Posted on 01/13/2005 11:53:07 AM PST by bob3443
1990 "Lung Cancer and Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Household" New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990
1988 "A Case-Control Study of Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women" Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 154:389-397, 1988
1996 "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Coronary Heart Disease in the American Cancer Society CPS-II Cohort" Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that, under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)."--OSHA, July 8, 1997
"Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe." By the World Health Organization.
And last, but not least
"Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians", 1960-98
The last two are two of the largest, best funded, longest lasting studies done to date on ETS.
I am the author. I have as I stated before run this past several lawyers,all of whom said the arguments were efficable. Amend.I Smoking is a free speech issue in the same way burning the flag is. Freedom of Speech is a braodly defined activity.
Amend.V The customer IS allowed to see smoking, in actual fact or by the posting of a sign stating smoking is allowed. Smoking is a legal activity, OSHA has stated SHS is not present in sufficient quantities to cause health concerns.
Amend.IX bad faith in this case means intentional deception or dishonesty. The bans are based on bad faith and the constitution should not be supporing anything of the kind.
Amend.X You are correct, it should have read, ...to the poers of the government. One of the few times the government could exercise such power is during the time of martial law.
*hands you a box of "nappies*
*hands you a box of "nappies"*
I've been a server, too. I know I have some war stories of my own, lol! I'm sure you do, too. :)
Um, help me out here...I have no idea what that is supposed to refer to.
Thanks.
Back in the late 70's, I worked for Red Lobster. A customer BIT ME in the arm. But, the customer is always right. The following week,at lunchtime, his wife came in with another woman-and wifey was bragging about her hubby's bad behavior. I got myself transferred into the kitchen shortly thereafter.
HOLY COW!! He BIT you?! I hope you had charges pressed against that jerk...that's assualt! I know my hubby would have, if someone had done that to one of his servers! I have been groped, ect., but never had anyone attempt to hurt me, physically. *shudder* And his wife bragged about it? Nice people...ugh.
If smoking tobacco is a constitutionally protected form of free speech, then is smoking marijuana also a constitutionally protected form of free speech as well? How about smoking crack?
You also have the right to stay out of establishments that choose to allow smoking.
You said: I gag from another persons perfume being too strong, but I can't outlaw their use of it.
Ah, but you could, if you could convince the city council, state legislature or Congress to undertake such a ban.
For purposes of disclosure, I state: I don't smoke, don't care for it and avoid cigarette smoke when inconvenient (although I will have a drink at a bar where there is smoking, prefering a less smoky area, if available); I believe that private property owners should be able to control whether, when and where legal behaviors may take place on their premises.
That being said, I don't believe cigarette smoking is protected by the Constitution in any way. Smokers aren't a protected class (nor are non-smokers, for that matter) for Constitutional law purposes, and shouldn't be. The "right" to smoke is not a right at all, at least not a Constitutionally protected one. That doesn't mean that I think it should be prohibited, I don't. It should be a matter of personal choice, BUT if a legislative body wants to prohibit it, even within one's home, I think that such a body has that power. I stress, though, that I don't advocate banning smoking. My concern lies with creating "rights" where they don't exist, such as abortion "rights," the "right" to health care, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, given the courts' tendency to create new rights, there are ought to be enough "penumbras and emanations" to support the right to smoke.
I just can't agree with this one.
Until, and unless, smoking becomes a political expression the way burning the flag might be, I just can't see smoking as a right under Amend I
I agree with Amend V and X.
Ament IX - maybe, but whether or not the Constitution should support, or not, not ALL bans are based on bad faith.
Most implented by health boards would meet this criteria. Those, like in Florida that amended the state constitution, I believe, are valid, whether I like them or not.
You are newly registered to Free Republic. And if you HAD been around the threads for a long period of time, you would have known that the best way to start a virtual fight is to go into a smoking thread and start spewing your hate.
We don't need it and we don't want to read it. If you hate smokers, stay the hell out of our threads!!
I was 19, and I was discouraged from making a big deal out of it. He left marks but didn't break the skin. It was apparent to me he assaulted waitresses on a regular basis. When I went back to the business years later, I was a royal (rhymes w/witch). I didn't think providing the service demanded I suffer fools and take abuse. I supported myself for 8 years in that work-I guess being efficient satisfied most of the people I served :)
"*hands you a box of "nappies"*"
Are you that charming to everyone? I sure wish I was as holy and perfect as you (think) you are.
Nice folks you were working for...he had done similar things to other servers? Geesh, I would have given the hosts a picture or description of the guy (maybe name, if possible) and banned him for patronizing my restaurant...at a MINIMUM. I know this took place a long time ago, but I'm still sorry it happened. Totally NOT right. Thankfully, my husband has never (to my knowlege, anyway) had a patron assualt him, either as a server or as a manager, but as I am sure you are aware, the verbal attitude, ect. can be quite enough on it's own.
I know I value efficiency in the folks that serve me! LOL So long as they are polite and efficient, that's all you can reasonably expect, imo. :) Thankfully, most customers are not that unreasonable and/or unbalanced. LOL
P.S. Do you know what on earth "Nappie Man" is talking about? I have never gotten an answer...though I gather from your response, he's one of the "haters" that show up on these threads.
"Nappie" is the British word for diaper. I think he/she must suffer from projection ;)
As for the A-hole from way back when, I think he harrassed waitresses in any establishment he went to. Chain restaurants let patrons get away with ALOT. I remember his wife saying "I remember you.....not what did my husband do to you? Oh, he BIT you! bawhahaha". That made me think it was his normal behavior. And all before he bit my arm, he was a huge PITA. Back then, Red Lobster was total fast food - get 'em in, get 'em out...unless they were drinking.
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.