On 5/29/2016 10:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?

Some people don't have a choice but to work where ever they can find a
job. It's the employers duty to provide a safe work place for all of
their employees.


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.



What you just cited is another example of how the zealots work.

Zealots?? How do you figure?

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.

It's a public health issue, and it's been proven that secondhand smoke
hurts people. Why's that so hard to grasp?


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.




--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 16:48, Muggles wrote:
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.


Stop sniffing them then.

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 10:49 AM, notbob wrote:
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


People used to smoke outside the entrance to a job I worked at. The
company told them they had to smoke away from the entrance, but it was
always like walking through a cloud. Despite having a butt disposal
container nearby, all the butts ended up on the ground. It not only
stank to high heaven there, but company guests would enter that door and
it was a horrific representation of the companies first impression.

Eventually, smoking there was banned and moved to the back side of the
building.

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 10:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.



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?


You're free to smoke in your own environment where your secondhand smoke
can't harm other people.

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 9:17 AM, wrote:

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.

Good grief!

I'm glad I won't be around all that much longer, don't want to see what you
people have wrought.

Muggles wrote:
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.

So don't go there.

How about your house? How much formaldehyde is offgassing from your various
furnishings?

On 5/29/2016 10:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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??



When you're walking into a building is a good example. How did that
become an issue?

It stinks, makes me physically ill, causes me breathing problems for
hours after I have one whiff, and I can't hold my breath long enough to
pass a smoker to ONLY get just one whiff. More than one whiff makes me
even sicker.

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.

I'm not a liberal - I'm a conservative, and it's a good idea to limit
secondhand smoke.


--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 17:00, Muggles wrote:
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??

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting someone.

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 11:01 AM, Bod wrote:
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.


I can't breath any smoke, and VOC's have nearly the same affect on my
breathing.

--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 17:16, dadiOH wrote:
Muggles wrote:
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.

So don't go there.

How about your house? How much formaldehyde is offgassing from your various
furnishings?


Not to mention fecal fumes.

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:36:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.


A puff becomes a whiff and doesn't stay a puff. Hello?

--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 17:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:01 AM, Bod wrote:
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.


I can't breath any smoke, and VOC's have nearly the same affect on my
breathing.

Then stop breathing near any smoke ;-)

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:46, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:29 AM, Bod wrote:

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.


Are you prejudiced against women and call them drama queens? Why do you
differentiate between men with the same objections to secondhand smoke
and only single me out as a women calling me a drama queen??

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 11:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:48, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:


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.


Stop sniffing them then.


Kind of a silly statement there ...

--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 17:20, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:36:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.


A puff becomes a whiff and doesn't stay a puff. Hello?

Is this a new metric measure of smoke density?
How mant *whiffs* equal a *puff*? :-)
--
Bod

On 29/05/2016 17:21, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:46, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:29 AM, Bod wrote:

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.


Are you prejudiced against women and call them drama queens? Why do you
differentiate between men with the same objections to secondhand smoke
and only single me out as a women calling me a drama queen??

I didn't, I said they probably are drama Kings.

--
Bod

Muggles wrote:

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

So is drinking. So is biting ones fingernails. So are a host of other
things.

Believe it or not, there are a bunch of people that just don't want the
government, you or anyone else what they can and cannot do.

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.

That's fine...if the owner wants to run a smoke free place, he should be -
and is - free to do so. However, when they pass laws FORCING him to do so,
they have stepped over the line.

On 29/05/2016 17:22, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:48, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:


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.


Stop sniffing them then.


Kind of a silly statement there ...

You're the one that said smoke is absorbed into furniture etc, so how
does that harm you unless you sniff or lick the furniture?

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:00, Muggles wrote:
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??


Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting someone.

Calling someone a drama queen is an insult and you said it because we
disagree.

Why is it wrong to insult a Gay person if it's not wrong for you to
insult me?

--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 17:25, dadiOH wrote:
Muggles wrote:

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

So is drinking. So is biting ones fingernails. So are a host of other
things.

Believe it or not, there are a bunch of people that just don't want the
government, you or anyone else what they can and cannot do.

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.

That's fine...if the owner wants to run a smoke free place, he should be -
and is - free to do so. However, when they pass laws FORCING him to do so,
they have stepped over the line.


Exactly!

--
Bod

On 5/29/2016 11:24 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:20, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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


A puff becomes a whiff and doesn't stay a puff. Hello?


