BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - Wally-Mart in trouble locally

[email protected]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:28:49 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:21:51 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:14:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:01:24 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:20:31 -0400, wrote:

That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to
maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non
smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu.
Nope, it was ALL or nothing.

I'm sure their business was hurt terribly. I guess they're out of
business. Good news?

The particular restaurant that they wanted to make the "smoking" one
did close shortly after the no smoking law was passed.

Well, I guess the market forces spoke. Isn't that what you want?

No the market was not allowed to speak, They made the restaurant no
smoking, without allowing the market to decide how many people would
choose the smoking location over a no smoking location about a mile
away

Sounds like the market spoke to me. You just don't like what it said.

I will say this again. The market never had a chance to speak because
the heavy hand of the government stopped the experiment.

You can say it as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it
more true. You continually assert correlation without causation.

If they had allowed this location to stay open as a smoking restaurant
and the one down the road as a non-smoking restaurant, then the market
would have been able to speak. I think the anti smoking fascists did
not want to hear the answer.
Since the owner did his own market research and knew more than half of
his customers in that location, smoked, he had the answer.

So, now you're going to have the barkeep prevent people who are
smoking, perhaps drunk people, walking in to the other area. Thanks
for making MY point.

Why not?
The bar keep has lots of rules they enforce.

Feel free to talk to the bartender.

I am sure I know more bartenders than you do.
My wife employs about a dozen at the country club. They are the bar
cops.

So, feel free to talk to them.

They imply that if they use the same standard they use for
manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the
administration and they should just deal with this with legislation.
If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use
for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get
enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the
occupancy code.

According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without
risk.

The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the
administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and
getting them out of it..

And, it should be. So, what's your point?

So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any
science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does)

Really? OSHA is the only one who thinks about hazards like this? Nope.

OSHA is the government agency that sets the standards, They are also
the ones who certify the labs. (AKA NRTLs)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They, like other
agencies, need legislation to do their jobs. This is an example of
that. Sorry if that bothers you!

They already have legislation to regulate HAZARDOUS concentrations of
airborne chemicals. They said they do not have a standard that would
apply to the minuscule amounts in a typical concentration of cigarette
smoke.

They never used the word minuscule. Not having a standard is not the
same as believing the airborne chemicals are safe. Nice try.

OSHA standards do not say any chemical is safe, they just establish a
safe TLV for them. Unfortunately for your case, that is not zero.

Yet you claimed they do claim that it's safe. There is no safe level
of cigarette smoking.