Posted on 11/27/2001 8:44:47 AM PST by Hans Moleman
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:04:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
GARDEN GROVE -- Mark Rosen was fuming after waiting in line for the Harry Potter movie, but he wasn't angry about the long wait.
It was the smokers puffing away around children that upset the Garden Grove councilman. Rosen plans to propose a local law at tonight's council meeting that would ban smoking in movie lines, parks and fast-food playgrounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I KNEW when they hired those low-bid contractors to put in new sidewalks there was gonna be trouble. Musta used that flammable concrete to cut corners.
WEEEELLLLLL.
After such a well-reasoned, logical and factual post such as that, I guess you really told ME, didn'tcha? LOL!
Truth is, I don't care if you smoke. I don't even care WHAT you smoke. Just don't do it so that I have to smell it. That's all I ask. Don't invade my airspace. Simple courtesy.
We non-smokers don't hate you for smoking -- we hate you for being so damned self-centered and inconsiderate that you think nothing of fouling the air in OUR lungs and leaving that disgusting film on OUR hair and clothes. What you choose to do to yourself is your business. What you do to me, is mine.
Therefore, before you bring your bratty, screaming kids into a restaurant, movie, or whatever, understand you will be annoying most of the people around you.
That is not meant for you in particular. The majority of the ones I have seen that bitch and moan about smoking always seem to have in tow two or three little heathens that scream, cry, whine and make dining or whatever completely miserable for everyone else. I wish somebody would pass a NO BRATTY KIDS rule for restaurants, etc.
I had NO IDEA Councilman Rosen was an 8-year-old boy!!! Imagine that! Only in Amerika...
Not true. The anti-smoker laws are not being passed because the people are clamoring for them; they are being foisted upon an unsuspecting public by well-paid, highly professional single-issue groups with an axe to grind and lazy, arrogant self-righteous lawmakers. Aided and abetted by people like you.
As a wise man once said..."it's all about you isn't it?" And who do you proport to represent in your "OUR" statements? Are you the spokesman for all non-smokers? Or, do you just have difficulty with the word "me?" Someone in your life who is near and dear to you accuse of being selfish and always all about "me?" I think your problem with smokers goes way beyond being annoyed by second hand smoke.
the SHS numbers come from a variety of sources including the EPA studies of studies that classified it as a Class A Carcinogen.
Here's one for you: ""RR for drinking whole milk and lung cancer is also 2.14--Milk Drinking, Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer Risk. Curtis Mettlin. International Journal of Cancer: 43, 608-612 (1989). The study was supported in part by the American Cancer Society. Same study reported rr of .12 for eating porkchops one or more times a week and 2.42 for pork sausage one or more times a week."" I realize this is not the information I sited earlier, but this actually even worse.
I'm not arguing that shs is or isn't carcinogenic.
That doesn't matter - that is the point of all of these anti-smoker laws and regulations. The EPA had an agenda and a preconceived notion that SHS exposure was bad for non-smokers and then set out to prove the pre-conceived notion. That is just wrong. Regulating things because some people don't like them is rather difficult - so instead they manipulated the science to prove the unproveable. That is why it is been vacated by the judicial system - the EPA and the rest of the anti-smoker groups involved in the whole SHS fiasco lied then and continue to lie now about it.
What I was asking is does it pose a health risk at all? And the answer is of course it does.
I didn't say it didn't. But the question is, just how much of a health risk - apparently a whole lot less than the grubmint and lamestream media want you to believe.
If your saying that a person is 3 times more likely to get lung cancer from whole cow's milk than from shs, I'd say that that statement is wrong.
I would say that you are wrong. I did not make up the above mentioned information. If I was making it up why would I cite where it came from????
No it is not information you are going to find in the media - this stuff is covered up on a regular basis.
I don't dare tell you what the World Health Organization covered up in the worlds longest and largest study about SHS - you definitely would say I was wrong.
I won't tell you what the study commissioned by the US Department of Energy about SHS and hospitality workers said - you would again say I was wrong.
Assuming facts not in evidence, friend. This is textbook fallacious logic and won't stand up to scrutiny. Every smoker has at least one friend or family member who doesn't give a rat's patoot if he or she smokes, do you deny that? Right there is 50% or more of the population, and I'd bet real money the figure is much higher of people who just don't mind the smoke. Anti-smokers are not the majority of nonsmokers, they're really just a loud, unpleasant fraction.
Secondly, you make the assumption that air without cigarette smoke is "clean." It isn't. In its refusal to make smokefree workplaces part of its rules, OSHA stated that the level of PELS in a smoker-friendly establishment seldom if ever rises to a dangerous level. On the other hand, investigators are just completing a study that measured particulate matter exposures during a variety of different cooking activities. The results show that cooking can produce very high levels of some pollutants, much higher than previously realized. Baking and broiling some foods produced even higher levels. Some of these dangerous toxins are very bad: even if an individual were only exposed to these levels for one hour a day, and exposed to no other toxins, his or her exposure would exceed OSHA's standards of safety.
So your entire argument is built on the shifting sands of anti-smoker illogic.
If he is saying that most people don't mind - I have to agree. I have asked people at random. The general attitude is "I don't care - as long as you don't blow it my face." Well, heck, I don't know anyone who likes that - it's rude.
If you look closely at the surveys that have been done in regard to this issue, you will notice that the vast majority are funded by organizations that are trying to ban smoking or by pharmaceutical companies that are trying to sell quit-smoking products.
You could take the same group of randomly picked 100 folks and get 2 entirely different survey results on the same subject by asking the same question in 2 different ways.
The tobacco industry doesn't bother conducting them (or at least publishing them if they do) because the media will immediately do one of 2 things - they will 86 it or they will contact one of the prominent anti-smoker organizations to debunk it.
don't get me wrong - I've got no problem with business owners deciding to go non-smoking - my problem is with the anti-smokers forcing ALL businesses to be that way.
As to banning smoking out of doors - it is utterly ridiculous. there are far worse pollutants in the outside air than a bit of tobacco smoke.
To expound on the anti smoking nazi's agenda, when I bought my Acura TL it did not have an ashtray, only a coin holder. I had to practically call the president of the company to buy an add on. The dealer , salesmen , etc. all said they didn't make one. Did they decide I shouldn't smoke in my car? I will never buy another Acura because of that.
Maybe that's why you see people throwing cigs out the window..........there's NO ASHTRAY
Los Angeles has plans on the table to ban smoking in parks ... I'm sure smoking in front of office buildings will be cloae behind. I used to smoke and sometimes still miss it ... but I've thought, "If I wanted to take up smoking, where could I smoke anyway?"
Fine - someone finally admitting the real reason behind all of this crap - how refreshing!!!!
So I would assume you would have no problem with allowing the business owners to decide who can smoke in an establishment. How about movie theaters that cater to smokers - therefore if you've got a problem with the smoke in the line - you go to another theater that doesn't permit it????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.