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.