Posted on 01/10/2003 7:41:00 PM PST by Max McGarrity
Anyway, I'm certain that it is a matter of degree - that is, just smelling smoke isn't going to cause a problem, but constantly breathing a thick cloud of smoke most likely has an association with lung disease. A better approach might have been to require a certain amount of maximum particulate indoor pollution, measured over time in "public" places.
Spot on in both respects. OSHA has stated publicly that the toxins that appear in environmental tobacco smoke in measurable quantities fall far below any permissible levels already set for those toxins. For instance, it would take 14,285 cigarettes burning at one time in a 20' sealed square room with a 9' ceiling to reach the permissible level of acetaldehyde, to reach permissible levels of benzo[a]Pyrene would require 222,000, and so on. Every reputable scientist admits the dose makes the poison. Hell, we drink arsenic every time we drink tap water. But the anti-smoker groups are adamant about the rhetoric they use: "there is no safe level of shs." A few years back ASH, one of the biggest, oldest, nastiest anti-smoker organizations (run by attorney John Banzhaf), sued OSHA to address the issue. Last year OSHA answered, saying "if we address this issue, we will set a permissible level." ASH dropped the lawsuit and the spinning began in the press about how great it was.
Ventilation is, of course, the answer to the perceived problem of accommodating everyone, if the free market solution is just not good enough or if they demand to call it a labor issue, but antis won't even consider it and run roughshod over anyone who suggests such a logical alternative.
That's unlikely, though not impossible if she lived and worked with smokers for 40 or 50 years. But that kind of exposure would be required, not having dinner periodically in a smoker-friendly restaurant or working at one.
Ditka is an ass if he thinks his opinion has any scientific weight.
How come Ditka's "anecdotal evidence" isn't as important as yours? Seems to me he's arguing private property and choice, anyway.
I'm against these far-reaching bans on smoking, but let's not pretend they're anything other than cancer sticks.
You don't like smoking, don't smoke. You don't like being around smoke, don't go where smokers are. Problem solved. No "scientific weight" necessary, though I can provide you with that if you really want it. And thank you for supporting private property rights.
IMPRESSIVE USE OF CAPITALS BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE BOLDED THEM.
Ditka is an ass if he thinks his opinion has any scientific weight.
I doubt if he thinks his opinion carries scientific weight - anecdotes are meant for popular appeal, not scientific validity. His and yours.
I'm against these far-reaching bans on smoking, but let's not pretend they're anything other than cancer sticks.
I don't think that this discussion is about whether or not smoking is hazardous to your health. It is about whether or not the government should have the ability to decide whether a private business owner must restrict his clientel to non-smokers or not based on the desires of a few busybodies.
Also, I must point out that while there is pretty good evidence that smoking is hazardous to ones' health, second hand smoke's effects on the population is much more obscure. There is little evidence that second hand smoke has anywhere near the same effect on lung health that direct smoking does. This would be particularly true when there is adequate air filtration.
Interesting post. Maybe so. Where are you? Here in San Antonio, we are in the Bible Belt, so perhaps a few less smokers, although plenty of people here do smoke.
We still love him here in Chicago.
Ed Burke makes the other alderman look like angels. Burke is with out a doubt the biggest crook on the council. He's taken more bribes than anyone. But he always gets away with it.
You say "This "do whatever you want if it's private property" stuff is fatuous nonsense." which is, of course, a disingenuous attempt to reframe the debate. No one has suggested anyone has the right to "do whatever" they want and you know it. What's at issue is the owner's right to permit a LEGAL activity in his own establishment if HE wants.
The other point, of course, is the willingness of the customers to patronize such a place and the willingness of the workers to work there where such LEGAL activity is taking place.
It's really quite simple for anyone not blinded by hatred and bigotry to understand. The outrageous rigidity on the part of militant anti-smoker control freaks toward ANY compromise on smoking bans is proof that you aren't as worried about environmental tobacco smoke as you are pathologically obsessed with harassing smokers. Your insistance on spewing your hatred on the smoking threads here only proves that obsession.
His credentials are based on the fact that he makes money selling his coffin-nails.
Keep you day job. You would never make it as a lawyer.
Right, it is not the purpose of government to rule over us or to lord it over us.
This "do whatever you want if it's private property" stuff is fatuous nonsense.
You are no conservative, sir and/or madame. That's one of the more frightening statements I've seen in almost five years on Free Republic. Absolutely shameless.
Fatuous and disingenuous (deceptive, for those who attend modern public schools). As I said before, no one has suggested "anywhere, anytime" but you. But your analogy, however ludicrous, proves my point, not yours. To use the "legal" porn example, there are places permitted to engage in those activities--if you don't like it, stay out. Antis often use alcohol in the same kind of example, which also proves my point, not yours. Bars, and many restaurants, serve alcoholic beverages. If you don't like it, stay out. That doesn't mean people can drink "anytime, anywhere," or that they want to, but that they can drink in places designated for that activity--at the owner's discretion.
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.