Recently stopped smoking - diving implications for lung discharge?

"Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:d3d9f$41ea7a73$ce504905$15033@allthenewsgroup s.com...
> Greg Mossman wrote:

> I was working in Buffalo, New York several years ago. Commuting from St
> Louis. After the holidays I returned to work. I went to the local
> Outback for dinner, their crowd was 5% of what it was before the
> holidays. Their antismoking law in restaurants went into place. What
> killed this particularly county was the county nearby did not have one.
> Everyone just went to the county bar/restaurants that did not have to
> ban smoking.

I am suspicious of any claim that implies 95% of restaurant patrons in
Buffalo New York are smokers ----- smokers so fervent that they will drive
to another county to have a smoke with their steak. I'm not doubting your
experience, but only your implication that it is representative of
restaurant and bar patronage after a smoking ban was placed in effect in
upstate New York.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105892772.625216.187490@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

> Enroll in a course in Experimental Design in statistics or a course of
> mine in Data Analysis, then you may open your eyes (if you don't flunk
> the course).

Even better, since you're retired, why don't you take up smoking again? No
Harvard police are going to bust in if you light up at home and if your wife
complains you can always beat her. You know you're right, as you always
are, so go ahead and smoke. I dare ya.

In the meantime, here's another study for you:

"Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Yet
despite overwhelming evidence that smoking can kill, more than 2 of 10
Americans continue to light up. A new study may provide insights as to why.
Almost 70% of smokers suffer from some type of psychiatric or mental
disorder, including nicotine dependence, the study found. That dependence is
considered more severe than a simple habit and is defined as a chronic
addiction to nicotine, comparable to other substance abuse disorders." LA
Times, 11/8/04

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...act/61/11/1107

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:41eab76d$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com...

> In the meantime, here's another study for you:
>
> "Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
Yet
> despite overwhelming evidence that smoking can kill, more than 2 of 10
> Americans continue to light up.

Except in Buffalo New York Outback Restaurants....where 9 in 10 light up,
when allowed.

In article <d3d9f$41ea7a73$ce504905$15033@allthenewsgroups.co m>, Joe
English <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote:


€ >
€ >
€ This is surely one soapbox issue of yours that I hope doesn't catch on.
€
€ I was working in Buffalo, New York several years ago. Commuting from St
€ Louis. After the holidays I returned to work. I went to the local
€ Outback for dinner, their crowd was 5% of what it was before the
€ holidays. Their antismoking law in restaurants went into place. What
€ killed this particularly county was the county nearby did not have one.
€ Everyone just went to the county bar/restaurants that did not have to
€ ban smoking.
€
€ Greg, I think California has some of the most aggressive smoking laws in
€ the country. How are they working out?

Very well


Are the bars and restaurants
€ seeing a loss of revenue?

Not that I can tell, and certainly not one that could be stastically
linked to the smoking ban (I can't wait to see how Feesh responds to
this comment). Since it's a uniform law applied to all restaurants and
bars, smokers just go to the places they've always gone to, and smoke
outside.

I personally do not like secondhand smoke of
€ any kind while trying to eat, even when I smoked. Cigar smoke is
€ especially offensive.

I was at a restaurant a while ago that has a cigar lounge. You can
allow indoor smoking if you have the proper ventaliation, and this
place was cashing in on the cigar trend of a couple of years ago. I saw
a waiter outside smoking a cigarrette, and I asked him why didn't he
smoke in the cigar lounge. He said it was only legal to smoke cigars in
the cigar lounge, not cigarrettes. Sometimes even the best intentioned
laws can be distorted to the point of absurdity.


However, if I sit at the bar - light em if you
€ got em. My father ran a bar, chained smoked, suffered from emphysema.
€ He quit smoking on March 16th, 2000. He stopped forever on March
€ 17,2000, liver cancer. Also survived an aortic rupture in Nov '93.
€ Worse thing in the world for an aortic transplant - smoking.

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105892772.625216.187490@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Enroll in a course in Experimental Design in statistics or a course
of
> > mine in Data Analysis, then you may open your eyes (if you don't
flunk
> > the course).
>
> Even better, since you're retired, why don't you take up smoking
again?

Why should I? I quit it cold-turkey 14 years ago, without missing even
once! When I flew my 147,290 miles last year, I didn't have to look
for
any place to smoke or suffer any short-term discomfort without in while
in flight. I can think of HUNDREDS of reasons not to re-start smoking,
given mentality of the general population and their voted political
non-smoking zealots. Just another form of prohibition.

Note that I don't drink either. And I don't preach against OTHERS who
drink to excess, just like yourself and many of my good diving friends.

It's called lessee faire. Live and let live.


> In the meantime, here's another study for you:

No need. I don't read Tabloids, whether it's printed in LA or
elsewhere.
>
> "Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United
States.

That statement itself is a logical tautology. You blame every death
that
has ever occurred, whether it's lung disease, heart disease, obesity,
to smoking -- of course it would be the leading cause. Dispite your
gullibility and seeming lack of critical thinking, I think you're
smarter
than THAT!

Go hug some OTHER trees.

-- Bob.

chilly wrote:

> If you want to justify having a smoke, jer, go right ahead. After all,
> there are exceptions to all things. Look at the vehicle accident victims
> that were thrown free from the wreck and managed to live, whereas they'd
> have died if they'd had their seatbelt fastened. Exceptions . . . yeah,
> that's it . . .

