Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:06:26 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

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?

Basically, yes. That's what he's saying. I'm sure Greg subscribes to
the Ron (not St.) Paul philosophy of no gov't. Paul is ok with fraud,
abuse, environmental degradation, since the "markets" will solve the
problem. What a load of horse shoot.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 2:06 PM, X ` Man wrote:
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?


PROMISE BROKEN AGAIN WAFA. YOU SURE AREN'T A MAN OF YOUR WORD.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 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.


Free enterprise is a dirty word in Krause's book. I thought you knew that.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article ,
says...

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?

You have a choice of not going there.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article om,
says...

On 9/12/2011 2:06 PM, X ` Man wrote:
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?


PROMISE BROKEN AGAIN WAFA. YOU SURE AREN'T A MAN OF YOUR WORD.

He never has been.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:45:53 -0700, wrote:

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.

We were talking about bars and restaurants.
Do they have smoking areas in restaurants, using the same technology?
Why not?

The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed
in section with it's own air system??


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

What?
The letter basically said OSHA does not have a standard for cigarette
smoke.

Yes, they don't have a standard. They just say there are tons of
carcinogens in it, but it's not part of manufacturing processes.

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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:16:27 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:50:03 -0700, wrote:

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.

We were talking about tobacco law suits,
Have you got some of them since the settlement?

Actually, we were talking about "predictable" lawsuits.

Google me this...

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-0...illard-tobacco



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.

No you haven't, all you have done is tell me about all the places
where smoking is illegal. and ONE place where they have a smoking
area, the sterile area on an airport. There are compelling reasons for
that. Imagine the extra load at security if all the smokers had to go
outside the sterile area to smoke..

I guess you never heard of walled in courtyards in prisons?


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.

AlI asked is at what concentration? That is how OSHA measures "harm".
It is called Threshold Limit Value.
Obviously you don't know anything about this ... I do.
I have 18 years experience in OSHA regulations.

It isn't up to OSHA is it. So, what's that go to do with the
beneficial effects of second hand smoke?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:08 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:09:22 -0400, iBoatMore wrote:

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?

You have a choice of not going there.

These people go to places they would never normally want to go just so
they can be offended and complain about it.

And, you follow them around, so you know this?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:26:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:06:26 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

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?

That is the issue then isn't it. What public health issue?

At what concentration is this smoke harmful? That is how OSHA measures
health issues due to airborne contaminants
Using your example of the quality of the water, the standard is not
that the water is absolutely pure, only that the contaminants are
within a given standard for each..

A good example of this is Sonny's Barbecue here in Florida. Sonny was
one of the last hold outs in the smoking ban. It is pretty hard to
make a case that a little cigarette smoke was the most unhealthy thing
in a place where they are smoking pork shoulders right in the building
and the french fries are boiled in lard.

I don't understand your obsession with OSHA. One cigarette takes 12
minutes off your life span, according to what I've read.

Who said "most unhealthy thing" in a place? Nobody, but it's a nice
talking point.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:18:52 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:54:35 -0700, wrote:

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

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.

The law applies equally to a restaurant in a mall and one out on a
lonely dead end road. Are you saying that if it was away from the mall
it could allow smoking. Otherwise you are trying to change the subject
again.


Take a limiting case... Imagine driving down a highway in the middle
of nowhere. You need to use the toilet and finally you come across the
only restaurant for miles. Unfortunately, it's a smoking establishment
and you're allergic to cig smoke.

So, that's why it applies equally.