Where should smoking be illegal?

Page 11 of 16  
On 5/29/2016 12:59 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

How's that? The stench of secondhand smoke contains all the bad chemicals that the smoke itself contains. It's still about health.

The market IS already doing that. It's just a matter of time before smoking at all public venues is banned.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:53:10 -0500, Muggles

actually harmful. You are simply offended by the smell.

If the government "bans" something, that is not the market, it is the government. The title of this thread is not "where should smoking be unprofitable" or "where should smoking be politically incorrect" it says "illegal" . That is enforcing your beliefs at the point of a government gun and that is not "conservative" thinking.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/29/2016 9:58 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You're wrong about the chemicals, AND about me simply being offended by the smell.
"Thirdhand smoke consists of the tobacco residue from cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products that is left behind after smoking and builds up on surfaces and furnishings. Tobacco smoke is composed of numerous types of gasses and particulate matter, including carcinogens and heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, and cyanide. Sticky, highly toxic particulates, like nicotine, can cling to walls and ceilings. Gases can be absorbed into carpets, draperies, and other upholsteries. A 2002 study found that these toxic brews can then reemit back into the air and recombine to form harmful compounds that remain at high levels long after smoking has stopped occurring.
There is a growing body of evidence that this lingering tobacco residue has significant health risks. People, especially children and hospitality industry workers, can have considerable exposure to it. As confirmed by the 2006 Surgeon General's Report, there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. And tobacco smoke toxins remain harmful even when breathed or ingested after the active smoking ends.
A study published in February 2010 found that thirdhand smoke causes the formation of carcinogens. The nicotine in tobacco smoke reacts with nitrous acid - a common component of indoor air - to form the hazardous carcinogens. Nicotine remains on surfaces for days and weeks, so the carcinogens continue to be created over time, which are then inhaled, absorbed or ingested." http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?idg1
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:51:29 -0500, Muggles

Give me a real science study, not a hit piece from a group who says "no smoke" in their name. I can find a "study" from some fundamentalist organization that says people are "harmed" by damned near anything.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/30/2016 12:27 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Did you try the links referenced in the article? I'm guessing you didn't even read the article or try the links to the studies it referenced.
http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?idg1
http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684127?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/1/29.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS &hits&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Quintana&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid86821237049_1361&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&r
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e74?variant «stract&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus@1&nftoken000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:25:09 -0500, Muggles

and any "science" that does not talk about dosage and the TLV is hyperbole. I was the OSHA hazmat compliance officer among other duties and I am very familiar with protocols around chemicals. I imagine you are getting more harmful fumes from your nail polish remover than any amount of second hand smoke you encounter. Read the MSDS on that solvent sometime if you want to be scared. Simply painting a toxic chemical on your nails is bad enough and god only knows what is in the other cosmetics.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/30/2016 12:32 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

OSHA huh? OK.
Since you're familiar with OSHA, and that seems to be the only source you'd accept as valid, why don't you provide the OSHA information that says smoking is safe and doesn't cause health problems via secondhand or third hand smoke?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:07:21 -0500, Muggles

Smoking is dangerous and there are plenty of references for that. In very high concentrations of ambient smoke, for long periods of time is very likely a hazard. An occasional whiff of smoke is not dangerous and the idea of the latent smell of smoke in a curtain being dangerous is ludicrous.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/30/2016 1:38 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Prove it's not dangerous, then.
I've provided multiple references that says it is dangerous and causes health problems, and I and some others have said that even a whiff of secondhand smoke can make them sick, in addition to, providing links that provide proof of that happening.
You don't believe any of the references to any of those things that I've provided. So, I'd like for you to provide me with links that support your conclusion that a whiff of smoke is not dangerous and latent third hand smoke is also not dangerous.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:42:26 -0500, Muggles

Prove carrots don't cause cancer. Another red herring, you can't prove a negative. The lack of any real evidence that second hand smoke ever killed anyone is about all we have. Random musing by groups who start out condemning smokers and cherry picking random data points to confirm their case is not proof of anything.
I am done with this,. If you don't like smoke, stay away from smokers.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/30/2016 2:49 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You're the one that said you were "the OSHA hazmat compliance officer among other duties and I am very familiar with protocols around chemicals."
Put your data where your premise is, then.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:47:42 -0500, Muggles

The data does not exist because you want me to prove a negative.
I am out of this. I don't care anymore.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 May 2016 00:04:44 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I want you to provide data that backs up your assertions. You claimed to "know" about such things because of your OSHA experience. There should be data that backs up your claim of small amounts of secondhand smoke does no harm. Tests? Studies? Something? A medical article? Anything from the OSHA website?
Where is your evidence?
I've provided multiple references to legitimate sources that back up my claims about secondhand smoke, and all you've done is say they aren't credible sources because YOU know more on the subject, but now you're telling me you've got no evidence to back up anything you've said on the subject?

I get it.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Any "study" that does not address TLVs is bogus. Chlorine is considered a WMD and it killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers when used as a weapon but nobody is concerned when they get a little whiff of it pouring bleach in the washer or when they jump in a swimming pool. It is all about dosage. Until you recognize that fact, you are just a an alarmist smoke nazi
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:40:45 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

PROVE IT!
Who are you to say "it's all about dosage" when several people here have told you they get sick with very little exposure? A whiff of secondhand smoke does make people sick. How do you explain that away?
How can you ignore the obvious proof it makes people sick?

I'm debating the subject. Why don't you?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's a simple allergy. One of my sons is allergic to peaches. Many people are allergic to pollen. So sad for those people.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/31/2016 7:09 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

OK. Where are the studies that agree with your conclusion?
Since, "Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including hundreds that are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer", which chemical(s) are people allergic to?
If allergies are the cause, there should be detailed documentation that backs up your statement.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:09:22 -0500, Muggles

http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:01:29 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Nice chart, but there are 7000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, and your link doesn't reference anything about allergies.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They are the principle chemicals deemed dangerous by OSHA. Water is a "chemical".
The important issue with that chart is to show the concentration necessary to create a hazard. To reach the TLV, you need to smoke over 1000 cigarettes in a small unventilated room for the worst offenders and most involve needing to smoke 10,000 or more. That also assumes the smoker did not absorb any of those chemicals.
The simple fact that you feel sick is simply a trained response with no real organic cause. There are plenty of people who will get sick watching someone puke on TV and there is nothing at all involved but their own acquired psychological response. Do you get sick when you see people smoke on TV too?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.