Is this a new metric measure of smoke density?
How mant *whiffs* equal a *puff*? :-)

LOL Depends on how deeply the person whiffs on the cigarette, I guess.

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 11:24 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:21, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:46, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:29 AM, Bod wrote:

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.


Are you prejudiced against women and call them drama queens? Why do you
differentiate between men with the same objections to secondhand smoke
and only single me out as a women calling me a drama queen??

I didn't, I said they probably are drama Kings.


So you're just prejudiced against women then?

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 11:25 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Muggles wrote:

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

So is drinking. So is biting ones fingernails. So are a host of other
things.

Believe it or not, there are a bunch of people that just don't want the
government, you or anyone else what they can and cannot do.

When someone elses right or freedom harms me or someone else, that right
becomes limited. That's a logical response.


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.

That's fine...if the owner wants to run a smoke free place, he should be -
and is - free to do so. However, when they pass laws FORCING him to do so,
they have stepped over the line.

The problem with smoking areas in public places is the smoke doesn't
STAY in the smoking areas.


--
Maggie

On 29/05/2016 17:26, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:00, Muggles wrote:
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??


Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting someone.

Calling someone a drama queen is an insult and you said it because we
disagree.

Why is it wrong to insult a Gay person if it's not wrong for you to
insult me?

A drama queen is a harmless description of a person who exaggerates
illness etc, ie; a hypercondriac.

Calling you a whore would be an insult.

--
Bod

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|

I know why. It's because their sense of smell returned. Many years ago I
quit smoking for about a month.

After two weeks, I was constantly assailed by noxious odors...car exhaust,
cooking odors in restaurants, body odors in theaters (and everywhere else),
public restrooms, perfumes with which people tried to nask their body odor.
Et cetera.

"Muggles" wrote in message
...
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

Gays have convinced the masses, or at least the powers that be, that saying
anything other than embracing the gay lifestyle is "an insult" and
"homophobia".. What a crock.

On 5/29/2016 11:26 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:22, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 16:48, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:


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.

Stop sniffing them then.

Kind of a silly statement there ...

You're the one that said smoke is absorbed into furniture etc, so how
does that harm you unless you sniff or lick the furniture?


How is a non-smoker supposed to know a previous event took place in a
restaurant that allowed smoking?

Additionally, a non-smoker can enter a room where smoking had taken
place and they can smell the stench - it emanates from the objects that
have absorbed the chemicals. After a smoking event has been allowed to
take place in a restaurant area, it's no longer conducive to being a
healthy area for a non-smoker.

How many events can a restaurant owner book that allow for smoking these
days, and how many non-smokers would never book the same area for events
because of the stench left behind?

It's not financially smart to book events that allow smoking.

--
Maggie

On 2016-05-29, Muggles wrote:

Eventually, smoking there was banned and moved to the back side of the
building.

Let us not forget.... wait for it..... chewing gum!!

I guess the fact that there is no smell to offend, it's not as
noticeable. BUT..... I've seen tons of discarded, flattened, chewing
gum wads outside buildings.

One was so blatant and obvious, I wanted to get a photograph. The sun
hit a jillion flattened chewing gum "coins" and the entrance to this
one particular mall lit up like a diamond display. I jes happened to
see the same phenomena on some newscast video shots.

I bet there is tons! of discarded chewing gum, all over the world. No
outcry. No hissy fits. Why? No one can smell old chewing gum.

nb

On Sat, 28 May 2016 09:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
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

we asa nation really need to extqunish smoking completely.

the fiancial and personal costs, are just way too high

I don't smoke and don't care if you do.
That is a personal choice and I don't want/need
some lard ass government agent telling you and me
what we can/can not do and where and where not to do it.

You should be able to smoke anywhere you want unless
the PRIVATE property owner says no.

But the liberal cry baby girlie men need the government
to do it for them under police gun power.

On 5/29/2016 11:32 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:26, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 17:00, Muggles wrote:
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??


Disagreeing with someone is not the same as insulting someone.

Calling someone a drama queen is an insult and you said it because we
disagree.

Why is it wrong to insult a Gay person if it's not wrong for you to
insult me?


A drama queen is a harmless description of a person who exaggerates
illness etc, ie; a hypercondriac.

It's an insult for 3 reasons.

I'm not exaggerating the illnesses, and because the illnesses are real,
I'm not a hypochondriac, either.

