On 5/29/2016 6:19 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.


"There is mounting evidence that documents the dangers of exposure to
secondhand smoke, including in the workplace. In states that permit
workplace smoking, employers face significant legal risks from employees
who are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. Employers have been held
liable for employee exposure to secondhand smoke in numerous cases,
including those based on workers’ compensation, state and federal
disability law, and the duty to provide a safe workplace. Given this
liability risk, employers should voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace
policies. Such policies do more than fulfill an employer’s legal
obligation to provide a safe workplace; they also reduce the risk of
litigation, potentially reduce workers’ compensation premiums, and
protect employees from harm.

THERE IS MOUNTING evidence of the dangers of exposure to secondhand
smoke. Several recent studies have shown that employees’ exposure to
secondhand smoke in the workplace causes significant increases in
tobacco-specific carcinogens in the human body (M. Stark, PhD,
unpublished data, April 2006).1–6 Smoking in bars, restaurants, and
other hospitality venues contributes substantially to poor indoor air
quality in these workplaces and exposes employees to carcinogens and
other toxic agents in tobacco smoke.7 Specifically, nonsmokers who are
exposed to secondhand smoke at work increase their risk of heart disease
by 25%–30% and their risk of lung cancer by 20%–30%, and are susceptible
to immediate damage to the cardiovascular system.8 The only way to
effectively eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace is to
make the workplace a smoke-free environment.9 Studies have shown
immediate improvements in air quality10,11 and workers’ respiratory
health12 when smoking is eliminated from workplaces, including
hospitality venues.

To protect employees and patrons from the dangers of exposure to
secondhand smoke, many state and local governments have passed laws
creating smoke-free workplaces, including restaurants and bars.13 In
states without smoke-free workplace laws, employers still face
significant legal risks from employees who are exposed to secondhand
smoke on the job. Employers can reduce these legal risks by voluntarily
prohibiting smoking at their worksites.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND SMOKE-FREE LAWS

Research conducted during the past several decades clearly documents
that exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease in
nonsmokers. Some research indicates that secondhand smoke is more toxic
and potentially more dangerous than the smoke that is directly inhaled
by the smoker.14,15 Nationally, the US Environmental Protection Agency
has found secondhand smoke to be a risk to public health and has
classified secondhand smoke as a group A carcinogen, the most dangerous
class of carcinogen."

mo
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/

--
Maggie

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:36:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:27:06 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The trend is to stop people from getting sick from secondhand smoke.

No the trend is to placate people who are simply offended if they even
see someone smoking a block away.

+1

Or someone who wants to host a cigar dinner, a couple times a year
in a private room at a restaurant. You don't like it, just don't go.
But that isn't good enough for the zealots. They demand that everyone
be tolerant to others based on every kooky conceivable situation, but
they are the least tolerant of all.

South Park has a good episode on tolerance. Parents force the kids to go
to a tolerance museum, where they are shown the evils of intolerance,
eg using racial slurs, stereotypes of Mexicans as lazy, Asian as smart,
etc. Then when the parents and tolerance museum people walk outside
there is a guy 30 ft away who's smoking a cigarette. They all immediately
viciously attack him for smoking.

On 2016-05-29, Bod wrote:

Well done for giving up smoking, now you need to give up the biggest
killer....*alcohol*.

Yeah, that's gonna happen. (not)

nb

On 29/05/2016 16:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:54 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 07:12, rbowman wrote:
On 05/28/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any
source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things.

Well, I guess we had better cancel our normally scheduled August forest
fires.


Don't forget wood burning stove fumes and CH boiler fumes plus car
exhaust emissions. Muggles says she could die from just one whiff of
them, lol.


I never said that. I did say that secondhand smoke makes me physically
ill, and that VOC's in the air can do the same thing.

The smell of beetroot makes me feel sick, so does the smell of petrol
and petrol/ diesel fumes.
Let's ban all cars/ lorries/ buses/ trucks/ petrol lawnmowers etc and
beetroot should be banned in all public places.

Life throws up many things that others do, that we don't like so why not
just accept reality.

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 6:19 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.


Mo

LEGAL RISKS

Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that
create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available.
For example, an employee could file a workers’ compensation claim
against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to
secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employer’s
workers’ compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability
discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a “reasonable
accommodation”—in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand
smoke—if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is
exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a
claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a
common law duty.

