Smoking banned in private homes.

[manifold]

Um ... only if your TV is older than 1998, otherwise they can already receive the signal without converting ... but of course people love wasting taxes on stupid things.

Funny thing about this is I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked into this myself. Conclusion: FOS.

Derailing ... and for something this stupid. Check harder, better yet, actually test the equipment yourself. Truth in advertising has never existed and yet you think it does now.

How exactly does one test the equipment before the digital changeover?

 

[Ravi]

Thank you, though I can't take all the credit. I was inspired.

You could make a case to ban all kinds of other things in restaurants. For instance, I have a friend that has to carry an epi pen around because if he's around shrimp cooking he could die from his allergic reaction.

I hope Angie jumps right on this...

 

[KittenKoder]

Funny thing about this is I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked into this myself. Conclusion: FOS.

Derailing ... and for something this stupid. Check harder, better yet, actually test the equipment yourself. Truth in advertising has never existed and yet you think it does now.

How exactly does one test the equipment before the digital changeover?

Let me guess, your area is so backwards they aren't running that weekly trial that ours does?

 

[Anguille]

I'm not quite sure still where your degree of disagreement stems from.Your first 2 sentences are sort of preamble, and the third and fourth sentences (workplace / barstaff) don't seem to contradict my statement.

By the way, non user means what it says. Someone who does not use. Whether it is never used or used to use but has now stopped doesn't really make a difference as far as I can tell.

If you disagree or want to clarify further please let me know. Otherwise...

I'll stick with my own previous two posts clarifying my opinons on those subject. For probably the same reasons you find mine unclear, I find yours unclear. I think though that so far we are on the same page, minus a few ambiguities.

#8: Many media reports, and most STS legislation are based on studies generated by well respected organizations such at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

I can agree with #8.

BTW Bob I appreciate your non hysterical logical approach to this issue. It's a pleasure to be able to discuss this subject with someone who is truely interested in all the aspects of the issue - without trying to derail it with aspersions anf attemts to derail me by suggesting I lie or deserved to be fired - and who doesn't feel threatened by people who don't agree with yoiu. It's so hard for smokers and non smokers to discuss the smoking issues, especially in person. Most of the talk goes on behind people's backs. In this thread I am seeing just how emotional some smokers get and understanding the hostile looks I sometimes get when I ask people to respect the non smoking rules in non smoking areas. Actually I never ask them to put out the cigarette. I ask them to away from me on the platform or in the subway car. Public transportation is where I most have this problem.

But I'm going off on a tangent. Thanks again for this opportunity to discuss things as rationally as posiible and i hope you will be willing to answer a few questions of my own later on.

 

[Anguille]

If they lie about second hand smoke, then why should we listen about first hand smoke "facts"?

Seriously, because first hand smoke is a killer, and nobody disagrees. Even the tobacco companies. The evidence is there, it's unambiguous and it's beyond doubt.

Ever hear the claim "smoking pot aids terrorism?" When facts are blown out of proportion it's easy for many to just go along with it if they just simply don't like it. Fine, if you don't like it don't do it, but don't expect anyone to believe those claims. There is no hard evidence to support hysteria, none, all things we do have health risks, and serious ones at that. Coffee, alcohol, automobiles, most of our food, walking, hiking, skiing, etc.. We do these things knowing the risks, and no risk is greater than the other, living kills, it's a fact. But what people have done is instead of making living worth while, or at least worth it, they want to live forever, or force the rest of us to live longer than we are meant to or even want to. If I have to live without all my pleasures (I have so very few and smoking is one) then I see no point in living at all, which is a true health risk that has no cure.

I don't think people ae as much concerned with limiting your pleasures for your sake. At this point anyone who smokes is well aware of the dangers a smoker does to themself. The point of contention is imposing your smoking on others. None of the things you mention above, coffee, alcohol, etc are things that are transmitted from the the consumer into the body of another.

Pot smoke and excessive perfume are things which are very similar to cigarette smoke in that they affect the health and well being of the people nearby and they are also things which do not provide anything deemed a necessary evil such as tthe car exhaust from amulances trans porting smoker's to emergemcy rooms. .

Like nicotine, pot can be comsumed in other ways besides smoking it, so limiting it's use doesn't deny users access to it. Perfume is different as it is intended to affect others and it ussually does not affect others in a way they appreciate. Particularly when it is used as a way to announce one's presence much in the same way shouting and other attention seeking behavior does. Maybe perfumed people enjoy the smell they project but since perfume does not provide one of those necessary evils - unless, I guess it is used to mask a biological smell the person can't control - I agree with regulations on the model of public nuisance and health concerns for use of perfume in public areas.

It sounds like you are saying that you'd rather not live if you can't smoke. I don't know if you intended it that way but it sounds like it could be a sort of threat of suicide if you can't smoke where you want. I'm truely sorry to hear that but I certainly would not consider that sort of emotional blackmail something to cater to.

 

[Anguille]

You could make a case to ban all kinds of other things in restaurants. For instance, I have a friend that has to carry an epi pen around because if he's around shrimp cooking he could die from his allergic reaction.

I hope Angie jumps right on this...[/quote]

No, I'm giving you a break. You seem to be having a tough time.

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously, because first hand smoke is a killer, and nobody disagrees. Even the tobacco companies. The evidence is there, it's unambiguous and it's beyond doubt.

Ever hear the claim "smoking pot aids terrorism?" When facts are blown out of proportion it's easy for many to just go along with it if they just simply don't like it. Fine, if you don't like it don't do it, but don't expect anyone to believe those claims. There is no hard evidence to support hysteria, none, all things we do have health risks, and serious ones at that. Coffee, alcohol, automobiles, most of our food, walking, hiking, skiing, etc.. We do these things knowing the risks, and no risk is greater than the other, living kills, it's a fact. But what people have done is instead of making living worth while, or at least worth it, they want to live forever, or force the rest of us to live longer than we are meant to or even want to. If I have to live without all my pleasures (I have so very few and smoking is one) then I see no point in living at all, which is a true health risk that has no cure.

I don't think people ae as much concerned with limiting your pleasures for your sake. At this point anyone who smokes is well aware of the dangers a smoker does to themself. The point of contention is imposing your smoking on others. None of the things you mention above, coffee, alcohol, etc are things that are transmitted from the the consumer into the body of another.

Pot smoke and excessive perfume are things which are very similar to cigarette smoke in that they affect the health and well being of the people nearby and they are also things which do not provide anything deemed a necessary evil such as tthe car exhaust from amulances trans porting smoker's to emergemcy rooms. .

Like nicotine, pot can be comsumed in other ways besides smoking it, so limiting it's use doesn't deny users access to it. Perfume is different as it is intended to affect others and it ussually does not affect others in a way they appreciate. Particularly when it is used as a way to announce one's presence much in the same way shouting and other attention seeking behavior does. Maybe perfumed people enjoy the smell they project but since perfume does not provide one of those necessary evils - unless, I guess it is used to mask a biological smell the person can't control - I agree with regulations on the model of public nuisance and health concerns for use of perfume in public areas.

It sounds like you are saying that you'd rather not live if you can't smoke. I don't know if you intended it that way but it sounds like it could be a sort of threat of suicide if you can't smoke where you want. I'm truely sorry to hear that but I certainly would not consider that sort of emotional blackmail something to cater to.

Not really, just trying to make a point is all. However I do not care about the length of my life one bit, nor about any health risks I may encounter, as humans shouldn't care as much as they do. Too many waste their lives worrying about how long they live instead of making their lives meaningful by making themselves happy (or at least content) and not bothering with telling other people what they do is wrong. Smoking isn't the only one it's just the one that seems to have more tolerable opposition on here. Let's expand it a bit beyond smoking for a moment:

Think about how much time you wasted in your life fighting against germs. Washing, cleaning, scrubbing. Worrying if it's clean enough and safe enough. (Using this because it's far more common.) In reality, your hands, even after being washed, still have more germs than your sphincter (many myth buster groups have done this experiment using real labs), your mouth contains even more germs than that (ask a dentist that one). But the corporations continue to show these commercials with really exaggerated images of germs everywhere, making you paranoid, so you waste more money on it and more time using the products, worrying about all these dangerous risks to your health. In the mean time the rose bush you planted so you could enjoy the view dies because you forgot about it while cleaning. You miss every sunset because you were inside cleaning. You don't even remember what a nature trail looks like because there are too many germs there. There are a lot of people like this, and the number is growing. Fear is what sells, well fear and sex, but fear is what special interest groups use as well to get funding from taxes, your taxes, to combat these 'evils' we call health risks. People waste all that time worrying about them they miss out on the simplest of pleasures, the things that make life really worth living.

 

[Shogun]

Anguille, non smokers NEVER have to be exposed to SHS if they choose smoke free places to drink instead of smoke friendly places. That is the bottom line. your outrage over health concerns do not erase this basic choice that YOU make when YOU decide to drink in a smoking bar. And, no one makes ANYONE work ANYWHERE. Don't like bartending the smokey bar? quit and go find a job bartending a smoke free bar. Pretty simple actually.. It's amazing what can be accomplished when pink lungers make better personal choices without insisting that the smell of their clothes and hair trumps the liberty of smokers in a bar that caters to smokers.

 

[Anguille]

Not really, just trying to make a point is all. However I do not care about the length of my life one bit, nor about any health risks I may encounter, as humans shouldn't care as much as they do. Too many waste their lives worrying about how long they live instead of making their lives meaningful by making themselves happy (or at least content) and not bothering with telling other people what they do is wrong. Smoking isn't the only one it's just the one that seems to have more tolerable opposition on here. Let's expand it a bit beyond smoking for a moment:

Think about how much time you wasted in your life fighting against germs. Washing, cleaning, scrubbing. Worrying if it's clean enough and safe enough. (Using this because it's far more common.) In reality, your hands, even after being washed, still have more germs than your sphincter (many myth buster groups have done this experiment using real labs), your mouth contains even more germs than that (ask a dentist that one). But the corporations continue to show these commercials with really exaggerated images of germs everywhere, making you paranoid, so you waste more money on it and more time using the products, worrying about all these dangerous risks to your health. In the mean time the rose bush you planted so you could enjoy the view dies because you forgot about it while cleaning. You miss every sunset because you were inside cleaning. You don't even remember what a nature trail looks like because there are too many germs there. There are a lot of people like this, and the number is growing. Fear is what sells, well fear and sex, but fear is what special interest groups use as well to get funding from taxes, your taxes, to combat these 'evils' we call health risks. People waste all that time worrying about them they miss out on the simplest of pleasures, the things that make life really worth living.

You make good points. Fear does sell. Anxiety is itself a health risk. Compulsive obsessive disorder is an anxiety related condition that advertising encourages. People need to makes their own personal choices.
As far as fear of STS, I don't fear it because I don't tolerate it. And my own reasons for not tolerating it are a direct result of my own very negative experiences resulting from trying to tolerate it because I was afraid of the wrath of smokers. I don't need studies telling me of the effects of exposure to SMS. My own lungs told me so when they swelled up several times and made breathing very difficult. My own sinuses told me when they becamed inflamed also and became more suseptible to baterial infections. My own eyes told me when they teared up from the smoke. My own nose told me when I sneezed and later when I smelled my own smoke infested clothes and had to clean them to get it out.

No body really needs studies, it's just common sense that smoke will bother people. It's a public nuisance on many levels. Not unlike someone who insists on blasting a boom box too loud around other people when they ought to be using earphones if they want music that drowns out all else.

 

[Shogun]

residential noise ordinances reflect the will of smoke friendly bar owners now, eh?


suuuuuuuuuuuure.





If we made a list of everything that is annoying then e'd all be living in boxes. The FACT is that you refuse to go to smoke free locations. bottom line. You should make better personal choices rather than assume that your stinky clothes trumps the liberty of smokers and business owners. I would ban you from my bar, anguille. And then set up speak easy-type places for smokers to congregate without having to hear a b8unch of shit from a pink lunger than we don't want to be around in the first place.

 

[Anguille]

Anguille, non smokers NEVER have to be exposed to SHS if they choose smoke free places to drink instead of smoke friendly places. That is the bottom line. your outrage over health concerns do not erase this basic choice that YOU make when YOU decide to drink in a smoking bar. And, no one makes ANYONE work ANYWHERE. Don't like bartending the smokey bar? quit and go find a job bartending a smoke free bar. Pretty simple actually.. It's amazing what can be accomplished when pink lungers make better personal choices without insisting that the smell of their clothes and hair trumps the liberty of smokers in a bar that caters to smokers.

You're like a broken record. You must recite this in your sleep. Bars have no business catering to smokers - which they don't BTW, they cater to drinkers - anymore than pornshops cater to child molesters. OSHA regulations protect ALL employees, not just a select elite just as anti-child porn laws apply to all pornographers, not just to some.

Shogun, go back to that bloodsoaked Aztec temple in your dreams and tear out the pink lungs of another non smoker sacrificial victim. You'll feel better about the fact you can't smoke in your office.

 

[manifold]

Did anyone ever produce stats on which poses the greater health risk, shs or pit bulls?

 

[manifold]

OSHA regulations protect ALL employees

Did you see editec's post in the other thread about the San Fran establishment with no employees? Everyone is a limited partner. Brilliant friggin loophole if it works.

 

[KittenKoder]

OSHA regulations protect ALL employees

Did you see editec's post in the other thread about the San Fran establishment with no employees? Everyone is a limited partner. Brilliant friggin loophole if it works.

It has worked, though I can't remember for the life of me where I saw it. If not for the greed (not always a bad thing even in this case) of the bar owners more would. But the owners would lose a lot of profit in such a case which is why they won't, and some just can't afford to.

 

[manifold]

If not for the greed (not always a bad thing even in this case) of the bar owners more would. But the owners would lose a lot of profit in such a case which is why they won't, and some just can't afford to.

Horse feathers! Limited partners don't all necessarily get equal shares. It could easily be set up to compensate bartenders and waitresses something comparable to what they make as an employee elsewhere.

 

[Anguille]

OSHA regulations protect ALL employees

Did you see editec's post in the other thread about the San Fran establishment with no employees? Everyone is a limited partner. Brilliant friggin loophole if it works.

I haven't made it to that thread yet. I think it's possible to have a smoking permitted bar where employees are still protected. I just doubt it would be profitable unless it survived as a novelty tourist attraction. I'll check out that thread after I finish feeding dead smokers to my pit bulls.

 

[KittenKoder]

If not for the greed (not always a bad thing even in this case) of the bar owners more would. But the owners would lose a lot of profit in such a case which is why they won't, and some just can't afford to.

Horse feathers! Limited partners don't all necessarily get equal shares. It could easily be set up to compensate bartenders and waitresses something comparable to what they make as an employee elsewhere.

It depends on a lot of factors, which I don't know anything about more than what I have learned from business owners (local coffee shops, great free internet when I was homeless). I do know it's more complicated than that now, but as to why and how, I don't know so I can't argue with your point any further.

 

[Shogun]

Anguille, non smokers NEVER have to be exposed to SHS if they choose smoke free places to drink instead of smoke friendly places. That is the bottom line. your outrage over health concerns do not erase this basic choice that YOU make when YOU decide to drink in a smoking bar. And, no one makes ANYONE work ANYWHERE. Don't like bartending the smokey bar? quit and go find a job bartending a smoke free bar. Pretty simple actually.. It's amazing what can be accomplished when pink lungers make better personal choices without insisting that the smell of their clothes and hair trumps the liberty of smokers in a bar that caters to smokers.

You're like a broken record. You must recite this in your sleep. Bars have no business catering to smokers - which they don't BTW, they cater to drinkers - anymore than pornshops cater to child molesters. OSHA regulations protect ALL employees, not just a select elite just as anti-child porn laws apply to all pornographers, not just to some.

Shogun, go back to that bloodsoaked Aztec temple in your dreams and tear out the pink lungs of another non smoker sacrificial victim. You'll feel better about the fact you can't smoke in your office.

You probably shouldn't bring up broken records given your line by line talking points, Anguille. and yes, bars DO cater to smokers just like some bars cater to gays and some cater to cowboys and some to bikers etc. It's not your place to tell a bar owner which demographic he is trying to lure into his place of business.

oh, by the way, molesting children is illegal.. smoking is not. Way to swing and miss that one right out of the ballpark.

OSHA regulates that employees in hazardous environments be issued PPE. In case you haven't noticed, dangerous jobs don't just NOT get done because some pansy ************ doesn't like the conditions. Again, I'd ban your ass from my bar and then buy a round of Gas Masks for those employees who want to wear them and have risk management documents for those who dont to sign. But, heaven ******* forbid your pink lunger agenda be treated like the "projected" bullshit that it is, eh Anguille?

 

[cbi0090]

This is just ridiculous.

BELMONT, California: During her 50 years of smoking, Edith Frederickson says she has lit up in restaurants and bars, airplanes and trains, and indoors and out, all as part of a two-pack-a-day habit that she regrets not a bit. But as of two weeks ago, Frederickson can no longer smoke in the one place she loves the most: her home.

Frederickson lives in an apartment in Belmont, California, a quiet city about 23 miles, or 37 kilometers, south of San Francisco that is now home to perhaps the nation's strictest anti-smoking law, effectively outlawing lighting up in all apartment buildings.

Smoking ban extends to apartments in California city - International Herald Tribune

You know, as much as I hate people telling other people what to do in the personal lives, there is an aspect to this where I would have to side (somewhat) with law. I lived in an apartment once where I had a person move in below me who smoked like a chimney. It made my apartment unbearable and no amount of talking with the person helped. I ended up having to move and had to fight with the landlord to get my deposit back. I do have a more pronounced reaction to smoke than most people so the circumstances aren't typical but unless the apartments aren't sealed I could see it creating problems for others.

 

[Anguille]

Again, I'd ban your ass from my bar and then buy a round of Gas Masks for those employees who want to wear them and have risk management documents for those who dont to sign. But, heaven ******* forbid your pink lunger agenda be treated like the "projected" bullshit that it is, eh Anguille?

Are you going to call it Montezuma's ?