On 5/29/2016 10:57 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 14:35, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/29/2016 3:49 AM, Bod wrote:


BTW: While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the
world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's
prisoners.




Interesting statistic standing alone, but what does it mean?

We lock people up for silly reasons?
We are better at catching criminals?
We have better laws?
We have too many laws?
We imprison, other countries execute?

http://www.ibtimes.com/incarcerated-...charts-1562451


Does not explain "why" though. What do we do different? I can easily
explain that there is more car theft in the US than Uganda, but that
does not explain the difference with the UK that still has many autos
per thousand population.

Some is explained here
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html
Jail churn is particularly high because at any given moment most of the
722,000 people in local jails have not been convicted and are in jail
because they are either too poor to make bail and are being held before
trial, or because theyve just been arrested and will make bail in the
next few hours or days.

One reason is that we have too many lawyers that drag this stuff out.

On 05/29/2016 04:52 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

"200 people were killed by speeding drivers" - yes, out of 65
million. That's pretty good odds.


And THAT is "supposed" to be comforting to those who are dying because
of a speeding driver.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
(1769-1821)

On 5/29/2016 11:31 AM, Muggles wrote:


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?


Gosh that sounds complex. Insulting anyone for any reason it not a nice
thing to do, but I fail to see how that limits their rights.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:46:53 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:16:36 -0500, Muggles
wrote:


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


You are the same kind of "conservative" who wants to impose your
morality on everyone else.

Limiting secondhand smoke has nothing morality issues - it has to do
with health issues.

That word has lost its meaning and become the same big government
fascism we used to ascribe to liberals. The only difference is which
rights you want to erode.

Your "sickness" is more learned behavior than fact ... unless that

Me telling you that I get sick when exposed to secondhand smoke should
be enough for you to accept that I "get sick". It's a physical illness,
not a learned behavior.

So I should also believe the people who say they get sick when they
see gay people or smell perfume.
This is still not the point. Just because you do not want to smell
smoke has nothing to do with a place that someone decides is a smoking
business. You just stay away. I bet you don't go to titty bars either.
You know enough to stay away when you see the sign

On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:53:10 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 12:59 PM, wrote:



Again you are confusing "offence" with "health"

How's that? The stench of secondhand smoke contains all the bad
chemicals that the smoke itself contains. It's still about health.

The "chemicals" are in such a minor trace amount that they are not
actually harmful. You are simply offended by the smell.


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.

Then I guess they property holder will lose money. Why should that be
any of your business. Get even with him and just leave, refusing to
ever come back. If this is really a thing, the market will decide it.

The market IS already doing that. It's just a matter of time before
smoking at all public venues is banned.

If the government "bans" something, that is not the market, it is the
government. The title of this thread is not "where should smoking be
unprofitable" or "where should smoking be politically incorrect" it
says "illegal" . That is enforcing your beliefs at the point of a
government gun and that is not "conservative" thinking.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:54:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 1:04 PM, wrote:


You are "conservative" in an ISIS sort of way. You want to impose your
beliefs above the freedom of others, even in places you will never go.

Oh please ... It isn't my belief that smoke harms people, it's a FACT
that I can provide multiple references and documentation to support that
conclusion.

The trace chemicals in a whiff of smoke is NOT dangerous and you will
have a hard time finding real facts to prove it. Anyone can write a
"study" and cherry pick a few data points to "prove" their assertion.
If you are not actually providing data about a particular dose, and
establishing the threshold limit values you are not saying anything.
That is straight from OSHA. This "second hand smoke" thing is a red
herring unless you actually establish some values for how much smoke
you are talking about.

It is still true that most of the people who call themselves "Liberal"
and those who call themselves "Conservative" are usually neither.
They both want an obtrusive government to back their particular
crusades.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 20:56:06 +0100, Bod wrote:


There's so many people who have smoked all of their lives and lived to
well over a hundred, that didn't die of a smoking related disease.

If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a
smoking related disease!

I know it may just be anecdotal but my father, mother, sister and very
soon my brother in law are dead from smoking related disease. I do
have some personal experience here. My grandfather did live to be 100
and he didn't smoke, but he was around smokers all his life.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:57:08 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 1:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 12:20:02 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 12:03 PM, wrote:
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?

Tobacco smoke is the main smoke I've been affected by, but other smoke I
have similar reactions, too. VOC's mostly make me sick to my stomach
and I can get headaches from them.

