http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/fe...erturn-local-/

from what i gather, there's an addendum to the bill that's ready to be signed... it would ALLOW smoking in public places IF certain stipulations are met and the owners pay a fee (tax) to allow smoking.

that would be perfectly fine with me, the addendum, but that hasn't been approved yet....

i do like how it says "It would prohibit local communities from having a smoking ban that is stricter than the statewide law."
[Reply]

Sound like potential progress and I hope it works out....keep us updated, Good Sir. :-)
[Reply]

This is great news!!!


:-)


Chris.....
[Reply]

Have you scrolled down to read some of the comments on this .... wow .... just wow.

Here's but a couple ...

"To be perfectly honest, I like it when the the government infringes on our liberties when it benefits me (i.e. going home after I eat out not smelling like an ash tray). Otherwise, the government can stay out… and for once I am not being sarcastic."

"So business owners should be able to burn mercury incense, serve rotten horsemeat, and beat their slaves? Seriously, SHS is a public health issue, and the least the government can do is ban it in public places until they get around to banning tobacco outright."

I used to assure myself that people who thought like this were well in the minority .... I'm not so certain any longer.
[Reply]

yep, i re-wrote the original post about 4 times before submitting... decided to just ignore the comments from those buffoons.

those ppl have been brainwashed that second hand smoke actually does something, other than stink. i can agree, to some extent, that sitting in a very crowded bar with no ventilation, and everyone smoking cig's will effect you, but to a microscopic level compared to what they think is going to happen to them.
those morons actually think if they catch a whiff of smoke that instantly they'll get some form of dick cancer and it'll rot right off by the end of the weekend.
[Reply]

It amazes me how normal people turn into cause crazed zealots behind a keyboard.

:-) Gerg, you crack me up.

Seriously though, the brainwashing has to stop.
[Reply]

Somewhere in the archives of my mind I remember a study excecuted by one of the California Universities on the Effects of Secondhand smoke. The study length was from 1964 to 1999,it included more than 350,000 subjects(people). The final conclusion of the study was that secondhand smoke had minimal to no adverse health effects on those subjected to secondhand smoke.:-) Just a thought!!!!!!!

Prof. Mike:-)
[Reply]

yep, i posted that over on CS a long time ago...
it was actually only 119,000 ppl, though.
[Reply]

this retired Ranger buddy of mine starts off his stories with, "serious as dick cancer!"

that's pretty serious.
[Reply]

Thanks,I stand corrected on the number of subjects. You should send a copy to all Congess members,at least the ones that can read!!!!!!!!!!!!!:-)

Prof. Mike:-)
[Reply]

probably just a pre-made response in return.... getting sick of 'em all.
[Reply]

link to the article Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Ok, it was 118,000+ adults...
[Reply]

I know what you mean and we pay for it. Send it to FOX News. They might run with it????? Can't hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]

If you guys want PDFs of any articles you come across from scientific/medical journals let me know, I have free access through my school.
[Reply]

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know for certain that ABC,NBC,CBS and CNBC would not report the California Study,however Fox News might. The Liberal Press always refers to Fox News as "The Controversal NEWS" and I do know that Fox is more conservative. Thanks for the help. BTW does the RX in yor screen name have anything to do with Pharmacy???????

Prof. Mike:-)
[Reply]

yes, I"m a pharmacy student, I'll be graduating in about 3 months with my Pharm.D.
[Reply]

I have a close personal friend who's a retired Phamacist. He got his Pharm.D. in 1970. He retired Jan 2010.
[Reply]