Posted on 02/10/2008 6:00:34 AM PST by justkillingtime
A woman in her late teens died from an acute asthma attack triggered by secondhand cigarette smoke shortly after arriving at her job as a waitress in a bar in Michigan, researchers reported on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I have to do that at work so by quitting time I am fed up with it. Also it gets too damn hot here to be smoking outside. If a bar quit selling booze would you still go there? No. Neither will I when it comes to smoking.
Chuckie Cheese Pizza caters to children. I don't like children so I eat somewhere else. Simple. I cannot understand why smoke nazies (not you) cannot do the same.
The business owner should decide not the government.
Very good work and thanks!
Quick summary - the three public health surveillance systems that were used were 1) Occupational disease reports based on Michigan health codes that mandate employers report work-related illnesses, 2) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)'s Fatal Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE)- this is a national program that evaluates work-related deaths, and 3) Michigan Asthma Mortality Review (MAMR), a rapid asthma death notification and investigation system.
Cause of death on the death certificate was status asthmaticus. Autopsy COD was asphyxia secondary to acute asthma attack. No evidence of cardiac or neurological problems at autopsy.
...911 was called, and arrived in five minutes, making the time from her entering the bar to the time medical personnel arrived ~11 minutes. Unresponsive, no pulse, difficulty opening her lungs with an ambu-bag.~600cc fluid came from her mouth following intubation. Another half-liter was suctioned from her airway. ACLS was attemped but was unsuccessful. She was transported to the ED, but pronounced dead 25 minutes following arrival of medical personnel at the bar.
Asthmatic since age 2, treated at the ER for acute asthma flare-ups 2-3 times in the current year. Had four different asthma prescriptions, but only used them when she had trouble breathing. Medical records were consistent with moderate persistent asthma. Averaged 3 trips per year to the ED since age 5, and had been admitted to ICU twice, with one intubation. Allergies to dust mites, house mites, ragweed, nuts, trees and mold. Considered obese according to BMI.
MIFACE investigator noticed a smoke odor, and referred to it as a "typical smoky bar". Recommendations in the MIFACE report: 1) ventilation systems cannot guard against ETS - consider prohibiting smoking. 2) Manager called the bar owner first rather than 911 - consider developing a business emergency response plan.
Discussion: discusses the "suggestive but not sufficient" qualifier that the SG's report concluded re: asthma control and ETS. Ireland, Scotland, Norway, and Kentucky studies re: asthma and ETS were mentioned, talking about physiological lung tests vs ETS exposure.
Paper claims that MI is the only state with three surveillence programs with "overlapping mandates and responsibilities" for public health response to work-related illness/injury - supposedly this is why there have been no similar reports in the past.
Big finish - "Several limitations should be noted related to this case report. First, the deceased’s asthma was not under optimum control; this would increase the likelihood of an adverse reaction with exposure to an asthma trigger. Second, there are no measurements of particulate matter in the bar where she died; thus the association with secondhand smoke is based on the temporal relationship of exposure to her acute respiratory symptoms and her subsequent collapse in the absence of any other know trigger for this acute effect. However, the epidemiologic and experimental data linking ETS to acute, non-malignant respiratory conditions including exacerbation of asthma, supports the clinical impression of an association."
They finish with a couple of paragraphs calling for expansion of smoke-free laws.
There’s more...see post 183!
I don't understand, either. Niche marketing is an obvious concept, and there's money to be made by catering to any group that likes, or doesn't like, a particular business model.
i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. it's a business. and an extremely regulated business at that.
bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve.
do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? or not being able to serve after 2am or 4am depending on the state? how about bars being unable to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated? all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.
smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.
i would abstain from a vote on a ban personally. i have smoked in my life. in bars and outside of bars. i have seen how miserable smokers are because of it and i have seen how happy non-smokers are because of it.
i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.
would you rather be hot or cold? here in upstate NY, smokers have to go outside and they freeze their butts off at 2am for a smoke!
it's the girl's who wear next to nothing i feel the worst for. most of them only make it half way down the cigarette. they'd love to be in your shoes!
