BoatBanter.com - Wally-Mart in trouble locally

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Wally-Mart in trouble locally (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/138269-wally-mart-trouble-locally.html)

Wally-Mart in trouble locally

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:44:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:08:47 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:03:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:15:14 -0400, wrote:

Second hand smoke is mostly a nuisance, not a health hazard.
If you have 100 smokers in a small room you might have a potential
hazard but a whiff of smoke on a park bench never hurt anyone.

Wow. You should send your results to the Mayo Clinic. I'm sure they'd
be interested in reviewing them.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

Long on opinion short on facts.

And, in your case, not a medical professional. I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject. Feel free to take deep breaths.

Short on facts, no matter who they are.

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

"Safe" is not the issue, the issue is the danger at very low
concentrations and that has never been proven.

Define low concentrations? You can't. Feel free to claim that a
certain number of parts per million of carcinogens are safe.

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

Exactly, yet people use the "employee safety" as one leg of their rant
against second hand smoke. OSHA has established TLVs on virtually
every chemical alleged to be in cigarette smoke and nobody has ever
tried to make the case that these are exceeded in a given bar or
restaurant.

That's different from claiming beneficial or benign effects isn't it.
Nice try and flipping the discussion.

It is simply that people are offended by the smell, yet they still
insist in going in.
What's next? forcing restaurants to change the music because some
people don't like it?
How about those places that have free peanuts? Should they have to
stop serving them because a few people are allergic?

No, people with peanut allergies just don't go in those places.

Many people request lower music. So? You're equating second hand smoke
exposure with music?

Yes. The airlines have in many cases stopped serving them for just
that reason.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.

Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

It only impacts you when you want to go to a cigar bar and then
complain about the cigar smoke.

No, it doesn't. That's why it's illegal to smoke within a certain
distance of an store entrance and similar.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:24:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:36:39 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:44:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:08:47 -0700, wrote:

Really? Show us the research to support the claim that second hand
smoke is safe.

"Safe" is not the issue, the issue is the danger at very low
concentrations and that has never been proven.

Define low concentrations? You can't. Feel free to claim that a
certain number of parts per million of carcinogens are safe.

OSHA does it with virtually every chemical there is. That is what a
TLV is.
It is also why nobody has ever gone to OSHA to establish a case for
second hand smoke. They would not like the answer.

This is your opinion, of course, and it's flawed.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...MONIES&p_id=92

Any discussion of airborne poisons that doesn't talk about threshold
limit values (an OSHA standard) is just conjecture.
There may be a dangerous concentration of second hand smoke but simply
being able to smell it (the current standard) is bull****.

According to you.

According to OSHA and they are the ones who actually regulate these
things.

OSHA doesn't make any claim about the beneficial or benign effects of
second hand smoke. Feel free to show otherwise.

Exactly, yet people use the "employee safety" as one leg of their rant
against second hand smoke. OSHA has established TLVs on virtually
every chemical alleged to be in cigarette smoke and nobody has ever
tried to make the case that these are exceeded in a given bar or
restaurant.

That's different from claiming beneficial or benign effects isn't it.
Nice try and flipping the discussion.

We were talking about dangerous concentrations of an airborne
pollutant weren't we? That is EXACTLY what OSHA does,
They establish the maximum permissible concentration allowed in the
work place and it is far more than "I think see smoke over there" or
"I think I caught a whiff of a cigarette" and that is the threshold
used by the anti smoking nazis.
Nobody in the anti smoking camp wants OSHA involved because they would
do actual tests and measure the hazard against a real standard, not
just a prejudice.

Feel free to read the statement I pointed to.

It is simply that people are offended by the smell, yet they still
insist in going in.
What's next? forcing restaurants to change the music because some
people don't like it?
How about those places that have free peanuts? Should they have to
stop serving them because a few people are allergic?

No, people with peanut allergies just don't go in those places.

Yes. The airlines have in many cases stopped serving them for just
that reason.

Nobody has passed a law banning peanuts. I have no problem with a
business owner banning smoking in his place, That is his right. I just
don't want to the government force it on him, against the will of his
customers.

You talked about people going into places where they serve peanuts as
an example of companies stopping service of them, as though that never
happens. I pointed you to a specific example. Now, you're claiming
there isn't a law about it. So? There could be a lawsuit about it,
might have already been one. Feel free to do the research, since
you're so dedicated. I think I'll feel good about no-smoking bans.

I don't really smoke (maybe 6 cigars a year) but I don't think the
current persecution is warranted. That is particularly true when the
person has the ability not to go where people smoke and chooses to
just so they can be offended.
I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

You might want to cut out the cigars. It doesn't take much from
something like that to cause all sorts of health problems.

So is red meat and driving a car. I will chose my risks, you chose
yours. That is what freedom means.

Yes, so is red meat and driving. I have no problem with you smoking
your cigars in your home and driving, up to the point where you risk
my health or safety. Your "freedom" ends as soon as it impacts mine.

It only impacts you when you want to go to a cigar bar and then
complain about the cigar smoke.

No, it doesn't. That's why it's illegal to smoke within a certain
distance of an store entrance and similar.

So it is OK to smoke inside that cigar bar as long as you are not too
close to the door?
I am OK with that.

Public buildings are smoke free. Most office buildings are also, at
least in any I've been in. Feel free to try and smoke your cigar in a
building, plane, or train and see what happens.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:22:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:39:29 -0700, wrote:

No, people with peanut allergies just don't go in those places.

Yes. The airlines have in many cases stopped serving them for just
that reason.

Nobody has passed a law banning peanuts. I have no problem with a
business owner banning smoking in his place, That is his right. I just
don't want to the government force it on him, against the will of his
customers.

You talked about people going into places where they serve peanuts as
an example of companies stopping service of them, as though that never
happens. I pointed you to a specific example. Now, you're claiming
there isn't a law about it. So? There could be a lawsuit about it,
might have already been one. Feel free to do the research, since
you're so dedicated. I think I'll feel good about no-smoking bans.

There are no peanut bans, only voluntary agreement not to serve
peanuts.
I have no problem with anyone banning smoking in their business. That
is freedom. The law telling them they have to ban smoking is
oppression.

And, as I said, lawsuits are unpredictable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362383,00.html

Smokers are the only minority we are allowed to discriminate against
and I think a lot of repressed bigotry about other minorities that
people can't express in any other way comes out against the one
minority they can malign and oppress.

You have a strange notion of "discrimination." As I said, your rights
end when you infringe on mine.

It is strange that you can't ask a person on a job application if they
have a history of paranoid schizophrenia, use anti depressants, have
chronic heart disease, diabetes or full blown AIDS but you can ask
them if the ever smoked and refuse employment because you say it will
raise your health care costs.

Why is that strange? None of those things necessarily harm others,
esp. at work. Are you going to claim that someone with AIDS is going
to injure someone at work? How is chronic heart disease going to
affect my health sitting in the cube? Second hand smoke does.