Employers may voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace policies to reduce
the threat of litigation in these areas. These 3 risks are examined in turn.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

State workers’ compensation laws are designed to protect workers from
injuries and illnesses that arise out of and in the course of
employment. The state laws are not based on fault; an injured worker can
recover benefits, including compensation for temporary or permanent loss
of income and medical expenses, without proving that the employer was
negligent. A state administrative agency usually oversees the workers’
compensation system so that employees may recover benefits promptly. In
most cases, the state workers’ compensation system prevents the employee
from also suing the employer in tort.26

Litigation Under Workers’ Compensation Statutes

Employees have won in individual workers’ compensation cases involving
secondhand smoke–related injuries when the employee suffered an
asthmatic or allergic reaction as a result of exposure to secondhand
smoke in the workplace and the employee had demonstrated exposure to a
heavy concentration of secondhand smoke for several years.33 Because the
outcomes of workers’ compensation cases have varied widely across
states, an employee’s ability to recover compensation will depend
heavily upon the state in which the employer is located.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/
--
Maggie

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.

Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.




4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance.

Notice the word "smoking"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.





It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......

"*Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the
report concludes.

"Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your
DNA, which can lead to cancer."

*Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can
trigger heart attacks*."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html


Typical blather from zealots. There is all kinds of junk science out
there, where the desperate zealots try to shove their BS down your
throat. Brief secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? OMG,
who would actually believe that crap? I get one whiff from a cigarette
and I have heart disease?

But we are singling out one of those sources for arrest and
prosecution while accepting all others.
There are people who get sick looking at gay people but that does not
mean it should be an illegal activity. This is just political
correctness run amok. The anti smoking crowd is telling smokers they
can't even have a bar dedicated to smokers, far from anyone who might
be offended by it. They say they need "equal access" to that bar so
they can be offended and close it down. Smokers seem to be the only
group of people who have no rights in this country.

Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.


Smokers need a safe space. I suppose the only group worse off are Caucasian male American smokers. They had no civil rights to start with. ^_^

There is no safe space to smoke.

Then equally there is no safe place to burn bonfires or use obnoxious
aerosol cans or spray pesticides.
Get them all banned, Muggles.


--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 9:17 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:19:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.


We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Is that equal opportunity under the law? No.

We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The
owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke
ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking
one.

Business owners are wising up to their legal obligations regarding the
environment their workers have to live in every day.

"LEGAL RISKS

Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that
create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available.
For example, an employee could file a workers’ compensation claim
against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to
secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employer’s
workers’ compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability
discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a “reasonable
accommodation”—in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand
smoke—if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is
exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a
claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a
common law duty."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/

This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time,
selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries
potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.


--
Maggie

On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:29:52 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:17:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:19:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.

We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Unsafe work place. There you have it.

How is it unsafe? With any reasonable amount of fresh air makeup on
the HVAC system this minuscule amount of smoke is harmless. If the
wait staff is smoking too (and a very high percentage do), what
difference would it make anyway?


We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The
owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke
ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking
one. This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time,
selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries
potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.

Yeah, it's ridiculous.

Yet it was applauded by the smoke nazis.
I don't smoke but I do defend the right to do it if you want and I am
not going to use pseudo science and skewed "studies" to tell them they
can't. The original EPA study that is the base for most of these
claims was roundly rejected by just about everyone who actually looked
at the methodology.

On 29/05/2016 16:17, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:36:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:27:06 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The trend is to stop people from getting sick from secondhand smoke.

No the trend is to placate people who are simply offended if they even
see someone smoking a block away.

+1

Or someone who wants to host a cigar dinner, a couple times a year
in a private room at a restaurant. You don't like it, just don't go.
But that isn't good enough for the zealots. They demand that everyone
be tolerant to others based on every kooky conceivable situation, but
they are the least tolerant of all.

South Park has a good episode on tolerance. Parents force the kids to go
to a tolerance museum, where they are shown the evils of intolerance,
eg using racial slurs, stereotypes of Mexicans as lazy, Asian as smart,
etc. Then when the parents and tolerance museum people walk outside
there is a guy 30 ft away who's smoking a cigarette. They all immediately
viciously attack him for smoking.

Lol, that sums it up.

--
Bod

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 10:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:20:37 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance. It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......