Additionally, you used it as a personal attack against my character in
order to attempt to bolster your own position.

If you had any evidence to support your position, you'd have no need to
resort to exaggeration or insults.

Calling you a whore would be an insult.



--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 11:35 AM, Reggie wrote:
"Muggles" wrote in message
...
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??



Gays have convinced the masses, or at least the powers that be, that saying
anything other than embracing the gay lifestyle is "an insult" and
"homophobia".. What a crock.


I agree.

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 11:38 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Muggles wrote:

Eventually, smoking there was banned and moved to the back side of the
building.

Let us not forget.... wait for it..... chewing gum!!

I guess the fact that there is no smell to offend, it's not as
noticeable. BUT..... I've seen tons of discarded, flattened, chewing
gum wads outside buildings.

One was so blatant and obvious, I wanted to get a photograph. The sun
hit a jillion flattened chewing gum "coins" and the entrance to this
one particular mall lit up like a diamond display. I jes happened to
see the same phenomena on some newscast video shots.

I bet there is tons! of discarded chewing gum, all over the world. No
outcry. No hissy fits. Why? No one can smell old chewing gum.

nb


hmmm I guess it's not carcinogenic, either! lol

--
Maggie

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2016-05-29, Muggles wrote:

Eventually, smoking there was banned and moved to the back side of the
building.

Let us not forget.... wait for it..... chewing gum!!

I guess the fact that there is no smell to offend, it's not as
noticeable. BUT..... I've seen tons of discarded, flattened, chewing
gum wads outside buildings.

One was so blatant and obvious, I wanted to get a photograph. The sun
hit a jillion flattened chewing gum "coins" and the entrance to this
one particular mall lit up like a diamond display. I jes happened to
see the same phenomena on some newscast video shots.

I bet there is tons! of discarded chewing gum, all over the world. No
outcry. No hissy fits. Why? No one can smell old chewing gum.

nb

Chewing gum is totally banned in Singapore.

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 12:04:22 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 10:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?

Some people don't have a choice but to work where ever they can find a
job. It's the employers duty to provide a safe work place for all of
their employees.


Then ban offshore fishing, logging, etc. They are dangerous, have risks
to your health too. Some people might not have a choice and could wind
up there too. Of course, this whole issue about there not being a choice
is pure BS. You don't want to work in the bar that allows smoking,
work somewhere else, it really is that simple. This is just typical lib
BS, that people are being "forced" to work in smoking bars. YOU are
the one forcing people to conform to your ways. I say leave them free
to choose.




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.



What you just cited is another example of how the zealots work.

Zealots?? How do you figure?

I answered that below, read it:

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.

It's a public health issue, and it's been proven that secondhand smoke
hurts people. Why's that so hard to grasp?


Why is it so hard to grasp that if I want to host a cigar dinner in a
private room at a restaurant and all those involved are OK with it,
it should not be
up to you to force us to not do it? Why is it so hard to grasp that
if some people want to have their own bar, where smoking is allowed,
that it's OK? No one is forcing you to go there. YOU are forcing us.

On 5/29/2016 11:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
This is just typical lib
BS, that people are being "forced" to work in smoking bars. YOU are
the one forcing people to conform to your ways. I say leave them free
to choose.


How many times do I have to tell you I'm a conservative?

Limiting secondhand smoke is a good decision and has nothing to do with
being a liberal or being a conservative.


--
Maggie

On 2016-05-29, Reggie wrote:

Chewing gum is totally banned in Singapore.

What isn't!?

nb

On 29 May 2016 15:52:15 GMT, notbob wrote:

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

Debate the point. Name calling is what defines stupid people.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:54:09 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

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.
Only tobacco smoke?
If not my point is valid.
The fact remains most of the compounds in tobacco smoke is also in
wood smoke.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:56:57 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

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.
They can work in a non-smoking bar.

You ever been in a smokey bar?
FKNA, until recently most were smoky

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.

So fix the HVAC problem if you want a smoking bar. OSHA has plenty of
rules about fresh air makeup and air quality in environments a lot
more dangerous than a little tobacco smoke.
I worked in computer rooms when smoking was legal and the smoke was
never a problem., The amount of air moving through there pretty much
made it gone in seconds. I was a lot more worried about paper dust and
other airborne chemicals from laser drums and such.

Planet Earth. Smoking on Venus, please.