Where should smoking be illegal?

Page 13 of 16  
On 30/05/2016 15:00, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Give it time and the government will insist on farting rooms for flatulent releases. Anyone found farting outside the designated room will be executed.
--
Bod

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

The difference is you can't be arrested for farting. Again I will point out the thread refers to "illegal", not that it is shunned by the community.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/30/2016 9:00 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

I think some people complain about the stink of cigarette smoke because it smells bad, and others complain about the stink because it makes then nauseous, and others complain about the stink because they get physically ill.
--
Maggie

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

So don't go there.
How about your house? How much formaldehyde is offgassing from your various furnishings?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2016 17:16, dadiOH wrote:

Not to mention fecal fumes.
--
Bod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
29 May 2016 16:16:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

She lives in a trailer. Do you really want to ask her about the formaldehyde issue? :) I see that some things do not change. New nym, different newsgroup, same character flaws present, though. IE: same old Jenn. nothings changed. I do see she's gotten over her 'fear' quite well. :)
You should ask her about the subject of using a cell phone with a hands free device while driving; safe or unsafe. The last time I did, she claimed because her hands were free, this was a safe thing to be doing. I can't find any studies to support the conclusion, though. The ones I did find seem to indicate a common issue; your hands might be on the wheel, but your mind is on that conversation. IE: you aren't paying attention to what you're doing.
Might be one reason why they're illegal in various states, eh? Hands free or not. Don't talk on your cell while you're driving.
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 May 2016 04:14:42 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

On the face of it, this does make sense. Using a cell phone (or CB radio, or even adjusting the volume on an AM/FM radio) will cause some distraction, hands-free or not.
Everyone seems on board regarding texting while driving, or using phones that require manual operation.
But what about smoking in a car, or eating a high-dexterity snack? Most jurisdictions have laws against doing *anything* likely to impair driving efficiency, and yet we still see people reading newspapers and applying make-up.
--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Mike Duffy:

That's no joke about reading newspapers. When was van pooling for a couple of years, I got a chance to study the surrounding traffic and regularly saw people reading newspapers while driving.
And I don't mean furtive glances.... I mean they were *reading* that sucker.
I have no clue how somebody does that.... but have to conclude that some people are vastly better at doing two things at the same time than I ever will be.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2016 12:19, Vic Smith wrote:

Then advertise for a barman that is a smoker.
--
Bod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/29/2016 6:19 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

"There is mounting evidence that documents the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke, including in the workplace. In states that permit workplace smoking, employers face significant legal risks from employees who are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. Employers have been held liable for employee exposure to secondhand smoke in numerous cases, including those based on workers’ compensation, state and federal disability law, and the duty to provide a safe workplace. Given this liability risk, employers should voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace policies. Such policies do more than fulfill an employer’s legal obligation to provide a safe workplace; they also reduce the risk of litigation, potentially reduce workers’ compensation premiums, and protect employees from harm.
THERE IS MOUNTING evidence of the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke. Several recent studies have shown that employees’ exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace causes significant increases in tobacco-specific carcinogens in the human body (M. Stark, PhD, unpublished data, April 2006).1–6 Smoking in bars, restaurants, and other hospitality venues contributes substantially to poor indoor air quality in these workplaces and exposes employees to carcinogens and other toxic agents in tobacco smoke.7 Specifically, nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at work increase their risk of heart disease by 25%–30% and their risk of lung cancer by 20%–30%, and are susceptible to immediate damage to the cardiovascular system.8 The only way to effectively eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace is to make the workplace a smoke-free environment.9 Studies have shown immediate improvements in air quality10,11 and workers’ respiratory health12 when smoking is eliminated from workplaces, including hospitality venues.
To protect employees and patrons from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke, many state and local governments have passed laws creating smoke-free workplaces, including restaurants and bars.13 In states without smoke-free workplace laws, employers still face significant legal risks from employees who are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. Employers can reduce these legal risks by voluntarily prohibiting smoking at their worksites.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND SMOKE-FREE LAWS
Research conducted during the past several decades clearly documents that exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease in nonsmokers. Some research indicates that secondhand smoke is more toxic and potentially more dangerous than the smoke that is directly inhaled by the smoker.14,15 Nationally, the US Environmental Protection Agency has found secondhand smoke to be a risk to public health and has classified secondhand smoke as a group A carcinogen, the most dangerous class of carcinogen."
more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote: Specifically, nonsmokers who are

are susceptible

I'd like to see someone prove that. It's so patently ridiculous. Show us how walking through a room with some smokers leads to immediate damage to the cardiovascular system. I'm waiting..... You won't be able to, because it's made up BS and it just discredits whatever else they have to say. This is like the risks of getting cancer from cell phones. There have been studies that suggested a link, others that show no link. The zealots focus on the ones that confirm their agenda.
What's the increased risk of death to a fisherman in the Arctic? A steel worker? Roofers? Loggers? Should we ban those too? If someone can choose to be a fisherman and take that risk, why can't they be free to choose to work in a bar that allows smoking? Actually they still are, in some places that haven't gone bat shit crazy yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/29/2016 6:19 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