If that is true, and it sounds like bull**** to me, what is the effect
of the carbon monoxide from lawn mowers, smoke from BBQ grills and the
pollution from wood burning stoves? Should we ban all of them too?

It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any
source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things.

Wouldn't you agree we should use caution and good sense when it comes to
exposing ourselves to such things?


Yes and like Gfre, I say that a whiff of smoke from a smoker who's
ten feet away, isn't going to kill me. Nor will you be killed by a cigar
dinner in a private room at a restaurant that you don't go to, but
in many places, that's banned too.

On 29/05/2016 16:19, notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Bod wrote:

Well done for giving up smoking, now you need to give up the biggest
killer....*alcohol*.

Yeah, that's gonna happen. (not)

nb

LOL.

--
Bod

On 29/05/2016 16:23, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.

Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.




4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance.

Notice the word "smoking"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.





It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......

"*Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the
report concludes.

"Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your
DNA, which can lead to cancer."

*Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can
trigger heart attacks*."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html


Typical blather from zealots. There is all kinds of junk science out
there, where the desperate zealots try to shove their BS down your
throat. Brief secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? OMG,
who would actually believe that crap? I get one whiff from a cigarette
and I have heart disease?

Muggles is a drama queen.

--
Bod

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:18:20 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:19:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.

We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.
We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The
owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke
ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking
one. This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time,
selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries
potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.

Agree. The classic example is that here and in many places, you can't
even have a once a month cigar dinner in a private room at a restaurant.
That's where the zealots have brought us. And I think you can probably
add that to the list of reasons the angry mob is behind Trump. They are
fed up with this crap.

On 5/29/2016 10:14 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:49 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 03:52, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 28/05/2016 18:20, Reggie wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be
illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there
objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has
spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in
your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?

Indeed, I prefer a free society.

That's an odd statement coming from a British subject living in a
country where one can be jailed for defending himself or insulting a
homosexual. What a country, glad I'm not there. ^_^

So you feel that you have the right to insult someone just because they
are Gay!?

Why do you want to limit Gay rights?

Eh!? I said the exact opposite. Gays should have equal rights.


You said, more or less, that Gays have some sort of right to never be
insulted. IF it is a right to never be insulted, then it should be the
right of EVERYONE to never be insulted, not just Gays.

Therefore, you either want to grant a special right to only Gays, or you
want to limit the rights of Gays to be equally insulted just like
everyone else?

--
Maggie

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:02:57 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 1:12 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/28/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any
source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things.

Well, I guess we had better cancel our normally scheduled August forest
fires.

That kind of smoke make people sick, too.

Fire fighters wear breathing equipment because that smoke isn't good to
breathe, either. People die from smoke inhalation, and they also have
similar physical responses to forest fire smoke that people have from
secondhand cigarette smoke.

OK fine, why aren't you campaigning to ban wood stoves, fire places
and back yard charcoal grills?
A neighbor can burn 40 pounds of wood in an evening with impunity but
if he is burning a gram of tobacco and you smell it, you go ballistic.
I doubt there is s suburb in America where you don't smell a whiff of
wood smoke in the winter or the smell of grilling meat in the summer.
By your definition, if you can smell it, you are being harmed.
When a bagel gets sideways in the toaster, do you evacuate the house
and stay in a hotel until the place is decontaminated?

On 5/29/2016 10:20 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:54 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 07:12, rbowman wrote:
On 05/28/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any
source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things.

Well, I guess we had better cancel our normally scheduled August forest
fires.


Don't forget wood burning stove fumes and CH boiler fumes plus car
exhaust emissions. Muggles says she could die from just one whiff of
them, lol.


I never said that. I did say that secondhand smoke makes me physically
ill, and that VOC's in the air can do the same thing.


The smell of beetroot makes me feel sick, so does the smell of petrol
and petrol/ diesel fumes.
Let's ban all cars/ lorries/ buses/ trucks/ petrol lawnmowers etc and
beetroot should be banned in all public places.

I imagine beetroot isn't all that common enough in any given public
place to make an issue out of it.

As far as gas fumes go, people have put a lot of effort into producing
electric cars and actually hope to make them the car of the future.

Life throws up many things that others do, that we don't like so why not
just accept reality.



--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 10:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.


Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.

Smoke never stays put at the origination point.


*Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can
trigger heart attacks*."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html


Typical blather from zealots. There is all kinds of junk science out
there, where the desperate zealots try to shove their BS down your
throat. Brief secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? OMG,
who would actually believe that crap? I get one whiff from a cigarette
and I have heart disease?


Zealots? Hardly.

--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 16:31, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:14 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:49 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 03:52, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 28/05/2016 18:20, Reggie wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be
illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there
objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has
spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in
your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?

Indeed, I prefer a free society.

That's an odd statement coming from a British subject living in a
country where one can be jailed for defending himself or insulting a
homosexual. What a country, glad I'm not there. ^_^

So you feel that you have the right to insult someone just because they
are Gay!?

Why do you want to limit Gay rights?

Eh!? I said the exact opposite. Gays should have equal rights.


You said, more or less, that Gays have some sort of right to never be
insulted. IF it is a right to never be insulted, then it should be the
right of EVERYONE to never be insulted, not just Gays.

Therefore, you either want to grant a special right to only Gays, or you
want to limit the rights of Gays to be equally insulted just like
everyone else?

Oi! I said "Why do you want to *limit* Gay rights?"
*Everyone* should have the right to be criticised, but no one has the
right to *insult* someone for, say, just for being Gay or anyone else
for that matter. Decent people don't insult.

--
Bod

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:25:23 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 9:17 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:19:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.


We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Is that equal opportunity under the law? No.


Yes it is. If you don't like working in a bar or restaurant that
allows smoking, then don't, there are plenty others, right now
most of them, that don't allow smoking. You don't want to work
in a slaughter house or coal mine, you don't. See how simple that is?



We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The
owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke
ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking
one.

Business owners are wising up to their legal obligations regarding the
environment their workers have to live in every day.

"LEGAL RISKS

Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that
create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available.
For example, an employee could file a workers compensation claim
against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to
secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employers
workers compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability
discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a €œreasonable
accommodation€�€”in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand
smoke€”if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is
exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a
claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a
common law duty."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/

This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time,
selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries
potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.


--
Maggie

What you just cited is another example of how the zealots work.
They are never satisfied and will never stop. Above they are using
FUD and threats of legal action. Just what this country needs, more
lawsuits. If you have a restaurant and want to allow smoking, the
employees know about it, there is no such legitimate case. But with
a few million bucks from lib whackos, they sure could drag you through
hell and ruin you anyway.

And want to know why you can't get any more gun laws through Congress,
why the NRA is opposed to all of them? Because they see how these libs
operate. They are never satisfied, whatever is passed is never enough,
it's just one more step to make us all conform to their rules, their
was of life. That's not my America.

On 5/29/2016 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:

But we are singling out one of those sources for arrest and
prosecution while accepting all others.
There are people who get sick looking at gay people but that does not
mean it should be an illegal activity. This is just political
correctness run amok. The anti smoking crowd is telling smokers they
can't even have a bar dedicated to smokers, far from anyone who might
be offended by it. They say they need "equal access" to that bar so
they can be offended and close it down. Smokers seem to be the only
group of people who have no rights in this country.

Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Smokers need a safe space. I suppose the only group worse off are
Caucasian male American smokers. They had no civil rights to start
with. ^_^

There is no safe space to smoke.

Then equally there is no safe place to burn bonfires or use obnoxious
aerosol cans or spray pesticides.
Get them all banned, Muggles.

There are various groups of people who lead the fight to ban those things.

The topic at hand here, though, is smoking.

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 10:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:29:52 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Unsafe work place. There you have it.

How is it unsafe? With any reasonable amount of fresh air makeup on
the HVAC system this minuscule amount of smoke is harmless. If the
wait staff is smoking too (and a very high percentage do), what
difference would it make anyway?


Nationally, the US Environmental Protection Agency has found secondhand
smoke to be a risk to public health and has classified secondhand smoke
as a group A carcinogen, *the most dangerous class of carcinogen*.16 A
recent report from the US surgeon general on the health consequences of
involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke concluded that there is no safe
level of exposure to secondhand smoke and neither separating smokers
from nonsmokers nor installing ventilation systems effectively
eliminates secondhand smoke.9

Additional research has focused on how exposure to secondhand smoke
affects individual employees. For example, a major area of research has
focused on biomarkers of secondhand smoke exposure in fluids such as
urine and saliva. Several recent studies have shown that employees’
exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace causes significant
increases in the uptake of tobacco-specific carcinogens.1–6 In a
national study of nonsmoking workers, exposure to secondhand smoke
varied significantly by occupation.5,18 Higher levels of exposure were
observed in occupational groups that tend to be described as blue collar
or service, such as waiters and bartenders, and lower levels in groups
that tend to be described as white collar (e.g., office workers).5

AND

Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that
create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available.
For example, an employee could file a workers’ compensation claim
against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to
secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employer’s
workers’ compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability
discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a “reasonable
accommodation”—in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand
smoke—if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is
exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a
claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a
common law duty.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/


--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 10:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 10:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:20:37 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance. It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......


If that is true, and it sounds like bull**** to me, what is the effect
of the carbon monoxide from lawn mowers, smoke from BBQ grills and the
pollution from wood burning stoves? Should we ban all of them too?


It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any


Wouldn't you agree we should use caution and good sense when it comes to
exposing ourselves to such things?


Yes and like Gfre, I say that a whiff of smoke from a smoker who's
ten feet away, isn't going to kill me.

Since WHEN is their ONLY one whiff of secondhand smoke??


--
Maggie

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Specifically, nonsmokers who are
exposed to secondhand smoke at work increase their risk of heart disease
by 25%€“30% and their risk of lung cancer by 20%€“30%, and are susceptible
to immediate damage to the cardiovascular system.

I'd like to see someone prove that. It's so patently ridiculous.
Show us how walking through a room with some smokers leads to
immediate damage to the cardiovascular system. I'm waiting.....
You won't be able to, because it's made up BS and it just discredits
whatever else they have to say. This is like the risks of getting
cancer from cell phones. There have been studies that suggested a
link, others that show no link. The zealots focus on the ones that
confirm their agenda.

What's the increased risk of death to a fisherman in the Arctic?
A steel worker? Roofers? Loggers? Should we ban those too?
If someone can choose to be a fisherman and take that risk, why
can't they be free to choose to work in a bar that allows smoking?
Actually they still are, in some places that haven't gone bat ****
crazy yet.

On 5/29/2016 10:29 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:23, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.

Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.




4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance.

Notice the word "smoking"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a
cigarette
from 10 ft away.





It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......

"*Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the
report concludes.

"Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your
DNA, which can lead to cancer."

*Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can
trigger heart attacks*."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html

Typical blather from zealots. There is all kinds of junk science out
there, where the desperate zealots try to shove their BS down your
throat. Brief secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? OMG,
who would actually believe that crap? I get one whiff from a cigarette
and I have heart disease?


Muggles is a drama queen.


lol What about all the other people, men here, who have already said in
one way or another similar things before I ever joined this discussion?

Are they drama kings?? hahaha!
--
Maggie

On 29 May 2016 15:03:02 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2016-05-28, bob haller wrote:

A great start would be anywhere.....

As an ex-smoker of tobacco, I agree.

I don't know why ex-smokers are so offended, but I now absolutely hate
the stink of cigarette smoking. Unbelievably horrible smelling habit!
Can't believe I did it as long as I did. 8|

nb

Like most ex smokers, you are actually afraid that if you smell the
smoke, you will want one. Once a junkie always a junkie. Why should
your will power issues guide other peoples lives?
There are plenty of reasons not to smoke but I look at it like not
wearing a helmet on a bike. Everyone tries to make the case that they
are harmed when the rider doesn't have a helmet on but the reality is
it will only be a rider who is harmed.
Just like the smokers who die, it is usually going to be cheaper for
society than living to a ripe old age and dying from "natural causes"
That usually means years in intensive care sopping up social security
and medicare bucks, generally ending up in bankruptcy on medicaid when
they go to nursing home care.

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:28 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 6:19 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.


Mo

LEGAL RISKS

Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that
create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available.
For example, an employee could file a workers compensation claim
against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to
secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employers
workers compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability
discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a €œreasonable
accommodation€�€”in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand
smoke€”if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is
exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a
claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a
common law duty.

Employers may voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace policies to reduce
the threat of litigation in these areas. These 3 risks are examined in turn.

On 5/29/2016 10:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:18:20 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:19:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.

We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.
We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The
owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke
ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking
one. This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time,
selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries
potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.


Agree. The classic example is that here and in many places, you can't
even have a once a month cigar dinner in a private room at a restaurant.

When you smoke in a room like that, the smoke and all the chemicals and
carcinogens in that smoke is absorbed into the furniture, carpet, window
curtains or shades, everything.


--
Maggie

On 2016-05-29, Muggles wrote:

Zealots? Hardly.

True.

And how do we "zealots" deal with insanely inconsiderate friends? I
have a friend who smokes. He's a rarity cuz he's still young, while
most of us are old geezers who have given up smoking. Anyway, his
clothes stink of cigarette smoke, his breath stinks of cigarette
smoke, and he tosses his cigarette filters all over the place, calling
it, "no big thing". Yeah, why I gotta clean 'em up, then? I've got a
baggie with a buncha discarded cigarette filters in it. He claims,
"they musta fell outta my pocket". Yeah, and God loves little green
apples..... but little green apples are not tossing cigarette butts
all around my property.

They should outlaw cigarette filters!

/rant

nb

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 8:31:49 AM UTC-4, Wally wrote:
On 05/29/2016 01:23 AM, wrote:
Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

The local Indian casino allows smoking throughout their facility (hotel, restaurants and gaming floor).

There are still some places that are the exception. Funny thing, here in
the Peoples Republic of NJ, you can't smoke at any bar, restaurant, etc.
Can't even have a once a year cigar dinner. But they still do allow
smoking in some sections of the casinos. Interesting. The state gets a
cut of the revenue. So, they don't mind screwing with all the other
businesses, but the one that they get a big cut from, well that they
have different rules for. It's just another example of hypocritical libs.

On 2016-05-29, wrote:

Like most ex smokers, you are actually afraid that if you smell the
smoke, you will want one.

I always suspected you were a moron. Thank you for confirming it.

nb

On 5/29/2016 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:02:57 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 1:12 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 05/28/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote:
It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any
source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things.

Well, I guess we had better cancel our normally scheduled August forest
fires.

That kind of smoke make people sick, too.

Fire fighters wear breathing equipment because that smoke isn't good to
breathe, either. People die from smoke inhalation, and they also have
similar physical responses to forest fire smoke that people have from
secondhand cigarette smoke.


OK fine, why aren't you campaigning to ban wood stoves, fire places
and back yard charcoal grills?

If you'd like to debate a different topic, start another thread. This
topic is about smokers and smoking, right?

Moving the goal posts and trying to change the subject doesn't change
the facts about smoking or secondhand smoke and it's dangers.

A neighbor can burn 40 pounds of wood in an evening with impunity but
if he is burning a gram of tobacco and you smell it, you go ballistic.

Your exaggerating my reaction. I don't go ballistic - I GET SICK from
secondhand smoke. Those are 2 separate responses. One is an emotional
response, and the other is a physical response that can't be controlled,
unlike an emotional response CAN be controlled.


I doubt there is s suburb in America where you don't smell a whiff of
wood smoke in the winter or the smell of grilling meat in the summer.
By your definition, if you can smell it, you are being harmed.
When a bagel gets sideways in the toaster, do you evacuate the house
and stay in a hotel until the place is decontaminated?



--
Maggie

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:08:45 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:23 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:57:43 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

If that is true, and it sounds like bull**** to me, what is the effect
of the carbon monoxide from lawn mowers, smoke from BBQ grills and the
pollution from wood burning stoves? Should we ban all of them too?

It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any
source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things.

Wouldn't you agree we should use caution and good sense when it comes to
exposing ourselves to such things?


But we are singling out one of those sources for arrest and
prosecution while accepting all others.

The topic is smoking, so the OP singled out smoking as the topic.

There are people who get sick looking at gay people but that does not
mean it should be an illegal activity. This is just political
correctness run amok.

No, I disagree. It's a fact that secondhand smoke has caused health
problems for people for a long time. We're finally getting around to
logically responding to that issue.


The anti smoking crowd is telling smokers they
can't even have a bar dedicated to smokers, far from anyone who might
be offended by it. They say they need "equal access" to that bar so
they can be offended and close it down. Smokers seem to be the only
group of people who have no rights in this country.

Smoking isn't a right - it's a want, a bad habit.


Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.


It seems restaurant owners don't want to cater to just smokers because
that eliminates a growing population of people who would not ever become
patrons of that business because of the health hazards there.


