Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Smoking ban could be revised in May

April 2, 2014

NEW CUMBERLAND — Tuesday’s meeting of the Hancock County health board turned into a forum on the pros and cons of banning smoking in public places....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(10)

MichaelJMcFadden

Apr-05-14 6:00 PM

Apologies for the doubled posting and unusable URL. If you wish, you can see it at the CLASH site by Googling:

cumulative Jockel nycclash oxford

- MJM

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelJMcFadden

Apr-05-14 5:39 PM

Uncommon, you say diluted secondary smoke is a "PROVEN" cause of lung cancer. But if you go to tinyurl****/LCandETS you'll find a table with over 100 studies, virtually every study done on the subject between 1980 and 2000. Only about a dozen were able to find even a statistically significant correlation, much less anything provable causally. Some, most notably a very large UN one looking at exposure of children to parental smoking, actually found a "protective" effect: a significant reduction in risk of up to 22%.

Even if you DO accept the correlations as "causal fact" it's still silly to talk about it as an actual "risk" in ordinary life: on the average it would take 40,000 worker-years of constant exposure to produce a single lung cancer.

- MJM

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelJMcFadden

Apr-05-14 5:39 PM

Uncommon, you say diluted secondary smoke is a "PROVEN" cause of lung cancer. But if you go to tinyurl****/LCandETS you'll find a table with over 100 studies, virtually every study done on the subject between 1980 and 2000. Only about a dozen were able to find even a statistically significant correlation, much less anything provable causally. Some, most notably a very large UN one looking at exposure of children to parental smoking, actually found a "protective" effect: a significant reduction in risk of up to 22%.

Even if you DO accept the correlations as "causal fact" it's still silly to talk about it as an actual "risk" in ordinary life: on the average it would take 40,000 worker-years of constant exposure to produce a single lung cancer.

- MJM

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RealConcernefCitizen

Apr-05-14 11:59 AM

Yabaddo, no one us forced to work in a bar or smoking environment. Additionally as Michael noted, that law only requires proper ventilation, not a ban. Additionally, what is your reasoning for a ban at outside facilities, festivals, golf courses. You comment makes very little sense when addressing this socialist over reach. It's all bogus.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelJMcFadden

Apr-05-14 10:26 AM

Yabbaddo, employers are required to give their employees a safe and healthy environment under the rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. OSHA has noted that in any ordinary circumstances none of the chemicals in ETS even approach the unhealthy levels they've defined. In any situation with decent ventilation smokers are not generally affecting others' health and welfare.

Michael J. McFadden Author of "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame"

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yabbado

Apr-05-14 8:43 AM

"realconcerned" needs to understand that employees of these private establishments have the right to a safe and healthy work environment(as can be reasonably met) by federal mandate. Smokers' rights end when they adversely affect others health and welfare.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RealConcernefCitizen

Apr-02-14 10:08 PM

These are private establishments, the owner is the only one that should decide if he allows smoking. No one is forced to go there, and no business owner should have to change his business model simply because "you" want him to. If you don't put yourself into smoke filled environments, you WILL NOT GET CANCER. So don't go there.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

UNCOMMONSENSE

Apr-02-14 8:15 PM

Second hand smoke causes cancer!

PERIOD!

It's a PROVEN cause of lung cancer!

It doesn't matter if you inhale it at a casino or at the legion you will still die!

And if a patron would happen to suffer from lung cancer as a result, they certainly would sue the establishment that ALLOWED it to go on in the first place!

You have every right to kill YOURSELF by smoking but you have no right to expose ME to that risk!

Take it OUTSIDE or stay home!

And if you can't stop smoking for the less than one hour you are in a restaurant then you need help!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ForAllOurHealth

Apr-02-14 7:18 PM

There are more non-smokers than smokers. As a non-smoker I'd like to go out more but choose not to because the smoke stings my eyes, and leaves me smelling like an ashtray. I can't wait to spend my money locally! It's time Hancock joins the rest of the country in going smokefree.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Display1234

Apr-02-14 12:31 PM

Some non-smokers like myself would go to Mountaineer more often if we didn't have to leave the place with a sore throat and stinking like a smoker. Yet nobody mentions this! People won't stop attending casinos because they can't smoke. If they do they have a serious problem. The non-smoking Ohio casinos are doing fine.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: