stacks emissions. Well.....you don't have to go into a bar that allows smoking either. It's an old concept called FREEDOM OF CHOICE for both the BUSINESS OWNER'S AND THE PATRONS. If it is happening inside a bar it does not expose the "public" unless the public is stupid enough to go inside.

If you don't like smoke then DON'T GO INTO A BAR THAT ALLOWS SMOKING.

If a bar owner want's to be non-smoking, they are completely within their rights. That should be enough. They have the right to hang a No Smoking sign at the door and YOU, oldredneckman, should frequent their establishment. If there was a strong demand for no smoking bars they would be popping up everywhere.

And while we are at it, E-cigarettes should be legalized EVERYWHERE including government buildings, restaurants, and courtrooms since they contain no carcinogens, any nicotine is immediately absorbed by the smoker, and only water vapor is exhaled.

And oh yeh, this winter don't any of you carcinogen freaks build a fire in your fireplace. You are polluting EVERYONE'S air with terrible amounts of carcinogens and irritants. Any cries for the Augusta commission to outlaw fireplaces in Richmond County? When will you CRUSADERS take up MY CAUSE? WHERE DOES THE BOARD OF HEALTH STAND ON THIS VITAL ISSUE? I have no choice but to breath the air out in "public". All fireplace users are violating MY RIGHTS and HARMING MY HEALTH. What say you BOARD OF HEALTH?????????

daphne3520
953
Points
daphne3520 10/28/13 - 09:46 am
0
0
Little Lamb
49260
Points
Little Lamb 10/28/13 - 10:01 am
8
3
Exposure

Burninater posted:

When I was a smoker, it was my right to expose myself to the risk, but it was never my right to expose others to that risk.

Actually, you did not expose others to your secondhand smoke. Others exposed themselves to it.

Bizkit
35764
Points
Bizkit 10/28/13 - 10:16 am
3
1
Hey this could be a legal

Hey this could be a legal defense in bar brawl murder. Your honor the gentleman was smoking and assaulting my life so I decided to "stand my ground" and plug em full of holes before he killed someone else. LOL.

Bizkit
35764
Points
Bizkit 10/28/13 - 10:38 am
4
0
Not knockin' science-I love

Not knockin' science-I love it. But some folks put too much emphasis on it to the point of scientism. Science doesn't address what to do with discoveries-like nuclear energy-make plant or bombs, then moral issues or aesthetic arts and music aren't in the realm of science-nor obviously "supernatural" phenomena associated with spirituality (you can study religiosity). Science isn't about "truth" but about a systematic process to methodically study and understand our universe and further organize that "scientific" knowledge of explanations. Science is a latin derivative of the word "knowledge" but that doesn't mean they are synonymous-there are different kinds of knowledge -not just scientific. Science can't tell us what to do with information. I know the risks of a parachute not opening are small but that is risk I don't care to take. Alcohol consumption associates with increased risk of cancer just like smoking. Head and neck cancer, esophageal cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer are all linked to alcohol consumption and alcohol increases your risks. CDC says smoking and alcohol "cause" these cancers-I guess because laypeople won't understand increased risks as a real threat. Ban alcohol and tobacco if you are going to be effective as a health measure. W When you consume both together your risks of head and neck and esophageal sky-rocket.

johndavidson
107
Points
johndavidson 10/28/13 - 10:37 am
6
1
Under what distorted
Unpublished

Under what distorted reasoning should we allow a person to spray a known poison in public?

Your for allowing Cars to pose the same so called threat to exist but deny smokers the same right to exist.

First and foremost there is no risk to anyone exposed to tobacco smoke at all. Lets take a short trip to the chemical make up of tobacco smoke you claim to be a threat to the public;

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Now I simply have to ask do you understand DOSE RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS!

Its the first lesson of toxicology. Everything is a poison or a carcinogen in MEGA-DOSES even oxygen!

I dug deeper and found that OSHA wouldn't even make a rule on TOBACCO SMOKE!

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA

So in summation I just have to ask wheres the proof after 600 years of smoking that it causes anything in anyone........You see there is NO PROOF anywhere that smoking causes anything in anyone!

Unless your so called proof is STATISTICAL MANIPULATIONS OF DATA SETS!

ymnbde
10758
Points
ymnbde 10/28/13 - 10:50 am
6
0
just spend an afternoon at metro

looking out the window at the bar next door
their employees go outside to smoke
in the cold wind and rain
that isn't healthy...
or just look at any restaurant or bar back door
the employees are going outside to smoke
in the cold wind and rain
the cat analogy was only partially in jest
i couldn't go to Joe's Underground for a long time
because it was so smoky
but i tried recently and it had cleared up
it should be up to the bar owner whether he allows smoking or not
or provides accommodations for smokers
because sooner or later, they will come for the cats
even the cool ones

Young Fred
21146
Points
Young Fred 10/28/13 - 11:21 am
7
0
I love a smoky bar

I love a smoky bar. A smoky jazz bar. A smoky jazz bar with a sultry, slinky jazz singing lady, with a smoky, smoking hot jazz voice.

Dichotomy, nailed it short and sweet – “It's an old concept called FREEDOM OF CHOICE”. Doesn’t matter if you don’t like smoking. Doesn’t matter if you think it’s harmful. Doesn’t matter how many dunderheads keep chasing their tails in circles trying to justify denying others of their freedom of choice.

Red Headed Step Child
4496
Points
Red Headed Step Child 10/28/13 - 11:55 am
4
0
Cats?

The only way that I would ever let go of my cat would be if you came over here now... and tried to pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers. Okay? If you can get it from my kung fu grip, then you can have it. Okay? Otherwise, step off.....

Couldn't resist using that line from Meet the Parents! I love my cats!

But back on topic - as a lifelong non-smoker who has lived with life-long smokers, yeah - it sucks when you don't have a choice (as when I was a kid on long roadtrips with smoking parents who would barely crack the window to give us fresh air) But to the author's point, I can choose what environment I want to be around. If I know an establishment allows smoking, and I can't tolerate being around smoke, then guess what? I don't go there!

Smokers with children should think of their kid's health - and hopefully they don't expose their children in the same fashion my parents did back in the day.. My spouse is a smoker, and has been banished to the back yard to smoke - away from the kids and those of us who don't like smoke. We manage to live peacefully with this arrangement...

johndavidson
107
Points
johndavidson 10/28/13 - 12:01 pm
4
1
Smokers with children should
Unpublished

Smokers with children should think of their kid's health - and hopefully they don't expose their children in the same fashion my parents did back in the day.. My spouse is a smoker, and has been banished to the back yard to smoke - away from the kids and those of us who don't like smoke.

So you would expose your spouse to the elements rather than keep her safe and warm or cool in the air conditioning. Against a pet peave you have about smoking..........Lord how did you ever stayed married!

As far as smoking and children you survived it right,just like everyone else did.

Second hand smoke actually helps ward off ASTHMA in children and other ATOPIC disorders as well as in smokers themselves!

Red Headed Step Child
4496
Points
Red Headed Step Child 10/28/13 - 12:27 pm
6
0
@johndavidson

Yep. Going outside was actually his idea - his self imposed "banishment". Go figure - a smoker being courteous to non-smokers!

Yeah - I lived through it. With headaches, nausea, etc. whenever I was around smoke. My children? Yep - same thing. I appreciate my husband exposing himself to the elements to spare us from feeling ill due to being around cigarette smoke. Like I said - it was HIS choice. I didn't have to ask him to do it - he cared enough about us to make that choice.

I don't have a pet peeve against smoking - quite the opposite. I support smokers having the right to smoke in public - after all, as it's been said - I have a choice on where I go.

johndavidson
107
Points
johndavidson 10/28/13 - 12:35 pm
4
0
My spouse is a smoker, and
Unpublished

My spouse is a smoker, and has been { banished } to the back yard to smoke

Like I said - it was HIS choice

Really!

With headaches, nausea, etc. whenever I was around smoke. My children? Yep - same thing

Quite do you suffer other delusions to say Fireplace smoke, Grill smoke, car exhaust by living near a street or riding a bike in traffic. Perhaps you don't even cook at home for fear of smoke in the house from cooking.

Fireworks smoke on the 4th of July!

Fear has a way of taking non-issues and turning them into nausea and other emotionally charged health conditions. IE panic disorders,Somatization complexes. Id seek help.

Red Headed Step Child
4496
Points
Red Headed Step Child 10/28/13 - 05:11 pm
2
0
Asthma

As for your posit on second hand smoke helping to ward off asthma, I can't seem to find any documentation to back up that claim. Curiously, everyone that I've ever known with asthma have reacted adversely to cigarette smoke.

Do you have any links to the research that supports your comment?

johndavidson
107
Points
johndavidson 10/28/13 - 12:40 pm
2
0
studies of children of
Unpublished

studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S00...(07)01954-9/abstract

.
This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14
http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm

johndavidson
107
Points
johndavidson 10/28/13 - 12:41 pm
2
0
2008 this paper was produced
Unpublished

2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/a...
...

Red Headed Step Child
4496
Points
Red Headed Step Child 10/28/13 - 12:41 pm
3
2
@johndavidson

Wow. Looks like you need to fire one up and chill out! Might help that persecution complex you seem to be sporting...

johndavidson
107
Points
johndavidson 10/28/13 - 12:46 pm
2
0
Nope
Unpublished

Nope

Red Headed Step Child
4496
Points
Red Headed Step Child 10/28/13 - 12:56 pm
0
2
info

Thanks for the info...I'll be sure to look it over. After I seek therapy..for my apparent fear issues. :-)

corgimom
38782
Points
corgimom 10/28/13 - 03:15 pm
0
2
Hey johndavidson, did you

Hey johndavidson, did you mention that the study in the 2008 Journal of Immunology was conducted on BROWN NORWAY RATS, and not people?

Hey, did you just happen to skip over that little fact?

corgimom
38782
Points
corgimom 10/28/13 - 03:19 pm
2
1
"As far as smoking and

"As far as smoking and children you survived it right,just like everyone else did."

I barely survived, I am allergic to tobacco and tobacco smoke, and I nearly died from asthma attacks as a child. My parents had to stop smoking because of it, and hey- the asthma attacks stopped! Go figure!
johndavidson, if you want to smoke, go ahead. Smoke yourself silly. But go try and convince others that smoking is a good thing- because we all know it isn't.

Darby
29548
Points
Darby 10/28/13 - 03:28 pm
7
1
"next we could ban the most successful parasite

in biological history-"

.
Ok, if that's your opinion... on the other hand, I'm pretty certain that the "most successful parasite" would not be a cat, but rather your average and typical *Democrat voter.

*All of whom, buy the way, should take up chain smoking at an early age.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs