Florida: Complaints over restaurants not complying with smoking ban

First Coast News ^

[E Rocc]

Because ETS contains Carbon Monoxide, and virtually any prolonged exposure to Carbon Monoxide over the zero baseline level is a health hazard.

Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Carbon Monoxide

EXPOSURE LIMITS

* OSHA PEL
The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for carbon monoxide is 50 parts per million (ppm) parts of air (55 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m(3))) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration [29 CFR Table Z-1].

* NIOSH REL
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a recommended exposure limit (REL) for carbon monoxide of 35 ppm (40 mg/m(3)) as an 8-hour TWA and 200 ppm (229 mg/m(3)) as a ceiling [NIOSH 1992].

* ACGIH TLV
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has assigned carbon monoxide a threshold limit value (TLV) of 25 ppm (29 mg/m(3)) as a TWA for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek [ACGIH 1994, p. 15].

"Virtually any" is not "zero".

-Eric

[markman46]

"First it will be homes with children.Its abusive to smoke with children in the same room."

prove it NOW, I have lived most of my life with smokers family,xinlaws,my wife and step children and I do not have any of these so called smoking related problems, and neither do any of my other family members. so show the facts or shut up.

[Steely Glint]

"I notice you don't refute any of it."

Why bother? It's red herring to this discussion, and there's no point in arguing irrelevancies with you. You want a relevant valid statement to try and refute? Try this one:

"Cigarette smoking has harmful effects on human health."

Go ahead, try and refute it. You can't.

Or try and refute this one:

"Restaurants and bars in America are already subject to government health regulations."

You can't refute that one either.

[SheLion]

And the pro-smoking arguments in this thread are, frankly, stupid and invalid.

Says you. And just who are you?

We feel the same way about you that you feel about us. Do you realize we have thousands and thousands of links across the Net that counter attack everything you and the anti-smokers come at us with? I guess you weren't aware of this fact.

[CSM]

"that 78% not only votes, it also goes to restaraunts and bars, preferably ones where smoking is forbidden."

So why does minion's chain restaurants need the government to prop them up? So where are all of the non smoking bars before the bans? If this is really the market at work, the legislation would have been unnecessary!

[DannyTN]

Thank You Chancellor.

While I support the ban. I do not support the kind of stupid, paper intensive, bureacratic stuff that She Lion is referring to. That mentality, that if it's not documented on paper then it didn't happen, is what is killing the Medical community and driving costs through the roof.

[Steely Glint]

"prove it NOW"

It's already BEEN proven.

[SheLion]

The costs might be lower but as another poster pointed out the customers will drop off. That is why a state wide ban is needed so all restaurants are smoke free. That way the smokers will still eat at the same restaurants.

Smokers in Delaware are running to Virginia. New York smokers are running to NEW JERSEY. Didn't you hear the New Jersey business's screaming in glee when NYC went smoke free? HURRY TO OUR SIDE HURRY TO OUR SIDE. heh!

[SheLion]

You addicts need to find a real argument somewhere. Arguing that cigarette smoke isn't harmful or that public health codes are somehow socialist is just too dumb for words.

[DannyTN]

Oops, except it wasn't She Lion talking about the paper bureacracy, it was TruthShall

[SheLion]

Why don't you build a little bubble to live in?

Yes! There he is! Hi Flurry. Welcome to the jungle..........lots of libs in here today, eh?

[Steely Glint]

"Do you realize we have thousands and thousands of links across the Net that counter attack everything you and the anti-smokers come at us with? I guess you weren't aware of this fact."

You can have ten million bogus links. You can have an entire Internet full of bogus links. Deny it all that you want, the facts remain the facts, and it's a fact that cigarette smoking is a health hazard.

[Graybeard58]

Steely Glint has been here about as long as I have, which is not long at all but the fact that he is a "newbie" doesn't make his opinions without merit. My opinions, like his I am sure, were not formed by being a long term member of Free Republic. I am 58 years old and thats how long I have been forming opinions. Using your implied criteria, if I am older than you, my opinions are worth more than yours.
...Cut us "newbies" some slack, we didn't enter Free Republic as people who have never had a coherent thought.
...By the way I disagree with Steely Glint on the issue.

[SheLion]

You certainly didn't vote for this because "YOU" were concerned about poor workers having to smell smoke!! You voted for it for your own selfish reasons!!!! You don't care the POOR WORKERS are loosing their jobs and not making a decent living because smokers are staying away!!

YES! BRING IN THE TROOPS! Hey, cherinfl!!!!!

[Steely Glint]

Oh, and who am I? A scientist.

[E Rocc]

You really need to learn some chemistry before you post nonsense like that.

The effect of concentration is very basic to chemistry and even more basic to toxicology. The entire OSHA/NIOSH approach to chemical safety is based upon Permissable Exposure Limits.

-Eric

[SheLion]

Sniff.

Hey Madame Dufarge!!!

[Steely Glint]

Good point. The addicts have zero valid arguments, so they are reduced to calling a middle-aged man a "newbie." LOL.

[E Rocc]

"Restaurants and bars in America are already subject to government health regulations."

But what you all are talking about is the equivalent of fining the bar if patrons don't wash their hands before touching anything in the place.

-Eric

[RightFighter]

I think I was quite clear in my post that the whole issue of employee protection meant little to me. For me, personally, it was simply about getting rid of the stench. I have no reservations about admitting that. I didn't write the amendment, but I was happy to vote for it.