--
Maggie

Wrong again. The bar and restaurant owners had no choice in the matter.
The libs shoved it down their throats with BANS. That's how the vast
majority of bars became smoke free. Why can't we be left free to choose?

On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:25:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:29:52 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:17:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:19:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2016 03:23:22 -0400, wrote:



Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Employees.

We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to
work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere.

Unsafe work place. There you have it.

How is it unsafe? With any reasonable amount of fresh air makeup on
the HVAC system this minuscule amount of smoke is harmless. If the
wait staff is smoking too (and a very high percentage do), what
difference would it make anyway?


Wait staff might have non-smokers. You ever been in a smokey bar?
In most of them the HVAC is customers opening and closing the when the
come or go.
Anyway, that's the justification where they have the laws.
As a smoker, I have no problem with this. Ever been in a restaurant
and the guy at the next table lights a cigar?
I don't like it, and it's probably as disagreeable to a non-smoker
when I light a cigarette.


We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The
owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke
ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking
one. This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time,
selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries
potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.

Yeah, it's ridiculous.

Yet it was applauded by the smoke nazis.
I don't smoke but I do defend the right to do it if you want and I am
not going to use pseudo science and skewed "studies" to tell them they
can't. The original EPA study that is the base for most of these
claims was roundly rejected by just about everyone who actually looked
at the methodology.

As long as it's not prohibited outside I don't have a problem with it.
That's when it's plain stupid.

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:09:46 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 10:52:06 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 28/05/2016 18:20, Reggie wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?

Indeed, I prefer a free society.
--
Bod

That's an odd statement coming from a British subject living in a country where one can be jailed for defending himself or insulting a homosexual. What a country, glad I'm not there. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Insulting Monster

In many places today you could be arrested for insulting a homosexual, depending on what the insult was. They call it a hate crime.

Funny thing is starting to happen. Some state down south, there is a
bill to make crimes against cops a hate crime now. The reasoning is that
it's a hate crime if it's based on race, religion, gay, skin color, so
let's add cops to the list. Sounds good to me. Then we should keep on
adding, until we get back to where we started, which is just equal treatment
for everybody. If you get beat up or killed, there is plenty of discretion
in the sentence and the judge can adjust it to fit the circumstances.
In other words, we don't need these "hate" laws and IMO, many of them
are unconstitutional. I was watching the news few weeks ago, and there
was some guy murdered and the reporter was saying that they were looking
into whether it was a hate crime, so the perp could be charged. Good grief.
It's a murder already, just sentence him under the murder laws.


It's Louisiana where the hate crime law is being considered making it a hate crime to attack a police officer. o_O

https://www.rt.com/usa/344271-louisi...l-police-hate/

[8~{} Uncle Hateful Monster

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:44:04 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:57:37 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 10:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:20:37 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance. It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......


If that is true, and it sounds like bull**** to me, what is the effect
of the carbon monoxide from lawn mowers, smoke from BBQ grills and the
pollution from wood burning stoves? Should we ban all of them too?


It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any


Wouldn't you agree we should use caution and good sense when it comes to
exposing ourselves to such things?


Yes and like Gfre, I say that a whiff of smoke from a smoker who's
ten feet away, isn't going to kill me.

Since WHEN is their ONLY one whiff of secondhand smoke??


--
Maggie

When you're walking into a building is a good example. How did that
become an issue? Well the anti-smoking zealots first banned smoking
inside buildings. So, smokers go outside and stand near the entrance.
So, next the zealots claim that just walking by there, catching a brief
whiff is intolerable. So, they passed another law making smokers stand
25 or 50 ft away. Then, that wasn't good enough, so in some cases, they
passed laws preventing you from smoking anywhere on a property. That's
what the lib zealots do. They won't be satisfied until everyone lives
the way they insist they must live. Then, they are already starting on
how much fat you can eat, what size soda you can buy. Maybe that's
your America, it's not mine.

On 5/29/2016 10:37 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:31, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:14 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:49 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 03:52, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 28/05/2016 18:20, Reggie wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 05/28/2016 11:31 AM, bob haller wrote:
A great start would be anywhere anyone complains about it

so all public places, townhouses, detached homes if the
stench is
detectable off site like a neighbors yard. smoking should be
illegal
around any child anyone under 21

On private property, if the owner or someone who lives there
objects to it
(assume that defendant children object, like with rape).

