SMOKING BAN---BARS and Legions NEED YOUR HELP!

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 am

Still, potential gigs.

I want to hear of ACTUAL cancellations

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:02 am

I believe Green Frog has actually cancelled entertainment w/ one exception, but I don't do the acoustic circuit so I couldn't confirm that with any degree of certainty.

sevesd93 · Post by **sevesd93** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:05 am

Oliver's Army wrote:Has anyone actually LOST a gig from the ban yet?

I mean, actually called by a club owner and told point blankly that the gig was cancelled because of the ban?

Anyone?

And not "potential gigs" either. Real, booked gigs.

Not lost, but we took a significant pay cut.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:12 am

from here... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326 ... 1,2,3,4,10

A small sample. Go read it yourself. Important points highlighted by me...

Paper
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2

1 School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA, 2 Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA

Correspondence to: J E Enstrom jenstrom@ucla.edu

Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.
Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:41 am

I havve to agree with Brad here.

The question is not actual loss of revenue;
the question is not cancellations related to the ban.
The question is not the unsubstantiated effects of second hand smoke.

The question is whether the government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE (That's you and me.) has overstepped its bounds in telling privately owned businesses, and veterans' clubs - people who fought for personal liberty, whether they can permit a still LEGAL activity within their own private establishments. No person is FORCED to go in these places, and no person is FORCED to work there. It is by free contract between free people.

The people in government are no smarter than you or me. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRY TO SAVE YOU FROM YOUR OWN STUPIDITY. That is not the purpose of good government.

conley · Post by **conley** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:30 am

I'm going to Role-play now:

Hi, my name's Ed and I used to own a factory. My factory was once very profitable - until the government stepped in. My working conditions weren't the greatest & I had several employees severely injured; but, it was their choice to work in my environment.....why should I be forced to provide a safe working environment for them? So what if the air was filled with asbestis? Why should I have to address this? So what if the machinery was occasionally malfunctioning and exploding......After all, my business was privately owned, the workers chose to work there & I should be able to do whatever I want to inside the walls of MY business.

As far as the whole environmental issue goes.......I was building frigg'n automotive parts, man. Automobiles pollute the environment too; so why should I give a sh*t about dumping my wastes into the rivers? The product I'm building pollutes just as bad as my factory does. Frigg'n government had no right to have done this.

Do you realize how much these environmental improvements affected my bottom line?

QUESTION(S): Was the government out of line by stepping into the private business sector in this example? Once hazardous health issues were recognized in the "private-manufacturing-community", did that make government intervention acceptable/ still unacceptable?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:34 am

QUESTION(S): Was the government out of line by stepping into the private business sector in this example? Once hazardous health issues were recognized in the "private-manufacturing-community", did that make government intervention acceptable/ still unacceptable?

No. and still unacceptable in most cases. Even at that you're talking about two entirely different things. In your example regarding dumping waste into rivers, the rivers are public property. The government (which is THE PEOPLE) have every right to demand companies not dump hazardous material into them. This is a privately owned business and all patrons are business invitees who are all well aware of the propoganda regarding 2nd hand smoke.

Al Quandt · Post by **Al Quandt** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:49 am

Oliver's Army wrote:Has anyone actually LOST a gig from the ban yet?

I mean, actually called by a club owner and told point blankly that the gig was cancelled because of the ban?

Anyone?

And not "potential gigs" either. Real, booked gigs.

We did, at the VIP. They said that the loss of business since the ban has made it so that they cannot afford to pay entertainment on said night anymore.

** Edited to be more clear ***

Al Quandt · Post by **Al Quandt** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:52 am

Jambrea wrote:
kimaliz wrote:
MrSpall wrote:So leave.
A lot of people do especially in my age group. Thier was a council meeting no to long ago about why we loose the 20 somethings to other cities/states.
I left, several times now.
BUT...you came back. As do a lot of others who leave thinking Fort Wayne is so bad.

I ONLY came back because my biz venture crumbled in Vegas and I came to where my family was to back on my feet. I was happy to be back, but now that I have been here a while and see the BS decisions that our city is making again. I am ready to go elsewhere even if just to new haven.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm

Possibly a smarter piece of legislation would be to
offer tax incentives for "going smokeless".

And let capitalism take it's course.

@ bassjones,... make that (eight) dicktators.
Joe D. voted against this I believe.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:53 pm

WBOB wrote:Possibly a smarter piece of legislation would be to
offer tax incentives for "going smokeless".

And let capitalism take it's course.

@ bassjones,... make that (eight) dicktators.
Joe D. voted against this I believe.

You're right, and he's the one Republican left that I would vote for. The rest of them are going bye-bye soon.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:53 pm

I have to say that Conley makes a great point, but if tobacco smoke is being outlawed as a benefit to the employees of the establishments, then no foundry will ever be open again. Smoke in these foundries (especially steel and/or aluminum ones) is more harmful--due to fluxing agents including chlorine and potash--than second hand tobacco smoke and the government has deemed it safe enough.

I agree that the government should be able to step in and protect employees from unsafe work conditions, I demand that irrefutable and empirical evidence be provided regarding that harm. I think that the government, in this case, has failed to meet the burden of proof in this instance and they are WAY out of line.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:14 pm

Also, while I disagree with the Ohio voters, their ban was passed BY THE PEOPLE, so okay fine. In this case, it was a handful of elites in a city of over 200,000 residents that decided for the rest of us.

Post by **cwallace** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:30 pm

I do so wish that they would put these issues ON the ballots...

They had the election during the time of this debate...no reason it couldn't have been included...if for nothing else...an IDEA as to what the PEOPLE want out of it..

I would love to see the turnout on something like that also...

As far as taxes go (property) a guy I work with...forever now called JACKASS told me today that of his 8 properties ALL of his property taxes went down...the lowest was $500 drop and the best was $1500 drop...I hate him now...lol...

Chris

sevesd93 · Post by **sevesd93** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:49 pm

cwallace wrote:I do so wish that they would put these issues ON the ballots...

They had the election during the time of this debate...no reason it couldn't have been included...if for nothing else...an IDEA as to what the PEOPLE want out of it..

I would love to see the turnout on something like that also...

As far as taxes go (property) a guy I work with...forever now called JACKASS told me today that of his 8 properties ALL of his property taxes went down...the lowest was $500 drop and the best was $1500 drop...I hate him now...lol...

Chris

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that guys properties are not in the best parts of town, and definitely not in Aboite.