Chilly, I'm not trying to justify having a smoke, I'm trying to justify
accepting all the quasi-scientific data that is tossed around by people
who are presumed to be in possession of the facts. I make no
presumptions of anyone - I am not a sheep, IOW, I don't accept anyone's
position on anything until I'm convinced they're position is predicated
on provable facts, not simply because they are perceived by others to be
an influential person. To influence me, one is required to actually
answer my questions to a level I'm willing and capable of understanding
and accepting - not because they have more money than me, or live in a
better neighbourhood than me, or their car cost more than mine, or...
or... or.... I'm not influenced for the same reasons others are.
Having a degree framed and displayed on a Wall of Honour means nothing,
unless the degree holder has provided me the answers I need to justify
my own opinion, not theirs. I decide things for myself.

All that aside, personally, I don't really give a shit if someone wants
to flame up - let them do whatever they want - I don't really care. I'm
adult enough and tolerant enough to tolerate anything someone tosses at
me, assuming I want or need to, or not - it's my choice, no one elses.
As far as statutory anti-smoking controls for business is concerned,
it's an unecessary and draconian mindset that ought not be tolerated by
a free-thinking society. Let the businesses decide what sort of
business they want to offer their own patrons - why should government be
involved in this - it's not necessary. Leave the people alone to decide
for themselves. In most urban locales, non-smoking public places
already number around 50%, so what's wrong with that? If one doesn't
want to patronize a place because they may be exposed to a situation for
some reason, it's simple - don't go there - go somewhere else. The
business decides, you decide, I decide - it's a win-win-win situation
for all of us. When you hear a knock on the door, you answer, and the
individual says they're from the government and they're there to help
you - you know your day just went down the toilet.

>
> Smoking doesn't really hamper your circulation, make your skin pasty and
> wrinkled, hurt your heart, cause you to have more coughs and colds than a
> non-smoker . . . yeah, it's what they aren't telling you that's causing all
> those things.
>



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bradburn Fentress wrote:

> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
> news:41eab76d$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com...
>
>
>>In the meantime, here's another study for you:
>>
>>"Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
>
> Yet
>
>>despite overwhelming evidence that smoking can kill, more than 2 of 10
>>Americans continue to light up.
>
>
> Except in Buffalo New York Outback Restaurants....where 9 in 10 light up,
> when allowed.
>
>

Learn to read - not what was said

"Joe English" <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote in message
news:4a549$41eaf5a4$ce504905$29622@allthenewsgroup s.com...

> Never said 95% of restaurant patrons were smokers. I said "their crowd
> was 5%" if what it was before the holidays (actually Dec 31.) Maybe it
> was 6% or 8% maybe it was 3% or 4% -don't misrepresent what I said.

Read your comment again. You are indeed claiming that the ban caused 95% of
that restaurant's customers to go to another same restaurant in another
county because it allowed smoking.

Maybe you meant something else.

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:csenam$sf2@library1.airnews.net...

> "Driving automobiles is the leading cause of preventable auto crashes in
> the United States. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that driving can
> kill, more than <plug in some scary sounding numbers here> Americans
> continue to buckle up. A new study may provide insights as to why. Almost
> 70% of drivers suffer from some type of psychiatric or mental disorder,
> including speeding dependence, the study found. That dependence is
> considered more severe than a simple habit and is defined as a chronic
> addiction to driving, comparable to other behavioral abuse
> isorders." --Jer Times, 1/16/05"
>
> See? I can do it too.

What's your point? If you're showing how to write a piss-poor analogy,
you've made a perfect demonstration.

Replacing "death" with "auto crashes"? I don't think so. The proper
analogy to "preventable auto crashes" would be "preventable
cigarette-related death". Instead, it's simply "death". Your analogy
should read: "Driving automobiles is the leading cause of preventable death
in the United States" but of course that's wrong since smoking is the
leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:csenam$sf2@library1.airnews.net...
>
>
>>"Driving automobiles is the leading cause of preventable auto crashes in
>>the United States. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that driving can
>>kill, more than <plug in some scary sounding numbers here> Americans
>>continue to buckle up. A new study may provide insights as to why. Almost
>>70% of drivers suffer from some type of psychiatric or mental disorder,
>>including speeding dependence, the study found. That dependence is
>>considered more severe than a simple habit and is defined as a chronic
>>addiction to driving, comparable to other behavioral abuse
>>isorders." --Jer Times, 1/16/05"
>>
>>See? I can do it too.
>
>
> What's your point? If you're showing how to write a piss-poor analogy,
> you've made a perfect demonstration.
>
> Replacing "death" with "auto crashes"? I don't think so. The proper
> analogy to "preventable auto crashes" would be "preventable
> cigarette-related death". Instead, it's simply "death". Your analogy
> should read: "Driving automobiles is the leading cause of preventable death
> in the United States" but of course that's wrong since smoking is the
> leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
>
>
>


My analogy supports my point, not yours - my analogy isn't relevant to
death - my analogy is relevant to unintended consequences. Where I come
from, unintended consequences are bad things, whether a death is
included or not. Avoiding unintended consequences should always be key,
as to whether someone also kills themself along the way, I couldn't care
less. I witnessed a guy kill himself a few weeks ago on the freeway.
He sped past me and another dozen or so cars before losing control and
smashing his stupid face into a bridge abutment - the unintended
consequence is he scratched the bridge pretty badly and broke his pretty
car - the fact that his own stupidity and/or arrogance killed him is
irrelevant to me. Darwin at work. Giggle.

Happy now?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'