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


No, wood smoke contains "a complex mixture of gases and fine particles
(also called particle pollution, particulate matter, or PM). These
microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system,
where they can cause health problems such as burning eyes, runny nose,
and illnesses such as bronchitis. In addition to particle pollution,
wood smoke contains several toxic harmful air pollutants including:
benzene, formaldhyde, acrolein and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health

There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they
create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are
known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smo...cigarette.html


A distinction without a difference, particularly when you look at the
scale. 40 pounds of wood vs a gram of tobacco. (something like 20,000
to one).


So, provide your evidence of what's contained in those 2.

You cited 2 studies from different sources trying to prove different
things and you are shocked they do not say exactly the same thing.
Any when site with "stop smoking" in it's URL is going to be using
skewed data to make it's point. We still have to talk about dosage and
TLVs if we want to talk about inhalation hazards. Anything else is
pure hyperbole.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:04:10 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The problem with smoking on the job is that smokers take multiple "smoke
breaks" during the day above and beyond regular company provided break
times. It's a waste of company time.


That is simply a result of the silly smoking policy.
It is also far from the most disruptive thing at work. People screwing
with their phones all day is a much larger waste of company time.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:04:56 -0500, Muggles
wrote:


If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a
smoking related disease!



Why can some people be a carrier of a disease and NEVER get sick from it
themselves?

You are getting silly now. Smoking related "diseases" are not caused
by a virus or bacteria that you can transmit to others. They are
physical damage caused by massive amounts of smoke. (not just a whiff
now and then)

On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:12:41 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


The problem with smoking on the job is that smokers take multiple "smoke
breaks" during the day above and beyond regular company provided break
times. It's a waste of company time.

You must have funny companies. Wherever I've worked, people always smoke in normal breaks, or at their desk.

We do have funny companies who have been cowed into these silly
policies by smoke nazis.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:52:03 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Exactly. What they usually do is not quote the total number of people. Like "200 people were killed by speeding drivers" - yes, out of 65 million. That's pretty good odds.

In this case, using your example, if some of that 200 people killed by
a speeding car were smokers, they would say it was the smoking that
killed them. That is how they can pile up the huge statistics they
use. When a smoker dies of a heart attack, it is always chalked up to
smoking, even if the smoking was the most physical activity this guy
had, he weighs 350 pounds and eats bacon at every meal.

Muggles
Sun, 29
May 2016 16:26:38 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


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

Hi Jenn.

I see it hasn't taken you long to do the same old stuff you were so
well known for doing in another newsgroup. Have you been playing the
poor me card here, often?



--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Muggles
Sun, 29
May 2016 03:27:06 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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

That's so overrated, too. Second hand smoke is far less harmful than
the exhaust fumes your van emits when it's running.



--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

"dadiOH" Sun,
29 May 2016 16:16:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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

She lives in a trailer. Do you really want to ask her about the
formaldehyde issue? I see that some things do not change. New nym,
different newsgroup, same character flaws present, though. IE: same old
Jenn. nothings changed. I do see she's gotten over her 'fear' quite
well.


You should ask her about the subject of using a cell phone with a hands
free device while driving; safe or unsafe. The last time I did, she
claimed because her hands were free, this was a safe thing to be doing.
I can't find any studies to support the conclusion, though. The ones I
did find seem to indicate a common issue; your hands might be on the
wheel, but your mind is on that conversation. IE: you aren't paying
attention to what you're doing.

Might be one reason why they're illegal in various states, eh? Hands
free or not. Don't talk on your cell while you're driving.



--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Muggles
Sun, 29
May 2016 15:21:23 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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

Do you have any actual links to any supporting evidence? published
studies, etc? No offense, but .gov isn't exactly... suggesting honesty
and integrity there.


--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

trader_4
Sun, 29
May 2016 15:51:59 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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.

The last time I ate out in Virginia, smoking was not only allowed,
but encouraged. I found a clean, ash tray at every table. I don't
smoke very often, but, I do enjoy being able to light one up every
now and then. It's certainly no worse for me than breathing in the
crap spewed forth from the vehicles people insist on driving around
here. If that's not enough, we have the Eastman chemical company
here. I'm *sure* whatever it's emitting is totally safe for me to be
inhaling. Right! :-) When they ignite it, it makes several different
colored flames from the stacks. Sometimes, it just vents without
being ignited. I'm sure whatever it is (steam? rofl.. could be..
doubtful it's pure steam though) is completely safe and the EPA knows
all about it.

Let's not even mention the papermill I lived near when I was a kiddo.
I had to smell that stinky ******* every morning on the walk to
school. Muggles, who can I sue over that? I'm sure it had to do
something bad to me. Stunt my growth, mebbe. Keep me from making a
kickass jumpshot once? Who knows...

We have a paper processing plant here too. If you're downtown during
certain times of the day on certain days, it's super stinky, like the
papermill in Berlin, NH. If I can smell it, I'm obviously inhaling
it, and I suspect, strongly suspect, it's probably worse for me than
second hand smoke I might/might not even be around for days.

We also have wood burning stoves here. outdoor BBQ pits of various
styles. Some generate piles of smoke. Some very pleasant smelling.
[g] We have a nascar track in Bristol. I'm certain the fumes emitted
to race around an oval track have to be worse for me than second hand
smoke. The smoke generated as they 'warm up the tires' for drag
racing nights can't be good for me. It's literally, burning rubber.

Yet, nobody is getting sued for it Nobody is trying to have it shut
down. Diesel trucks, holy ****, pollution city. I suspect that thick
black cloud from a truck 'rolling coal' is far worse for me than if I
smoked a cig directly myself, let alone being exposed to second hand
smoke.


--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Muggles
Sun, 29
May 2016 15:08:41 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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.

That's your way of writing that you don't actually have enough
knowledge of the subject to support the position you're taking on it.

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.

Please provide some scientific studies to support what you're now
stating as a fact. I'm not convinced that these health issues are
directly related to 2nd hand smoke vs something else they were
exposed to.

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.

Are you having difficulty remaining on topic here?

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.

Speaking of real, actual, health hazards.. Have you stopped driving
while talking on your cell phone yet? Or, do you still think that
using a hands free device makes you a safer cell phone using driver?

--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Muggles
Sun, 29
May 2016 16:44:32 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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

Wrong. Certain 'taste like sugar/sweet without actually being sugar'
chemicals have been determined to be carcinogenic and have since been
removed from the products and replaced with something else that'll
probably also be determined as 'bad for you' at a later date.

Do you drink soda, Jenn? Chew gum? You've probably injested these
wonderful second hand smoke free, cancer causing chemicals, and,
never realized it.


Oh what mess it is when you want to outlaw things that are 'bad for
you' Your hands free cell phone driving is bad for you and everyone
else you share the road with. We should have laws against it. Oh
wait, rofl, we already do. :-)




--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Bod
Sun, 29 May 2016 16:24:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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*? :-)

Further, how much density of smoke is in a puff, and does it matter
what the burning material consists of? These are important
considerations. [g]


--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Uncle Monster
Sun, 29
May 2016 12:16:55 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:31:48 AM UTC-5, 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 financial and personal costs, are just way too high


At least the country headed in the right direction but there is
too much money to be made selling an addictive drug to young
people. ^_^

You might wanna talk to big pharma if you have an issue with the sale
of addictive drugs (which are known for sure to be dangerous and
lethal if taken in the wrong dosages or mixed with other drugs) to
our young and old people. They don't discriminate.

They make the tobacco industry look like cub-scouts by comparison.
They've got it locked down. They're so good at it, the illegal drugs
are worried they'll be out of business, and, the feds won't even have
to do anything. 'Worried about getting busted John? No Jim, I'm
worried about lost sales of cocaine to aderol. It's kicking my ass
and it's pharmas" Kids these days would rather pop a pill than do a
nice line.. you know it's bad when that's the word on the street. LOL








--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

On 5/29/2016 4:44 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Muggles wrote:

Then I guess they property holder will lose money. Why should that be
any of your business. Get even with him and just leave, refusing to
ever come back. If this is really a thing, the market will decide it.

The market IS already doing that. It's just a matter of time before
smoking at all public venues is banned.

Excuse me? The market is NOT what is banning smoking. It was/is a bunch of
smoke Nazis busily working to get the government to pass laws.



Smoke Nazis?? No - just regular people who are tired of being sick from
other people's secondhand smoke.

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 7:36 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:31 AM, Muggles wrote:


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?


Gosh that sounds complex. Insulting anyone for any reason it not a nice
thing to do, but I fail to see how that limits their rights.

When you grant a special right to one group of people you've set them
apart as being some how special. At the same time you've discriminated
about others who are IN that special group of people.

Why do X people have a right to not be insulted because they are X?

Why isn't it wrong to insult Y people, too, because they are Y?



--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:46:53 -0500, Muggles


Me telling you that I get sick when exposed to secondhand smoke should
be enough for you to accept that I "get sick". It's a physical illness,
not a learned behavior.


So I should also believe the people who say they get sick when they
see gay people or smell perfume.

Maybe you should believe them.

This is still not the point. Just because you do not want to smell
smoke has nothing to do with a place that someone decides is a smoking
business. You just stay away.

Using a physical weakness in order to prevent some people from becoming
patrons is no different from denying people access because of the color
of their skin.

I bet you don't go to titty bars either.
You know enough to stay away when you see the sign


Why would you ask such a denigrating question?

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2016 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:53:10 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 12:59 PM, wrote:



Again you are confusing "offence" with "health"

How's that? The stench of secondhand smoke contains all the bad
chemicals that the smoke itself contains. It's still about health.

The "chemicals" are in such a minor trace amount that they are not
actually harmful. You are simply offended by the smell.

You're wrong about the chemicals, AND about me simply being offended by
the smell.

"Thirdhand smoke consists of the tobacco residue from cigarettes,
cigars, and other tobacco products that is left behind after smoking and
builds up on surfaces and furnishings. Tobacco smoke is composed of
numerous types of gasses and particulate matter, including carcinogens
and heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, and cyanide. Sticky, highly toxic
particulates, like nicotine, can cling to walls and ceilings. Gases can
be absorbed into carpets, draperies, and other upholsteries. A 2002
study found that these toxic brews can then reemit back into the air and
recombine to form harmful compounds that remain at high levels long
after smoking has stopped occurring.

There is a growing body of evidence that this lingering tobacco residue
has significant health risks. People, especially children and
hospitality industry workers, can have considerable exposure to it. As
confirmed by the 2006 Surgeon General's Report, there is no safe level
of exposure to tobacco smoke. And tobacco smoke toxins remain harmful
even when breathed or ingested after the active smoking ends.

A study published in February 2010 found that thirdhand smoke causes the
formation of carcinogens. The nicotine in tobacco smoke reacts with
nitrous acid - a common component of indoor air - to form the hazardous
carcinogens. Nicotine remains on surfaces for days and weeks, so the
carcinogens continue to be created over time, which are then inhaled,
absorbed or ingested."
http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?id=671


--
Maggie

On 05/29/2016 10:23 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:04:10 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The problem with smoking on the job is that smokers take multiple "smoke
breaks" during the day above and beyond regular company provided break
times. It's a waste of company time.


That is simply a result of the silly smoking policy.
It is also far from the most disruptive thing at work. People screwing
with their phones all day is a much larger waste of company time.


ever had anybody shove an iPhone up your nose?

On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:45:48 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:46:53 -0500, Muggles


Me telling you that I get sick when exposed to secondhand smoke should
be enough for you to accept that I "get sick". It's a physical illness,
not a learned behavior.


So I should also believe the people who say they get sick when they
see gay people or smell perfume.

Maybe you should believe them.

Why reinforce irrational bigotry?


This is still not the point. Just because you do not want to smell
smoke has nothing to do with a place that someone decides is a smoking
business. You just stay away.

Using a physical weakness in order to prevent some people from becoming
patrons is no different from denying people access because of the color
of their skin.

You keep missing the point that nobody is making you go into a
"smoking" bar.


I bet you don't go to titty bars either.
You know enough to stay away when you see the sign



Why would you ask such a denigrating question?

Because you seem confused by a sign on a bar that says "smoking
allowed". If there are enough people who will be turned away, the bar
would go out of business but that is not the case so the smoke nazis
want the government to step in

On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:51:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:53:10 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/29/2016 12:59 PM, wrote:



Again you are confusing "offence" with "health"

How's that? The stench of secondhand smoke contains all the bad
chemicals that the smoke itself contains. It's still about health.

The "chemicals" are in such a minor trace amount that they are not
actually harmful. You are simply offended by the smell.

You're wrong about the chemicals, AND about me simply being offended by
the smell.

http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?id=671


Give me a real science study, not a hit piece from a group who says
"no smoke" in their name.
I can find a "study" from some fundamentalist organization that says
people are "harmed" by damned near anything.

On Mon, 30 May 2016 00:18:39 -0500, notX
wrote:

On 05/29/2016 10:23 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:04:10 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

The problem with smoking on the job is that smokers take multiple "smoke
breaks" during the day above and beyond regular company provided break
times. It's a waste of company time.


That is simply a result of the silly smoking policy.
It is also far from the most disruptive thing at work. People screwing
with their phones all day is a much larger waste of company time.


ever had anybody shove an iPhone up your nose?

No but they cause a lot more deaths than second hand smoke when they
are texting in their car.

On 29/05/2016 20:48, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/29/2016 10:20 AM, Bod wrote:

[snit]

The smell of beetroot makes me feel sick,

and, knowing that, I would avoid using beetroot around you. I wouldn't
use it anyway and blame you for not leaving. That's called respect.

No, *I* would accept that *you* have the right to eat it and *I* would
avoid you. I'm the one with the problem about beetroot. "Live and let live".

--
Bod

On 29/05/2016 20:50, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:31:13 -0500, Muggles
wrote:


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.


We are questioning whether you are actually harmed or simple offended.

It's a fact secondhand smoke harms people, and I'm one of them.

OTOH, it would be offensive if someone knew I got sick from secondhand
smoke and deliberately lit up and blew smoke in my face.

There's a difference.


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.

OK fine but why can't I have a smoking restaurant that you do not need
to go into?

Right now there are places like that. I don't know for how long they'll
exist, though.

I have heard tea totallers say the smell of alcohol offends them too
(even to the point of sickness) but we just tell them to stay out of
bars.


That's the whole point. If you don't like something, then avoid it,
simple, everyone's happy.

--
Bod

On 29/05/2016 22:52, dadiOH wrote:
Muggles wrote:
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?

I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting there. Against SOME women at
least.


:-)

--
Bod

On 30/05/2016 04:12, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 20:56:06 +0100, Bod wrote:


There's so many people who have smoked all of their lives and lived to
well over a hundred, that didn't die of a smoking related disease.

If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a
smoking related disease!

I know it may just be anecdotal but my father, mother, sister and very
soon my brother in law are dead from smoking related disease. I do
have some personal experience here. My grandfather did live to be 100
and he didn't smoke, but he was around smokers all his life.

Indeed. Then we see anecdotal facts like the oldest woman who ever
lived actually smoked all of her life and died naturally at the age of
122. Maybe the Scientists should study why some people seem immune from
smoking related problems.

--
Bod

On 30/05/2016 04:26, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:04:56 -0500, Muggles
wrote:


If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a
smoking related disease!



Why can some people be a carrier of a disease and NEVER get sick from it
themselves?

You are getting silly now. Smoking related "diseases" are not caused
by a virus or bacteria that you can transmit to others. They are
physical damage caused by massive amounts of smoke. (not just a whiff
now and then)

Ok, this lady is an example of what I am talking about:

This 122 Year Old Woman Has The Most Important Secret To A Life Of ...
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...st-important-s...

The oldest documented person that ever lived was a French woman named
Jeanne Calment who made it to 122 years, 164 days on this earth.

What was her secret? According to French researcher Jean-Marie Robine,
“She never did anything special to stay in good health.”

Jeanne Calment smoked cigarettes (started at age 21), drank port wine
and ate a couple of pounds of chocolate sweets a week until she was 119
years old.

--
Bod

On 30/05/2016 05:14, Diesel wrote:
Bod
Sun, 29 May 2016 16:24:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

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*? :-)

Further, how much density of smoke is in a puff, and does it matter
what the burning material consists of? These are important
considerations. [g]


Indeed.

--
Bod

well heres another aspect to consider

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 7:48:53 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
well heres another aspect to consider

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/3...htmlws-main-bb

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/3...htmlws-main-bb

our country must kill smoking just as its killed so many users

On 30/05/2016 12:48, bob haller wrote:
well heres another aspect to consider

What are you talking about? You've snipped everything.

--
Bod

On 30/05/2016 12:58, bob haller wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/3...htmlws-main-bb

our country must kill smoking just as its killed so many users

Get a life.

--
Bod