[harleyrider1978]

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

[harleyrider1978]

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13163/reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-third-edition

[Drango]

Yeah, smoking is good for you.

[wastoute]

I have begun to suspect the anti-tobacco effort goes back to the FDR days. It was the global warming of the day. Tobacco farmers of the ‘30s were probably independent, fiercely conservative small businessmen. They had to be bulldozed. Hence tobacco subsidies, allotments, then “science”, and finally shunning. It worked, too.

[fruser1]

Smoking is bad for the smoker, not the non-smoker.

Considering that it takes a lifetime (albeit a shorter one) for smokers to get a smoking related illness, to claim that non smokers are “harmed” by the trivial amounts they get exposed to is patently absurd. Keep in mind the smoker is in all that second hand smoke too.

[metesky]

Ping, baby, ping!

[Rockingham]

The subject is more complicated than you think. Biologically, there are risks and harms due to the acute toxicity of high doses, while there is another class of risks and harms due to chronic or recurrent low dose exposure. In addition, mixtures of noxious chemicals such as those in cigarette and other other smoke imposes a cumulative burden based on their total effects in addition to the burden of the worst of any single component. Finally, susceptibility and sensitivity vary by age, physical condition, and individual make-up, which includes possible allergies to mere traces. Thus, in public venues, adverse effects on children, the elderly, or on one in a thousand otherwise healthy adults may be enough to justify changes in public policy.

[Nifster]

There are smoking bans because people believed the ‘science’ put out by those with an agenda.....

Realistically, even though I am a smoker, I prefer to be in a building where others are NOT smoking

[Nifster]

Oh and if you enjoy the smell of stale, second smoke just go to Las Vegas there is plenty of it there

[Grateful2God]

Ok, I don't smoke, but I'd like to blow off some steam.

I don't object to tobacco smoking, HOWEVER:
• The Red Russians banned smoking right off the bat when they took over. Later on, so did Hitler.
• As long as your smoke doesn't teach my poor COPD'd lungs, it should be your right. Little rights get taken away, bigger ones follow.
• Many people who dis the tobacco industry, want cannabis legalized for smoking, when there is a government-controlled, FDA-approved pill with the same active ingredient in it.
• What about people smoking legalized cannabis around kids? There are more toxins there than in tobacco.

The climate, soil, species, additives all have an effect on the amount of THC and other toxins in marijuana. Pill form gives a controlled, uniform potency without the ill effects of all that smoke. We need to think of the elderly with compromised respiration, and the innocent children who may be the victim of long-term effects from someone else's high.

So why are people so down on tobacco, yet insist on smokable marijuana!?! I just don't get it. I also wonder how OSHA feels about the toxins in a pot-filled room? How about people using it and operating heavy machinery? How do they monitor if the stuff hasn't been dusted with another illegal drug?!? Anyone else feel this way?

[CSM]

“Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!”

Because it made some people’s clothes smell bad, therefore the elimination of private property rights was well worth it! /s