|
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
|
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
|
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. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote: 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?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised because of an obnoxious habit someone has. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Huh? Who offered? Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. 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 do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just would not be low enough to bar casual smoking. According to you. It would depend on several factors, like concentration and proximity, for example. They imply that if they use the same standard they use for manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the administration and they should just deal with this with legislation. If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the occupancy code. According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without risk. The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and getting them out of it.. And, it should be. So, what's your point? |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Anything that can be done to discourage smoking should be done. It doesn't matter. Greg is going to smoke his cigars and to hell with anyone else. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
In article ,
says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/12/2011 9:39 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. You guys pretty much got it pinned... Every day I see mom's in huge SUV's texting and coming right at me. At least once a day, and I am supposed to worry about walking by someone smoking a cigarette? Gotta' love progressives, regressive in each and everything they do in their miserable lives... |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/12/2011 11:08 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:37:11 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote: 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?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised because of an obnoxious habit someone has. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Huh? Who offered? The afore mentioned Sonny's Barbecue is one. That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu. Nope, it was ALL or nothing. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. 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 do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just would not be low enough to bar casual smoking. According to you. It would depend on several factors, like concentration and proximity, for example. Exactly, but that is not what you want. In reality it is the concentration in PPM usually taken at a couple locations on the site.. They imply that if they use the same standard they use for manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the administration and they should just deal with this with legislation. If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the occupancy code. According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without risk. The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and getting them out of it.. And, it should be. So, what's your point? So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does) Didn't she get on you earlier in this same thread about listening to the experts in the field? snerk |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:00:26 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Then why is it so important that you go into a bar that allows smoking? Nobody said allowing a bar owner to allow smoking meant ANY of them have to. Let the bar owner decide who he wants to cater to. This makes no sense. He never said that. I've already pointed out the fallacies in your argument, but you refuse to think about it. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:08:41 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:37:11 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote: 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?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised because of an obnoxious habit someone has. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Huh? Who offered? The afore mentioned Sonny's Barbecue is one. That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu. Nope, it was ALL or nothing. I'm sure their business was hurt terribly. I guess they're out of business. Good news? Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. 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 do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just would not be low enough to bar casual smoking. According to you. It would depend on several factors, like concentration and proximity, for example. Exactly, but that is not what you want. In reality it is the concentration in PPM usually taken at a couple locations on the site.. So, when someone is puffing their cigar in my face, I'm betting the PPM count is pretty high. They imply that if they use the same standard they use for manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the administration and they should just deal with this with legislation. If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the occupancy code. According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without risk. The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and getting them out of it.. And, it should be. So, what's your point? So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does) Really? OSHA is the only one who thinks about hazards like this? Nope. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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 That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. "There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case." Albert Einstein |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:54:36 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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. What if you were allergic to peanuts and the peanut shells were 2" deep on the floor.? huh? No idea what you're asking. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:15:15 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:46:25 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:00:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Then why is it so important that you go into a bar that allows smoking? Nobody said allowing a bar owner to allow smoking meant ANY of them have to. Let the bar owner decide who he wants to cater to. This makes no sense. He never said that. I've already pointed out the fallacies in your argument, but you refuse to think about it. What makes no sense? That the bar owner gets to decide whether his bar is smoking or non smoking? Why is that so hard? You and Harry can go somewhere else. Many states have decided that people's health are more important than your right to slowly kill yourself. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:20:31 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:48:29 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:08:41 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:37:11 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote: 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?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised because of an obnoxious habit someone has. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Huh? Who offered? The afore mentioned Sonny's Barbecue is one. That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu. Nope, it was ALL or nothing. I'm sure their business was hurt terribly. I guess they're out of business. Good news? The particular restaurant that they wanted to make the "smoking" one did close shortly after the no smoking law was passed. Well, I guess the market forces spoke. Isn't that what you want? Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. 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 do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just would not be low enough to bar casual smoking. According to you. It would depend on several factors, like concentration and proximity, for example. Exactly, but that is not what you want. In reality it is the concentration in PPM usually taken at a couple locations on the site.. So, when someone is puffing their cigar in my face, I'm betting the PPM count is pretty high. But if they are at the other end of the bar, in a smoking section with the air going out that end, it will be too low to measure under your nose. Thanks for making my point. So, now you're going to have the barkeep prevent people who are smoking, perhaps drunk people, walking in to the other area. Thanks for making MY point. They imply that if they use the same standard they use for manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the administration and they should just deal with this with legislation. If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the occupancy code. According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without risk. The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and getting them out of it.. And, it should be. So, what's your point? So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does) Really? OSHA is the only one who thinks about hazards like this? Nope. OSHA is the government agency that sets the standards, They are also the ones who certify the labs. (AKA NRTLs) Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They, like other agencies, need legislation to do their jobs. This is an example of that. Sorry if that bothers you! |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:28:08 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:34 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. You have plenty of places to have your clean healthy environment, why not let people who want to engage in a LEGA:L activity have their place? You don't have to go there. Talk to your state and hang out in a bar. Florida's enclosed workplaces, including restaurants and public places, are 100% smoke free as of July 1, 2003 as a result of a state constitutional amendment. Bars are exempt from the smoke free requirements. Florida law still preempts local governments from enacting smoke free regulations, stating, "This legislation expressly preempts regulation of smoking to the state and supersedes any municipal or county ordinance on the subject." Personally I think anyone with one of those crying, puking, poop machines they carry around should have to take them outside when they are interrupting my dinner. A leaky diaper in a restaurant is far more of a health hazard than a guy with a cigarette and a crying baby is certainly more obnoxious. I have even seen women change a diaper at the table. Feel free to try and get that legislation through the state house. Of course, you're the king of false equivalencies. Now you're equating children with a disgusting and dangerous habit. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:29:56 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:01 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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 That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. The world does not revolve around your weak bladder. What was your plan if the bar was closed? Pee on your RV. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:32:16 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:32 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:54:36 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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. What if you were allergic to peanuts and the peanut shells were 2" deep on the floor.? huh? No idea what you're asking. You say the bar has to cater to your smoke aversion, wouldn't they then have to cater to your peanut allergy if you had one? Would they have to keep their grass mowed in case you were allergic to weeds? So, basically you're saying that a food that harms a very tiny number of people is somehow the equivalent of a drug that harms just about everyone who comes in contact with it. Keep at it. You're making history with false equivalences. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/12/11 11:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Then why is it so important that you go into a bar that allows smoking? Nobody said allowing a bar owner to allow smoking meant ANY of them have to. Let the bar owner decide who he wants to cater to. 1. It's not important that I go into a bar that allows smoking. I don't go into bars, usually. Many of the restaurants we frequent, however, have bars as part of their facilities. 2. I'm grateful that in Maryland and DC, restaurants and other public facilities and office buildings do not allow smoking. Because of that I don't have to smell the stench of tobacco smoke. Smokers, especially cigarette smokers, smell bad and their residue smells bad. 3. The regs are a bit less stringent in Virginia, but I believe most restaurants do not allow smoking. About the only Virginia restaurants we frequent are in Virginia Beach, and I haven't noticed the stench of tobacco smoke in the restaurants down there for some time. 4. I'd like to see the local sheriffs enforce the anti-litter laws against smokers who toss their cigarette/cigar butts out the windows of their cars, or empty their ashtrays on the street when they are stopped for traffic lights. I see that sort of irresponsible behavior frequently. A few hundred $500 fines assessed every week might help force decent behavior on smokers. I know the sheriffs stop and ticket motorists who toss fast food wrappers and cups out the window. 5. I'd like to see the growing, manufacturing and sale of tobacco products made illegal in this country and made illegal for U.S. companies selling tobacco products abroad. Absent that, I'd like to see another $5 a pack tax imposed against cigarettes and a suitable increase in the tax assessed against cigars, "dip," and similar tobacco products. Have a nice, smoke-free day! -- I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the powerful. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. My argument all along. A longer life expectancy is the reward for a dull, very dull life. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
In article ,
