Bars that allow smoking have �hazardous’ air pollution : La Crosse Tribune

nomad wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:42 PM:

" To the nicotine addicts that constantly post ridiculous messages on any anti smoking article...

Smoking and second hand smoke kills!

No, the death certificates don't list tobacco smoke as the cause of death. They list the disease that the smoke caused, which ultimately killed them.

No, the business owner should not get to decide if the air in their business contains poisons and carcinogens.

And quit trying to hide behind the personal freedom arguments. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Casual Observer: If bars aren't making the profits as you state, then what can they do about it? Raise their artifically low prices and stop making such deals during happy hour. Or do we need to bail them out too like Wall Street? If a few bars go under, so what. What real contribution to society are they? Maybe more people would drink at home lessening the drunk drivers on the road. However having said that, I don't see a proposal for a taxbreak for acting responsibly by installing proper air filteration system. And if Obama wins, these businesses could be given the incentive to supply a starting point in the health insurance discussion. Just some points to be considered. "

Mack wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Let's clean up these bars. While we're at it, let's clean up Steiger Construction also. Their trucks smoke and leave puddles, yes puddles of oil everywhere they go. With their lucrative city contracts, they need to clean up their act. "

tribreader1 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:03 PM:

" laxcarguy: that was my first post. I object mainly to this ban due to the fact that it is one more personal freedom being taken away by the government. "

tribreader1 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Amom: smoking does not affect your health or the health of others around you either unless you patronize establishments where people are doing it. Don't go there and it doesn't affect you. The only way it affects you is thru increased medical costs to treat smokers etc. Of course, you also pay the disability for people who are so obese that they cannot work. So, you see, not so apple and oranges.

Once again - take responsibility for your own well being. Now, if you for some reason are being forced into a bar or restaurant where people smoke against your will, that is a different story. Avoid those places & they're not affecting your health in any way. I also agree with "Casual".... kids do not belong in bars, period "

Casual Observer wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:34 PM:

" kamikazefaase: I invite you to submit your ventilation and insurance "proposals" to the owners of small-town taverns. You might as well just lock up the establishment on your way out, if those are the proposals you want to enact. A large percentage of these places post a margin of profit that would make most people wonder why they even bother to stay in business. They're not getting rich, that's for sure. Especially when you take into account all of the "overhead" that comes with owning a establishment such as this. "

Casual Observer wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Amom: I would never presume to speak for everyone--just myself. I'm simply tired of the state trying to "protect" me from a "hazardous" work environment. I didn't ask for the government's help, and I don't want it. If I had a problem working in a tavern that allows smoking, I would simply apply for a job elsewhere. Fortunately, my place of employment does have a "smoke-eater" ventilation system, so I am fortunate in that respect. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:24 PM:

" The biggest problem for bar owners is profit over responsibilty. My proposal includes posting a sign at the entrances stating this establishment permits smoking or not so it becomes buyer beware. It requires proper ventilation means to remove these harmful particles in the air to be paid for by the owner or the establishment MUST go smokefree. Also, my proposal includes the bar owner paying for the health insurance of its employees without deductibles or copayments for the LIFE of said employee to prevent cancer as a preexisting condition reason of employee not being able to get health insurance. The only question comes down to helping vendors/delivery persons for their health insurance costs. "

laxcarguy wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:23 PM:

" One step closer to Communism! Before you know it they'll start other legal things that may be dangerous. What about hunting? I guess the guy that gets shot in the woods had it comming? "

Amom wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Casual Observer, you are one of many. I'm sure you don't speak for everyone, but thanks for your opinion, again. "

Casual Observer wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:04 PM:

" I realize some of you may have read my post in relation to another smoking ban article, but I'm willing to run the risk of repeating myself in this case. I'm a bartender--I don't smoke. Some of my patrons do, some don't. I work there willingly, they patronize the tavern willingly. If you don't like the smoke, then stay out of my bar. I don't want your business. Children have no business in a bar--I don't care if the establishment sells food or not. I'm an adult who makes the CONCIOUS choice to work in an environment that could, and probably is, hazardous to my health. That's my choice, and subsequently, my problem to deal with. I don't need, nor do I want, the state to step in and "protect me." "

Amom wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:11 PM:

" I am so sick of ignorant people comparing smoking to the dangers of riding motorcycles or eating "big macs". Yes, obesity is a serious problem; but one person being fat does not in any way, affect my health or the health of others around them. You cannot compare apples to organges. Have a valid argument, suggesting to outlaw bic macs is so ridiculously stupid. "

retired wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:49 PM:

" Agreed, parents are responsible for their children.

I understand that bar owners and bartenders don't want government messing with their livelihood. But I don't understand where they believe they are exempt from regulations based on safety.

They DO NOT get to make choices about safety, at least they can't decide the minimum amount of safety they are willing to provide. The people have that right, and have exercised it in many areas of our world. "

tribreader1 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:36 PM:

" to retired:
Doesn't that again fall under the umbrella of personal responsibility? I would not take my child to a smoke filled restaurant nor would I take them to a bar. If I do CHOOSE to do so, do I have the right to complain that they're breathing in second hand smoke? All adults, and in this case, parents need to take responsibility for their actions and how those actions affect their children. "

retired wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:40 AM:

" One of the major points of this study was the huge number of children in these establishments with carcinogenic atmospheres. Children cannot choose where they go, and cannot make informed decisions.

Most bars in Wisconsin serve food to some degree. Many places that serve food are exempted from the smoking ban because they make a certain amount of their money from alcohol sales. In this study, many of the bars that tested worst had children in them because their parents had brought them along for dinner. "

tribreader1 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:35 AM:

" I'm not against smoke free taverns or restaurants, but I think it should be the business owners choice. They own their buildings and pay their taxes and should be allowed to make the determination on which is better for their business. "

tribreader1 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:31 AM:

" It's also a matter of personal responsibility. If you choose to not poison your system with smoke, then don't go where people smoke. There are smoke free restaurants, bars, etc. available. People die from obesity every day also. Are we going to regulate Big Macs next? It all comes down to choice. Those that choose to smoke have the right to work and visit those places that allow it. Those that don't can work and visit those places that do not. Nobody is forced to go have drinks or go out to eat at any particular location. "

tribreader1 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:27 AM:

" My problem here isn't with the smoking ban alone. It's an issue I have with one freedom at a time being taken away As adults we can read the statistics and make our own decisions on how we live our lives. I wear my seatbelt b/c I believe it could save my life. Should it be a law? No way. If you're smart enough to not smoke, good for you! If you want to go have a few drinks, go to a smoke free bar. Nobody is forcing anyone to go places or work where a legal substance (tobacco) is being used. It's one small freedom at a time and we're giving them up willingly. "

retired wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:00 AM:

" Bozo, they were measuring particulates, which are not created by breathing. Particulates are breathed in and settle in the lungs and arteries and cause damage. While dangerous chemicals are given off within welding facilities and factories, they were measuring suspended particles. Tobacco smoke is the largest source of the particulates measured in this study.

CO2 is dangerous, but mostly because high concentrations of it indicate a lack of oxygen, not because it, in itself, is dangerous. They can test for it, and it is created by smoking, but it is not carcinogenic (thankfully, as it is a normal component of air). "

retired wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Wiseup, you are welcome to read the actual report if you would like: http://www.cancer.wisc.edu/uwccc/documents/Western%20Wisconsin%20Indoor%20Air%20Quality%20Report%20final.pdf

HonestAbe, they tested nonsmoking establishments (very low readings), and also calibrated their equipment outside the bar to ensure local pollution would not contribute to their readings. In many cases, they were able to measure the air for extended periods of time `and could correlate increases in hazardous particulates with individuals smoking in the bar. They were also able to eliminate any particulates created by cooking. Overall, it's a pretty comprehensive study. "

Mack wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Just the mention of a smoking ban causes smokers to flip out. "

rfield wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:23 AM:

" nana3, factories are inspected for air quality. "

nana3 wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:47 AM:

" Why aren't they testing the air quality at factories? I am sure the levels in some of them would be unacceptable. Some chemicals are much worse than smoke and can be breathed in or enter your system through the skin.
re;onalaskan, finally found your off button? "

random annoying bozo wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:50 AM:

" pardon me for stating the obvious, but when in blue blazes did the DNR write the standards for indoor air quality? and the truth be told, if there were testing done in any area where a large number of people gathered, there would also be very high levels of CO2. you know that thing you exhale when you breath. the EPA did list this 'inert' gas as dangerous. but i suppose they will not test for that, at least not until they figure out a way they can levy a tax for it, a 'breathing' tax may be on it's way to a place near you soon. "

Cards wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:22 AM:

" Well said an Onalaskan and newsmike. "

rfield wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:56 AM:

" HonestAbe -

"How many tests were done in other establishments?" I know for a fact that businesses that have machining, welding, have to be able to provide enough ventilation, and have acceptable air quality. The test was for bars, so it is not biased. The bars were tested for against the DNR's maximum rate of exposure ("40 micrograms of small particulates per cubic meter") and they failed.