More:
LEGAL RISKS
Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available. For example, an employee could file a workers’ compensation claim against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employer’s workers’ compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a “reasonable accommodation”—in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand smoke—if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a common law duty.
Employers may voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace policies to reduce the threat of litigation in these areas. These 3 risks are examined in turn.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
State workers’ compensation laws are designed to protect workers from injuries and illnesses that arise out of and in the course of employment. The state laws are not based on fault; an injured worker can recover benefits, including compensation for temporary or permanent loss of income and medical expenses, without proving that the employer was negligent. A state administrative agency usually oversees the workers’ compensation system so that employees may recover benefits promptly. In most cases, the state workers’ compensation system prevents the employee from also suing the employer in tort.26
Litigation Under Workers’ Compensation Statutes
Employees have won in individual workers’ compensation cases involving secondhand smoke–related injuries when the employee suffered an asthmatic or allergic reaction as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace and the employee had demonstrated exposure to a heavy concentration of secondhand smoke for several years.33 Because the outcomes of workers’ compensation cases have varied widely across states, an employee’s ability to recover compensation will depend heavily upon the state in which the employer is located.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931463/
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:28 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

?s

ty

able

to secondhand

rn.

from

??

mployee

lving

Yes, threaten everyone with lawsuits. Raise money from the zealots and use the courts to try to accomplish what you can't do with legislation. There already are huge restrictions on smoking, but heh, it's not enough let's sue everyone. This is exactly the method of the left. They want to do the same thing with guns, sue every gun manufacturer, every gun store, to put them out of business. It's the lib way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sun, 29 May 2016 15:21:23 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Do you have any actual links to any supporting evidence? published studies, etc? No offense, but .gov isn't exactly... suggesting honesty and integrity there.
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/29/2016 01:23 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The local Indian casino allows smoking throughout their facility (hotel, restaurants and gaming floor).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 8:31:49 AM UTC-4, Wally wrote:

There are still some places that are the exception. Funny thing, here in the Peoples Republic of NJ, you can't smoke at any bar, restaurant, etc. Can't even have a once a year cigar dinner. But they still do allow smoking in some sections of the casinos. Interesting. The state gets a cut of the revenue. So, they don't mind screwing with all the other businesses, but the one that they get a big cut from, well that they have different rules for. It's just another example of hypocritical libs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The last time I ate out in Virginia, smoking was not only allowed, but encouraged. I found a clean, ash tray at every table. :) I don't smoke very often, but, I do enjoy being able to light one up every now and then. It's certainly no worse for me than breathing in the crap spewed forth from the vehicles people insist on driving around here. If that's not enough, we have the Eastman chemical company here. I'm *sure* whatever it's emitting is totally safe for me to be inhaling. Right! :-) When they ignite it, it makes several different colored flames from the stacks. Sometimes, it just vents without being ignited. I'm sure whatever it is (steam? rofl.. could be.. doubtful it's pure steam though) is completely safe and the EPA knows all about it.
Let's not even mention the papermill I lived near when I was a kiddo. I had to smell that stinky bastard every morning on the walk to school. Muggles, who can I sue over that? I'm sure it had to do something bad to me. Stunt my growth, mebbe. Keep me from making a kickass jumpshot once? Who knows...
We have a paper processing plant here too. If you're downtown during certain times of the day on certain days, it's super stinky, like the papermill in Berlin, NH. If I can smell it, I'm obviously inhaling it, and I suspect, strongly suspect, it's probably worse for me than second hand smoke I might/might not even be around for days.
We also have wood burning stoves here. outdoor BBQ pits of various styles. Some generate piles of smoke. Some very pleasant smelling. [g] We have a nascar track in Bristol. I'm certain the fumes emitted to race around an oval track have to be worse for me than second hand smoke. The smoke generated as they 'warm up the tires' for drag racing nights can't be good for me. It's literally, burning rubber.
Yet, nobody is getting sued for it Nobody is trying to have it shut down. Diesel trucks, holy shit, pollution city. I suspect that thick black cloud from a truck 'rolling coal' is far worse for me than if I smoked a cig directly myself, let alone being exposed to second hand smoke.
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/30/2016 12:14 AM, Diesel wrote:

I'd probably still smoke if I could have the occasional cig with no addiction. I was close to a pack a day when I quit 40 years ago. One or two a month is not a big deal but 20 a day sure is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess that may be why I am ambivalent about it. I can smoke half a cigar with the guys, put it away and not think of it again. I am around smokers all the time and not feel the urge. As I said in my other note, almost everyone in my family smoked and most of them are dead from it. The notable one who didn't lived to be 100. Lesson learned and the government had nothing to do with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per snipped-for-privacy@aol.com:

Be cautious about the cigars. In the place where I worked for 25 years, I saw several people start smoking cigars thinking they were non-addictive... and they were.... for awhile... but eventually they wound up sucking on a cigarette for much of the working day.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% 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.