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

Yes.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I remember something about how someone who smoked for 40 years has
spent
enough money to buy a house (and the house isn't putting poison in
your
lungs).

what the hell business is that of yours?

Indeed, I prefer a free society.

That's an odd statement coming from a British subject living in a
country where one can be jailed for defending himself or insulting a
homosexual. What a country, glad I'm not there. ^_^

So you feel that you have the right to insult someone just because
they are Gay!?

Why do you want to limit Gay rights?

Eh!? I said the exact opposite. Gays should have equal rights.



You said, more or less, that Gays have some sort of right to never be
insulted. IF it is a right to never be insulted, then it should be the
right of EVERYONE to never be insulted, not just Gays.


Therefore, you either want to grant a special right to only Gays, or you
want to limit the rights of Gays to be equally insulted just like
everyone else?



Oi! I said "Why do you want to *limit* Gay rights?"

Since WHEN does anyone have a right to never be insulted, including Gays???

YOU said: "So you feel that you have the right to insult someone just
because they are Gay!?"

Technically, speech is free speech in the USA, and everyone has a right
to that free speech. There is NO right to never being insulted, yet,
you want to grant the right to Gay's to never be insulted. Why??

Would you grant that same right to me to never allow anyone to insult me
because I'm against secondhand smoke? Why don't you grant that right to
me .. to never allow anyone to insult me because I'm pro-healthy air?


*Everyone* should have the right to be criticised, but no one has the
right to *insult* someone for, say, just for being Gay or anyone else
for that matter. Decent people don't insult.

Why not?? People here insult someone at some point JUST because they
disagree? Are those people not decent people because they have words,
disagreements, etc??

--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 16:38, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:

But we are singling out one of those sources for arrest and
prosecution while accepting all others.
There are people who get sick looking at gay people but that does not
mean it should be an illegal activity. This is just political
correctness run amok. The anti smoking crowd is telling smokers they
can't even have a bar dedicated to smokers, far from anyone who might
be offended by it. They say they need "equal access" to that bar so
they can be offended and close it down. Smokers seem to be the only
group of people who have no rights in this country.

Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are
offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place.

Smokers need a safe space. I suppose the only group worse off are
Caucasian male American smokers. They had no civil rights to start
with. ^_^

There is no safe space to smoke.

Then equally there is no safe place to burn bonfires or use obnoxious
aerosol cans or spray pesticides.
Get them all banned, Muggles.

There are various groups of people who lead the fight to ban those things.

The topic at hand here, though, is smoking.

So you don't object to other forms of smoke?
ps...it's *all* smoke.

--
Bod

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:36:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.


Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.

Smoke never stays put at the origination point.


Well, there you go again, off into loony land. Folks, it's starting.
I'm sure that everyone else here knows that a "puff" means you have
the cigarette in your mouth and you are inhaling. Therefore the effects
of a "puff" are going to be very different than a whiff from 10 ft
away. It's like saying a whiff from a bus passing by is the same
as sucking on the exhaust, so the effects are the same.




Zealots? Hardly.

Your inability to distinguish between a puff and a whiff from 10 ft
away shows that you're one of them.

On 29/05/2016 16:46, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:29 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:23, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:20:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2016 8:23 PM, wrote:

To be clear, I don't smoke but I am also not offended when people do
and I know their smoke is not harming me. Simply smelling a whiff of
smoke is harmless,

"Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by
increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen
absorbed into the body.

Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette
from 10 ft away.




4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
swelling of mucous membranes, which also leads to increased airway
resistance.

Notice the word "smoking"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a
cigarette
from 10 ft away.





It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
wide variety of carcinogens in the cells lining the respiratory tract.
These changes lead to cancer. 5 Smoking greatly affects the lungs from
an annoying repeated cough to grave illnesses like chronic bronchitis,
emphysema and bronchial carcinoma."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001

.......

"*Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the
report concludes.

"Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your
DNA, which can lead to cancer."

*Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can
trigger heart attacks*."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html

Typical blather from zealots. There is all kinds of junk science out
there, where the desperate zealots try to shove their BS down your
throat. Brief secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? OMG,
who would actually believe that crap? I get one whiff from a cigarette
and I have heart disease?


Muggles is a drama queen.


lol What about all the other people, men here, who have already said in
one way or another similar things before I ever joined this discussion?

Are they drama kings?? hahaha!

Probably, yes.

--
Bod