Alfresco dining & Chicago’s smoking ban collide
Chicago, Culture, The Nanny State Files Tagged alfresco dining, Chicago, metromix, smoking ban April 2nd, 2008I don’t know Adriana Nebbeling, owner of Chicago’s Orbit Room, but I think we could be friends. In an article today about how Chicago’s new smoking ban will affect the alfresco dining scene, Nebbeling told Metromix that while she doesn’t light up herself, she’d “rather have smoke in her hair than the government down her throat.”
Ditto. And while the fight against smoking bans appears to be a lost cause, it’s a sentiment that deserves repeating.
Nebbeling’s the Orbit Room is one of the city’s alfresco dining spots working to accommodate smokers—they’ve added a tent on the deck. (Remember, the law bans smoking in all indoor public places, as well as within 15 feet of any entrance, exit, window that opens, or ventilation intake that serves an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.)
Sheffield’s, and the Pontiac Cafe & Bar are also working with smokers…but at Take Five, Sidetrack, and Moonshine, the government’s never-ending nannying has made accommodating smoking customers impossible.
Read the rest of the article here.
Powered by FireStats
April 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I have been researching Second Hand Smoke since 1998 and have read thousands of studies, articles and investigative reports. I have kept only the most respected and truthful. I have all the information needed to show what this push for smoking bans is all about. It’s about Power and Profit in the Billions, not Health.
All the Major studies, even the ones by the ACS and the WHO found no connection of SHS to cancer or heart disease. The WHO found that children of smoking households are 22% less likely to contract cancer because their immune systems were activated against tobacco smoke.
If a cure for Cancer were actually found the ACS and the Pharmaceuticals would all have a fit. The market would crash for Pills and patches. The American Cancer Society would implode. Millions are being spent to push the lies about SHS by such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has spent over 500 million + to date.
The EPA, with their discredited study, and the hundreds of other agencies are doing the work for the World Tobacco Control Council. They keep the propaganda before the public every day with the help of our Major Media. They know, IF YOU LIE LONG ENOUGH AND OFTEN ENOUGH IT BECOMES THE TRUTH and once an opinion is formed, it is almost impossible to change.
We are all entitled to our opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. We must depend on real Science and not just what we read and hear in the Media, which report only what, is politically correct. This daily reporting of false information is the major factor in how our opinions are formed.
The American Cancer Society is the worst. It pushes its agenda through its many grassroots groups it funds in every state and with the help of our Health Departments. The latest figures I found show they have over 900 MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH. They spend less that 2% of their yearly income on prevention research. The rest goes to salaries and funds to push Smoking Bans. Even universities get in on the money grab.
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970’s (Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.
By that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property just by being open to the public.
We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.”, because of lies about health effects of SHS.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
Bear in mind, this report was made before the EPA forced the inclusion of Cigarette Smoke to the Carcinogenic tables, with only their fraudulent report as proof.
Introduction
So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?
Oxford’s cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality “can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking.” Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn’t!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
· tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
· that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
· that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
· that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
· and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:
“Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself”.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
To see the 6 page report use the link above.