Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 9:57 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/12/2011 7:51 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/11/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:38:12 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:45:58 -0400, wrote:

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:11:30 -0400, wrote:


Read up on fantasy and get back to me.


The settlement was with the attorneys general of the states
involved
and specified that this was going to be the end of it.

I am sure there might be some individual who might try to take on
Altria after this but they would get ground up and spit out. The
idea
that anyone on the planet has not seen the warning on the side of a
cigarette pack is ludicrous.

Which has nothing to do with fantasy that lawsuits should be known
about in advance.

How many suits have there been since the settlement?

What difference does that make? Tell me about how many lawsuits are
known about in advance. I notice you keep avoiding telling me.

I suppose you consider 12 year olds cognizant of the dangers of
cigar
smoke also. Typical "libertarian" nonsense.

12 year olds are prohibited by law from smoking.

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Well dearie, get used to the idea of people jeopardizing your health
with smoke and other things. There isn't much you can do about it except
avoid the places where people are exercising their freedom. IOW mind
your own ****ing business.

Quite frankly, I am more concerned with mom texting behind the wheel of
the SUV than I am second hand smoke... Talk about someone else gambling
with "my" like...

Make that "my" life!

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/11 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:21:32 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:25:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:42:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Things thongs whatever ;-)

Your health is not in jeopardy if you see the sign "smoking permitted"
and say "I will never go in that place".

So, now you're going to mandate businesses put up signs? I think
you'll find that the vast majority of people do not want to breathe
second hand smoke. How are you going to put up signs in a mall? Of
course, no regulation is what you really want. Zero. You don't care
about the environment, other people's health, corporate raiding, etc.
Even Greenspan didn't think fraud was something that should be
regulated. Of course, he's changed his tune lately.

We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and
restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant
on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers
you.
I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter
how good the food is..


Many states are banning smoking altogether in public buildings and
private facilities, such as bars and restaurants.

In Maryland, smoking is banned in all restaurants and bars. You can now
enjoy your meal or drink without having to inhale the stench of
cigarettes or having the stench attaching itself to your clothing.

In the District of Columbia, smoking is banned in all federal buildings,
privately owned office buildings, and, I believe, bars and restaurants.
I believe I saw no smoking signs at the baseball stadium where the Nats
play. You do see smokers on the sidewalk outside of some office
buildings, puffing away. Some building owners have control over the
space in front of their facilities, and ban smoking there, too.

One of the restaurant/bars at nearby Chesapeake Beach was totally redone
on the interior to remove flooring, wall covers, furniture, et cetera
that stank of cigarette smoke.

We had lunch at a diner in Annapolis yesterday. The diner has a glassed
off section that used to be for smokers. Since smoking is not allowed,
the restaurant removed and replaced the carpeting, ceiling tiles and
booths so patrons would not have to inhale the stale, old stench from
cigarettes of days past.

Cigarettes sell for between $5 and $6 a pack here. I wonder what price
point it would take to virtually eliminate their sale.

The tobacco companies are now concentrating sales of their deadly
products on third world nations where the rules restricting sales,
especially to small children, are either non-existent or are not enforced.

If we were a country with a conscience, we would ban the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other cancer-causing tobacco products in this
country, and make it more difficult for U.S. companies or multinationals
doing business in this country to be in the tobacco business.

But we are not a country with a conscience. The U.S. is one of the
biggest exporters of land mines that kill and disfigure innocent
children around the world.

And that's my only comment for the day.

This is a good thing. Nothing ruins the taste of a decently prepared
restaurant meal more than the stench of cigarette smoke.

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article ,
says...

On 9/12/11 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:21:32 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:25:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:42:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Things thongs whatever ;-)

Your health is not in jeopardy if you see the sign "smoking permitted"
and say "I will never go in that place".

So, now you're going to mandate businesses put up signs? I think
you'll find that the vast majority of people do not want to breathe
second hand smoke. How are you going to put up signs in a mall? Of
course, no regulation is what you really want. Zero. You don't care
about the environment, other people's health, corporate raiding, etc.
Even Greenspan didn't think fraud was something that should be
regulated. Of course, he's changed his tune lately.

We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and
restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant
on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers
you.
I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter
how good the food is..


Many states are banning smoking altogether in public buildings and
private facilities, such as bars and restaurants.

In Maryland, smoking is banned in all restaurants and bars. You can now
enjoy your meal or drink without having to inhale the stench of
cigarettes or having the stench attaching itself to your clothing.

In the District of Columbia, smoking is banned in all federal buildings,
privately owned office buildings, and, I believe, bars and restaurants.
I believe I saw no smoking signs at the baseball stadium where the Nats
play. You do see smokers on the sidewalk outside of some office
buildings, puffing away. Some building owners have control over the
space in front of their facilities, and ban smoking there, too.

One of the restaurant/bars at nearby Chesapeake Beach was totally redone
on the interior to remove flooring, wall covers, furniture, et cetera
that stank of cigarette smoke.

We had lunch at a diner in Annapolis yesterday. The diner has a glassed
off section that used to be for smokers. Since smoking is not allowed,
the restaurant removed and replaced the carpeting, ceiling tiles and
booths so patrons would not have to inhale the stale, old stench from
cigarettes of days past.

Cigarettes sell for between $5 and $6 a pack here. I wonder what price
point it would take to virtually eliminate their sale.

The tobacco companies are now concentrating sales of their deadly
products on third world nations where the rules restricting sales,
especially to small children, are either non-existent or are not enforced.

If we were a country with a conscience, we would ban the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other cancer-causing tobacco products in this
country, and make it more difficult for U.S. companies or multinationals
doing business in this country to be in the tobacco business.

