On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:23:26 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 10:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:13:34 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?


Can you not comprehend that I said, sure, that's just like all the times
Green comes in here and tells us he's a Republican. But since he's
demonstrated for years that he's not, no one believe him either. In his
case, he's yet to name a single Republican that he likes, he regularly
rants against all of them, even Reagan was no good.




Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?


Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if
smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to
limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be
exposed to hazardous waste.

Then why are you against allowing me to have a private cigar dinner at
a restaurant in a private room?

Smoking leaves residue and that third hand residue can make people sick.

So far you've given us zero proof of that. Just because you can cite a
study where they found that after someone has been smoking in a car for
hours, the worst possible environment, that byproducts can be found
doesn't prove that anyone has been made sick, nor did the researchers
say that. And that is a very long way from someone catching a whiff
of a cigarette from 25 ft away.

Please read this entire article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

I'll even post the summary for you.

"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of
nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards.

This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan-
tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smoker’s
vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor
material yielded a10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when
sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both
cases we identified
1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in
freshly emitted tobacco smoke, as the major product. The potent
carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and
N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements
revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine.
Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces—including clothing and human skin—this recently
identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed “thirdhand smoke.” Our work highlights the
importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those
involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

It's like trying to defend spraying a room with toxic waste in the name
of freedom and then accusing anyone who objects to it of being
controlling and manipulative.

BS. And no one is forcing you to be in the room with me.

"Toxic waste is any material in liquid, solid, or gas form that can
cause serious harm to humans as well as other animals and the
environment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste

Smoking leaves behind toxic waste.

You wouldn't want to be the next group of people in the room that had
been saturated with toxic waste, and I don't want to be the next person
in the room where people may have been smoking.


Fine. Then have the restaurant free to make that decision. They can
have rooms where smoking is never allowed and rooms where it is allowed.
Disclose it and allow the people to decide. That's the conservative
position. The lib position is to rant on, to force YOUR way onto
everyone, because you know what's good for us.

It doesn't solve the issue of secondhand or thirdhand smoke. Even if a
room is set aside for smoking, people still open the doors, come and go
from those smoking rooms and enter the non-smoking area and expose
non-smokers to those contaminants where not only adults may be exposed,
but also children exposed to those toxic wastes.

This issue is not about politics - it's a health issue.

A good case in point is cruise ships. European cruise ships allow
smoking BUT NOT IN THE STATEROOMS ans NOT ON BALCONIES for safety
reasons

American cruise ships allow smoking only in "designated areas" such as
the casino and the "cigar bar" - but those areas are not sealed from
the rest of the ship and are inadequately ventilated. On our last
cruise there was over half of one deck - and a good section of another
deck that i could NOT safely enter. Iincluding one of the highee end
restaurants I wanted to eat in)


BTW, people who smoke in one room have no control over where the smoke
goes or where the residue ends up, in addition to, the walking stench of
people going to and fro throughout the restaurant from the "smoking" room.


Not true. You could have separate air systems for the smoking allowed
room. Or whole separate bar/restaurants where smoking is allowed.
Leave the customers free to decide, not libs shoving it down the
people's throats because you think they are too stupid to decide for
themselves.

Businesses are free to do that now, but very few of them choose to go
all smoking because too many people don't smoke, now, and that bites
into their bottom line profits. It's not fiscally smart to eliminate a
large percentage of customers in order to accommodate smoking.


How about a bar that wants to allow
smoking, all the patrons that go there, the staff, are all OK with it,
how is it consistent with conservatism for you to use big govt to deny
them that right?


I imagine there are a few dives that still allow smoking, but their days
are numbered.


Yes, in a few states. The problem is that people like you forced it to
be that way and want to continue to force it, until you control us totally.

You better believe it I'm on the side of forcing smokers to NOT smoke in
any public venue.

That is one big reason why we can't pass any new gun legislation, because
people don't trust libs. They know it's a never ending process to suck
freedom from us all.

Gun legislation has no relevance to the health issues of smoking. It's
also a separate thread.


And conservatives don't believe in "common sense", they
believe in smaller govt and allowing people the freedom to live their
own lives, eg smokers have rights too.


I'm all for smaller government and freedom. What I am AGAINST is anyone
poisoning the air I breathe, and smoking does that.



It clearly doesn't do it in bars, restaurants that leave people free
to choose. If you want to select a bar that bans smoking, you can
go there.

I don't go to bars, and never have. Bars that are in restaurants I've
been to are all non-smoking environments.


If others want to select one that allows it, they can go
there. But from your statements, it's clear that, the conservative,
logical position, isn't good enough for you. It's typical of libs.


Smoking is not a political issue. It's a health issue, and as a
conservative I'll continue to vote for people who are in agreement with
my stance.