I so agree.
There is a huge mall here with lots of shops. Part of its niche is potpourri. Because of this I cannot shop there. I tried once and within a few minutes I couldn’t breath so I shop somewhere else.
I sure don’t want them to ban something for me that others enjoy.
Well it gets cold, wet and miserable here in the winter too.
It stays nice and warm or cool in my home. My friends I used to go out with often come here. I am a better cook than any restaurant and it is cheaper.
Plus we don’t need a bouncer as we are all conservatives!
It seems she just decided to act as if she didn’t have dangerous asthma. I’m sorry about that. I had a friend in high school who died from asthma complications, and it was really sad, but it could have been prevented.
I don't, either. I have plenty of choices for eating out or entertainment where I don't have to be around smoking. We especially enjoy outdoor musical events, and then people can smoke without our all being too close!
Come to dinner, if you're ever in these parts, and you can smoke in the pergola, surrounded by roses!
Wow!
Deal!
It’s amazing what you can find on the internet when you really take a look! IMHO, Mr. Rosenman writes his research to further fund his career. Lots of leaps and bounds taken in this case, but I bet he gets additional CDC funding.
The catz will mob you, but I’ll shoo the kidz to the playground :-).
Sorry, I was didn't see that post before I submitted my own.
i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. ...
I've never understood this argument. Essentially, it holds that the imposition of one set of restrictions justifies another, unrelated set of restrictions. It implies that if the state sticks its nose into one aspect of an industry, it gives the state a blank check to regulate all aspects of that industry.
I don't see how that idea can be compatible with a belief in limited government. If the existence of state liquor authorities has any legitimacy (I'm agnostic on that question for now), then its power should only extend to matters that relate to alcohol regulation and only so far as is needed to achieve legitimate ends.
Think of it this way; if the state requires a restaurant license to run a deli, should that give the state the authority to choose the condiment selection at the deli?
bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve...
They do. But in my opinion, each of those rules should have an independent justification. Most of them do.
do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? ...all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.
As I have said previously on this thread, some restrictions of property rights are acceptable. I don't have a problem with the age restrictions or restrictions on serving the intoxicated. In my opinion, those restrictions are justified because they protect people unable to competently assume the risks of drinking. I would also be okay with the time restrictions, as they are designed to protect the rights of others outside of the property.
Since the smoking bans lack any similar justification, I remain opposed to them. Even though bars and restaurants are already subject to a number of restrictions, I still believe each new restriction must have a sufficient, independent justification.
smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.
Actually, it includes even more than that. It also includes the right to control, use, and enjoythe premises as the owner pleases. So even if smoking is still allowed outside, by restricting smoking INSIDE you are still restricting the owner's right to control the inside of his property as he would like.
Property includes more than just the stuff inside the boundaries of your land. That's why conservatives view environmental and endangered species laws as property rights issues. Even though most of those regulations do not take land away from the owners like in eminent domain cases, they restrict the owner's use, enjoyment, and control of his land.
...i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.
By itself, I agree that this issue isn't going to have huge consequences. Local economies won't collapse because of smoking bans (though many good people could lose jobs), and nobody is going to be faced with years in jail because of violations.
But as a matter of principle, the smoking ban issue should offend anyone who believes in the importance of property rights and limited government. Smoking bans represent the sacrifice of property rights and market solutions in exchange for the personal convenience of politically powerful groups....with no valid justification.
That idea, left unchecked, can have pretty dire consequences.
I posted this thread..and after reading your posts..if ,whenever I see your name posting comments...I will upon seeing it...reject it as bullshit. You are the epitome of an asshole cop(ooops..wanna-be cop) who thinks he knows all. Please do not respond as I have no desire to hear from people as yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.