But we are not a country with a conscience. The U.S. is one of the
biggest exporters of land mines that kill and disfigure innocent
children around the world.

And that's my only comment for the day.

This is a good thing. Nothing ruins the taste of a decently prepared
restaurant meal more than the stench of cigarette smoke.

Thought you were leaving........

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:04:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:15:19 -0700, wrote:


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

I didn't see anything in that letter this disputes anything I said,
BTW this was written in 1997 and they still do not have a standard.

"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or secondhand smoke can
pose a serious health risk to workers."

And, as I said, OSHA has never said there were beneficial effects or
that second hand smoke is safe.

snip

Nice snip. You left out the next line.
Unlike methylene chloride or ammonia, chemicals for which OSHA has set
permissible exposure limits, ETS is not a necessary component of any
manufacturing process or job.

If you actually read what the thrust of the letter is, they are saying
they have nothing to go on, using their existing standards and they
want congress to write a law simply banning smoking if that is what
they want to do.

Using the existing standards for TLVs for the chemicals in tobacco
smoke, simply opening a window and putting a fan in there would get
most places under the threshold.

This what OSHA says in your letter.

"Therefore, on April 5, 1994, OSHA published a proposal to require
employers to restrict smoking to designated smoking areas that are
either outdoors or in separate, enclosed rooms that are exhausted
directly to the outside of the building"

Unfortunately "smoking areas" were not enough to make the crusaders
happy.

Yet they do have "smoking areas" in airports. So, it looks like I was
right.

Since it's not "a necessary component" there's no action that OSHA can
take. Try again.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:07:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:19:24 -0700, wrote:

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

Yes, there is no limit to the tort abuse a bottom feeding ambulance
chaser will resort to.

Huh? This case has to do with a lawsuit. You claimed that lawsuits
should only be predictable. They aren't. There's no such thing as tort
abuse. That's just a talking point. Tort is "A wrongful act or an
infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal
liability." Tort abuse is meaningless. What you're trying to say is
that there are a few lawyers who engage in frivolous lawsuits.
Typically, they are admonished, fined, or worse.


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.

They do not infringe on you if you read the "smoking allowed" sign and
stay out.


I've pointed out several situations where they do. Sorry if you don't
like it.

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.

The issue was alleged to be health care costs, not harm to others.

This is a new issue from you. The claim that second hand smoke is
harmless is nonsense. That's the issue.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:21:32 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:25:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:42:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Things thongs whatever ;-)

Your health is not in jeopardy if you see the sign "smoking permitted"
and say "I will never go in that place".

So, now you're going to mandate businesses put up signs? I think
you'll find that the vast majority of people do not want to breathe
second hand smoke. How are you going to put up signs in a mall? Of
course, no regulation is what you really want. Zero. You don't care
about the environment, other people's health, corporate raiding, etc.
Even Greenspan didn't think fraud was something that should be
regulated. Of course, he's changed his tune lately.

We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and
restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant
on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers
you.
I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter
how good the food is..

So, you're now claiming that there are no restaurants or bars in
malls? Restaurants are by nature public. There's no Fed ban. These are
local and state issued bans. Too bad if you don't like what your state
has done.

How would you know? Maybe I'm a secret strip joint stripper! Oh
wait...

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:12:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:54:17 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 9/12/2011 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:42:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Things thongs whatever ;-)

Your health is not in jeopardy if you see the sign "smoking permitted"
and say "I will never go in that place".


She would never go into a place like that unescorted.

I imagine her "escort" is a tort lawyer.

I have several friends who are personal injury lawyers. The term "tort
lawyer" is just an attempt to put down lawyers. Too bad you don't like
them. Let's hope you never need one!

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/11 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:21:22 -0400, X `
wrote:

We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and
restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant
on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers
you.
I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter
how good the food is..


Many states are banning smoking altogether in public buildings and
private facilities, such as bars and restaurants.


Why can't the bar and restaurant owner make this decision themselves?
If you don't like the smell of smoke, put them out of business by not
spending your money there. That is how free enterprise is supposed to
work.



It's a public health issue. The state or municipality also regulates
cleanliness in restaurants, the quality of water, and many other factors
of food service. Or are you saying restaurants should determine the
level of cleanliness they must maintain?


--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:21:32 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:25:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:42:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Things thongs whatever ;-)

Your health is not in jeopardy if you see the sign "smoking permitted"
and say "I will never go in that place".

So, now you're going to mandate businesses put up signs? I think
you'll find that the vast majority of people do not want to breathe
second hand smoke. How are you going to put up signs in a mall? Of
course, no regulation is what you really want. Zero. You don't care
about the environment, other people's health, corporate raiding, etc.
Even Greenspan didn't think fraud was something that should be
regulated. Of course, he's changed his tune lately.

We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and
restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant
on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers
you.
I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter
how good the food is..

Don't bet on it. If she can round up an escort to accompany her, she's
happy to ogle shirtless women in bars.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:54:17 -0400, wrote:

On 9/12/2011 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:42:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:26:07 -0400, wrote:

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

There are plenty of laws about a lot of thongs kids can't do,.. I have
no problem with that. It is when you start telling consenting adults
they can't do things that bother me.

Thongs? Heh...

I have a great deal of problems allowing people to jeopardize my
health in the name of their "freedom" to smoke or whatever.

Things thongs whatever ;-)

Your health is not in jeopardy if you see the sign "smoking permitted"
and say "I will never go in that place".


She would never go into a place like that unescorted.

I imagine her "escort" is a tort lawyer.

Did you say tort or tart?