says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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 That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. You can always be a bear and **** in the woods. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/11 7:55 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. My argument all along. A longer life expectancy is the reward for a dull, very dull life. Gotta love the rationalizations of the simple-minded. -- I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the powerful. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/11 7:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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 That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. You can always be a bear and **** in the woods. Fortunately, the bans against cigarette smoking continue to spread. -- I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the powerful. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/11 8:03 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... 5. I'd like to see the growing, manufacturing and sale of tobacco products made illegal in this country and made illegal for U.S. companies selling tobacco products abroad. Absent that, I'd like to see another $5 a pack tax imposed against cigarettes and a suitable increase in the tax assessed against cigars, "dip," and similar tobacco products. Have a nice, smoke-free day! You are just like the people at my church who don't like gambling. They went to the parish pastor and told him that Bingo was gambling and that it was a sin and that they wanted the Friday night Bingo stopped. The pastor, a wise Catholic priest, said to them that he would be happy to shut down Bingo every Friday night if they would write a $10,000 check to the church each month. Bingo is still played every Friday night. Alcohol is just as bad as tobacco why not make both illegal? Then you and your buddies who think the same way can then write big fat checks to the local, state and federal governments to cover the lost tax revenue. There are worlds of difference between gambling and smoking and even drinking. You can gamble in moderation, you can drink in moderation, and if you are careful, you aren't going to kill yourself or others. Smoking in moderation will still lead to cancer. Your moderate gambling and your moderate drinking (that means, of course, no drinking and driving) aren't going to have any impact on me. Your smoking does...it offends my senses and if I am exposed to enough second-hand smoke, it also presents a health hazard and, of course, once you contract one of the smoking-related cancers, it's going to increase my medical insurance costs. Because of my union business, I have to go to Las Vegas frequently. I don't gamble, but I'm not offended by the acres of slot machines and card games in every casino. I walk right by them without giving up a quarter. Well, that's not entirely true. I might drop a single quarter in a slot machine, usually at the bloody awful Las Vegas airport. I am pleased that smoking in restaurants in Maryland has been banned. It's pleasant to enjoy a meal without having to inhale the stench of cigarettes or cigars. -- I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the powerful. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. Will you let the poor man enjoy his cigars in peace. I'm sure he would extinguish his stogie if someone in his foresom complained about it. As usual you are making mountains out of molehills. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 2:28 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:34 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. You have plenty of places to have your clean healthy environment, why not let people who want to engage in a LEGA:L activity have their place? You don't have to go there. Personally I think anyone with one of those crying, puking, poop machines they carry around should have to take them outside when they are interrupting my dinner. A leaky diaper in a restaurant is far more of a health hazard than a guy with a cigarette and a crying baby is certainly more obnoxious. I have even seen women change a diaper at the table. Smoking is an effective means of masking those odors. Also masks the stench of cat. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 2:29 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:01 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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 That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. The world does not revolve around your weak bladder. What was your plan if the bar was closed? She could always squat in the woods. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 2:58 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:15:15 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:46:25 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:00:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Then why is it so important that you go into a bar that allows smoking? Nobody said allowing a bar owner to allow smoking meant ANY of them have to. Let the bar owner decide who he wants to cater to. This makes no sense. He never said that. I've already pointed out the fallacies in your argument, but you refuse to think about it. What makes no sense? That the bar owner gets to decide whether his bar is smoking or non smoking? Why is that so hard? You and Harry can go somewhere else. Many states have decided that people's health are more important than your right to slowly kill yourself. Didn't realize that you were such a rights and freedom grabber. No wonder you are smitten with Obama. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:04 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:28:08 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:34 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. You have plenty of places to have your clean healthy environment, why not let people who want to engage in a LEGA:L activity have their place? You don't have to go there. Talk to your state and hang out in a bar. Florida's enclosed workplaces, including restaurants and public places, are 100% smoke free as of July 1, 2003 as a result of a state constitutional amendment. Bars are exempt from the smoke free requirements. Florida law still preempts local governments from enacting smoke free regulations, stating, "This legislation expressly preempts regulation of smoking to the state and supersedes any municipal or county ordinance on the subject." Personally I think anyone with one of those crying, puking, poop machines they carry around should have to take them outside when they are interrupting my dinner. A leaky diaper in a restaurant is far more of a health hazard than a guy with a cigarette and a crying baby is certainly more obnoxious. I have even seen women change a diaper at the table. Feel free to try and get that legislation through the state house. Of course, you're the king of false equivalencies. Now you're equating children with a disgusting and dangerous habit. You are really piling it on. Greg sure has the patience of Job when it comes to ping ponging with you. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:05 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:29:56 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:01 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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 That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. The world does not revolve around your weak bladder. What was your plan if the bar was closed? Pee on your RV. IC Like the dog that you are. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:06 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:32:16 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:32 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:54:36 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: 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. What if you were allergic to peanuts and the peanut shells were 2" deep on the floor.? huh? No idea what you're asking. You say the bar has to cater to your smoke aversion, wouldn't they then have to cater to your peanut allergy if you had one? Would they have to keep their grass mowed in case you were allergic to weeds? So, basically you're saying that a food that harms a very tiny number of people is somehow the equivalent of a drug that harms just about everyone who comes in contact with it. Keep at it. You're making history with false equivalences. You've come full circle , now, on the peanut thing. Your original claim was that large number of people had peanut allergies. Now it's a tiny number. Greg was right. He can lead you anywhere he wants to take you. Watch out! He'll have you chewing on your own ass It's really funny to watch you two interact. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com