I would go along with bars allowing smoking as long as they have to be under that limit. I wonder if the bars that were at 100 were ones with "smoke eaters" in them? "

High Plains Drifter wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:32 AM:

" And think of all the poor saps walking downtown sidewalks with all the carbon monoxide from conjested streets.C'mon,joggers...stand up for your rights and demand toxic-free air. "

Krusty wrote on Oct 7, 2008 3:10 AM:

" Wait a minute here...Smoking is bad for you??? How come nobody bothered to tell me that before??? "

An Onalaskan wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:52 AM:

" The dangers of secondhand smoke were known decades ago. In fact tobacco giant Phillip Morris had a very thorough research study done on the topic in the 1980s but then suppressed the findings. (See: "The Whole Truth & Nothing But the Truth: The Research Phillip Morris Did Not Want You to See," Lancet, v. 364, 2004.) "

An Onalaskan wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:38 AM:

" From a report by the US Surgeon General in 2006: Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic to humans. These include:

formaldehyde
benzene
vinyl chloride
arsenic ammonia
hydrogen cyandide

Imagine bar and restaurant workers breathing in this stuff. What have these poor souls been put through? "

An Onalaskan wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:27 AM:

" An interesting set of findings from the US Dept. of Health & Human Resources Report on Carcinogens,10th ed., 2002, National Toxicology Program:

(a) bars and restaurants that allowed smoking had 2-5 times the levels of second hand smoke than those levels found in homes of smokers.

(b) bars and restaurants that allowed smoking had 2-6 times the levels of second hand smoke than those levels found in office work places where smoking was allowed. "

An Onalaskan wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:04 AM:

" An interesting study on smoking was detailed in the British Medical Journal a few years ago
(2004, volume 328, page 1519). The subjects were 34,439 medical doctors and the study, which began in 1951, spanned 50 years. Major finding? Subjects who smoked tended to die 10 years before those who did not smoke. It makes one wonder: What was the health history of other people (nurses, patients,friends, family members) who were regularly around the doctors who were smokers? "

newsmike wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:46 AM:

" I still am a firm believer that anyone who still smokes in 2008 knowing all the dangers has a clear lack of common sense. I watched someone die from 30 years of smoking, it destroyed her life, anyone who smokes should watch someone like her struggle to get every breath every moment of every day for the past 8 years. Perhaps share some stories on how she has to be helped into bed every night because she gets short-winded just walking to the bedroom....

The fact that our government still allows the sale of a product that costs us billions of dollars in healthcare related expenses every year is mind blowing... but then again I have to remember that it is the federal government that makes even more money off the taxes they collect from its sale. "

An Onalaskan wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:39 AM:

" Why not just quit smoking? Why not just say, "Hey, I'm no longer going to take the risk of getting sick myself or making others sick"? (Including restaurant and tavern workers who are forced to breathe in smoke filled rooms.) Or why not just admit that it is no longer socially acceptable to smoke in any public place because second hand smoke is a health hazard to others? Go outside. Smoke before you enter a place or after you leave. Smoke in your own home (if you are single, for goodness sake don't smoke around your spouse or kids in a closed room). "

HonestAbe wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:03 AM:

" I still do not understand the ban mentality ... how about encouraging bar owners and the like to install air cleaners to lower these numbers?

Why is all the studying so against ... instead of offering a middle ground?

Why not just mandate the bar has to post on the door its air quality as of the previous day?

Freedom of choice, ever hear of it?

Speaking of freedom of choice, HonestAbe is now a non-smoker, but still believes in freedoms and rights ... silly me. "

wiseup wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:00 AM:

" 58 tested is RIDICULOUS! Too small sample and statistically inaccurate. The people that run these tests are PREDISPOSED to PROVE what THEY want to believe and then only PRINT what THEY want YOU to believe! Try to push this garbage down our throats on a county wide basis? Where is the public demand and where are all the petitions signed AGAINST the ban and coverage of the MANY OPPOSED to this intrusive control by a few. "

HonestAbe wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:59 PM:

" How many tests were done in other establishments?

Shops that do machining, welding and chemical processing dont seem to be listed here, and all include employees and air.

This is a biased study and holds no credible comparible conclusion. What is the air quality outside, and how does it compare?

How self-serving and idiotic. wow "

SECTION SPONSORS

Ads by Yahoo!

Cheap Car Insurance

Refinance and Save $1,000's

Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »

NEWSPAPER ADS

LACROSSE JOBS

TOP HOMES