Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 10:57 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

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."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

Hey Joe Camel, it puzzles me that you and De Plume don't get along.
Wassup with that?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

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."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

Why sure it is little lady. Do you have a point to make?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

Read up on fantasy and get back to me.

Comeon sweet cheeks. You and Greg are ideologically the same. Kiss and
make up.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 4:08 PM, 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.

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.

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.

You tell him girlie. Smoking is a disgusting habit.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 4:10 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:11:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:51:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:16:36 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:52:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:46:01 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 08/09/2011 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:21:07 -0400, wrote:


You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

As I actually said, the "insurance claims are.. a tiny piece of the
pie."

Ultimately yep, all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Take oil,
go ahead, slap a $90/barrel tax on oil and watch the pump prices double
or more.

A classic example was the massive judgement against the cigarette
companies. Shortly after that Altria posted record profits.

It is amazinig what business can do when they do not have an unknown
hanging over their head.


What unknown? Typical bull**** comment with no substance.


The unknown was what future lawsuits were coming down the poke. The
settlement blocked any future lawsuits so they knew what they were
dealing with and what price point they had to hit to continue being
profitable.

So, you believe that either there should never be a lawsuit against a
company (or an individual) or you believe that lawsuits should be
known about in advance?

Sounds like an interesting game you've got going with your crystal
ball.


Read up on the tobacco suits and get back to me.


So, you do believe that lawsuits (if any are allowed) should be known
in advance. Interesting.

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.

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

Bad example. Any 12 year old with half a brain knows the use of tobacco
is harmful to your health.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/10/2011 3:03 PM, 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.

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.

It's funny how above she says "I think I'll go with
the people who actually have a degree and some expertise in the
subject", but then doesn't want to listen to OSHA folks who " actually
have a degree and some expertise in the subject". Funny but not
surprising coming from a progressive...



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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 10/09/2011 2:08 PM, 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.

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.

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.

Why? Do you prefer to snort?
--
First rule of holes: If your in one, don't keep digging.
So in the hole, why do we insanely want more debt?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:10:11 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/09/2011 2:08 PM, 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.

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.

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.

Why? Do you prefer to snort?

You certainly prefer being stupid.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 10, 3:08*pm, 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.



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.



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.

D'Plume, you are terminally 'impacted'

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

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."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.


So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.

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 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!

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/11/2011 4:38 PM, 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!


You're shocked at Greg doing a flippy floppy? Why? He has to in order to
stay opposed to you.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:09:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, Drifter wrote:

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."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.


So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.


That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

I've seen signs like that in this area. They aren't places I usually
go unescorted.

FYI:

http://legalmatch.typepad.com/busine...rt-no-sho.html

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/11/2011 9:09 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

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."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.


So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.


That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

I remember when the "leather jacket" fight went down here in CT. The law
supported leather jackets in all establishments, but they could make you
take off your jacket if it had rockers (above and below club colors on a
leather, usually depicts the club name and territory). When I first met
my wife we went out a lot in leather but I would usually grab a manager
to the side before we went into a restaurant with my leather on
anyway... Never had one say no, but they usually liked the idea that we
asked.

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 Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:27:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:09:54 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 9/11/2011 4:38 PM, 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!


You're shocked at Greg doing a flippy floppy? Why? He has to in order to
stay opposed to you.

It is not necessary Plume will always disagree with anything I say.
That is why it is fun playing with her. I can usually get her arguing
with herself before it is over.

And, I usually get you to make up some false equivalent to justify and
untenable position...

Example:

Me: The stars are far away.
You: So is my cigar.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:10:58 -0400, wrote:

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

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

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

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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/11/2011 9:26 PM, 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 Greg? She must be putting some scary hinky thoughts into your
head. Don't let her control you. She's evil, you know.
Don't let these things bother you Greg. THEY have been telling
consulting adults what they can or can't do for some time now. Get with
the program.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/11/2011 9:26 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/11/2011 9:09 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

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."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from
exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed",
don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on
someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite
different
than a privately owned place like your home.

That is simply a perversion of the law.

It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.


So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.


That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

I remember when the "leather jacket" fight went down here in CT. The law
supported leather jackets in all establishments, but they could make you
take off your jacket if it had rockers (above and below club colors on a
leather, usually depicts the club name and territory). When I first met
my wife we went out a lot in leather but I would usually grab a manager
to the side before we went into a restaurant with my leather on
anyway... Never had one say no, but they usually liked the idea that we
asked.

Get ready for a rude comment from Krause. He thinks leathers should only
be worn in the bedroom, and only by whoever is playing the female part.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/11/2011 9:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:09:54 -0400, wrote:

On 9/11/2011 4:38 PM, 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!


You're shocked at Greg doing a flippy floppy? Why? He has to in order to
stay opposed to you.

It is not necessary Plume will always disagree with anything I say.
That is why it is fun playing with her. I can usually get her arguing
with herself before it is over.

We've seen that happen. Quite funny actually.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/11/2011 9:41 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:27:51 -0400, wrote:

And, I usually get you to make up some false equivalent to justify and
untenable position...

Example:

Me: The stars are far away.
You: So is my cigar.

My cigar LaPlume? Is that what you call it. You should take it out of
tour nightstand and play with it.

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.
Which one of you birds made the above comment?
I want you to know that I am strictly opposed to bans on no-smoking.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

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.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 2:19 AM, wrote:

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

You better have a clear understanding of what your rights are sweet
cheeks. Otherwise watch what you say.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/12/2011 2:21 AM, 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.

It's late and you're stepping on your tongue now. Put the bong away and
get some sleep.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

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...

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?