Diversity camp shatters cultural barriers

Since: Aug 09

typical liberal parade..........watchout for them.
I use to support the american cancer society and other worthwhile endeavors like this til I found out there all behind the smoking bans nationwide.
I do love to go out and eat at a smoking venue.

Since: Aug 09

THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

Since: Aug 09

-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking,[it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts")--not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

Rae

So do I, that's why I go to KY to eat out. I enjoy a cigarette after I eat while I am still sipping on my drink and talking. TN passed the law no smoking in Bars or Restaurants and if I eat in TN I have to run outside to smoke and deal with whatever weather is going on at the time. it sucks!!

Rae

I know a couple of kids that are allergic to cigarette smoke. Both the parents and grandparents smoke but do not smoke in the house when they are around because of that reason but the parents should be the ones that enforce that law, not the government.

Since: Aug 09

Well the child isnt allergic to tobacco smoke she is sensitive to it.Tobacco smoke doesnt contain proteins. It speaks well of the granparents to smoke away from the children since it bothers them.

Rae

harlyydavidson wrote:

Well the child isnt allergic to tobacco smoke she is sensitive to it.Tobacco smoke doesnt contain proteins. It speaks well of the granparents to smoke away from the children since it bothers them.

It don't speak well of them, it only shows that they love them and don't want to make them sick. The Grandparents are the dirty bikers that your mama warned you about. lol

Bad Co

Scottsville, KY

Government is currently spending roughly $16 million to study the feasibility of taxing us based on the miles we drive instead of taxing the gasoline we buy. Why? Because, after pounding into us that we need to drive more fuel efficient vehicles, which we are, excise tax revenues are down, considerably.

Now, apply that thinking to the taxes on tobacco. What happens if people just quit smoking? Not likely to happen but the number of people quitting is on the rise so excise tax revenues decrease. That lost revenue will come from somewhere. An excise tax on soft drinks is being floated around. Maybe a federal tax on cosmetics and perfume could make up the difference.

During my last visit to Mexico I was able to buy name brand cigarettes in a duty-free shop for $17 a carton. That same brand currently sells in Scottsville for around $40 because of state and federal taxes. Even the tax is taxed because state sales tax is added.

Its The Truth

Scottsville, KY

You know those annoying commercials on tv for the truth.com that blames cigerettes for everything.I emailed them and told them if your going to spread the truth why not tell it like it really is.People smoke because they want to not because there is someone making them smoke or trying to convince people to smoke and on packs of smokes it has a warning label.I smoke And no one influenced me.The Truth.com wouldnt even reply to my email because I think they just couldnt handle the truth theirselves.

Since: Aug 09

Bootleg cigarettes is where the states and feds are losing revenue dollars. The poor are the ones especially hit by higher scip taxes and bootleg gives the poor the ability to not have to choose between food or smokes.The anti-tobacco groups hate this for 2 reasons..1 cheap smokes ad the kids can buy em too. 2 it makes smoking rates go up not down.....3 they hate it because history teaches us that any laws like prohibition aimed at forcifully changing social norms always fail miserably...Right now the biggest tobacco bootlegging in the history of the world is taking place. If things keep on a path which the liberal greens have set for tobacco,we may well see local farmers setting up their own cigarette manufacturing facilities right on the farms......
In canada bootlegging accounts for nearly 40% of all cigs sold and thats right around 8 bucks per carton 6 bucks american.....In new york and the northeast bootlegging has risen to such levels that the norm now is to just ask at a local market for the cheap stuff and walla.In tennessee bootleg cigs have increased over 5000% since the smoking prohibition and high taxes were put in place by gov. bredesen.......But whats really scary is what the govmnt wont tell us....as far as they and the media hucksters are concerned everything is just fine....they dont exactly want to publicize the smoking ban damage in tennessee to mom and pop restraunts and other venues nor do they seem worried about the loss of private property rights or the rights of smokers. Wafflehouse lost 60% of its business in the first 3 months of the tenn smoking ban and then filed for bankruptcy in the 9th month of the ban.the same occured for wafflehouse in floriduh and for huddlehouse......smoking ban damage to business and civil liberties of the people cant be justified........the bans must be repealed and the constitutional rights of the people restored.

Rae

I agree, Nanny government helps ruin the economy. I live in Tn and go to Kentucky to eat out

Stupidity Runs Amuck

Can we ever be satisfied with any form of Government?
Actually Tennessee did exactly what they were urged to do by its residents! Think about it, They passed a STATE law banning smoking in alot of locations, including bars that serve food, all "Government Buildings", so may feet from entrances into various businesses (including hospitals). They did it BEFORE Washington forced all States to do this.
We say we want Washington to give the control back to the States.....Well Tennessee believed thats what we meant!
I do not smoke cigarettes, but OH my how I love a good cigar and the pipe. The better half smokes, but she has never complained about a non-smoking Restaurant UNTIL it happened in Tennessee! I could not figure that one out myself, I asked her what the difference was in Scottsvilles 2 newest eateries where she never complained and us going to a nice place in Tennessee that we like to eat in Nashville. She told me its because they tell me I can't!

Rae

Stupidity Runs Amuck wrote:

Can we ever be satisfied with any form of Government?
Actually Tennessee did exactly what they were urged to do by its residents! Think about it, They passed a STATE law banning smoking in alot of locations, including bars that serve food, all "Government Buildings", so may feet from entrances into various businesses (including hospitals). They did it BEFORE Washington forced all States to do this.
We say we want Washington to give the control back to the States.....Well Tennessee believed thats what we meant!
I do not smoke cigarettes, but OH my how I love a good cigar and the pipe. The better half smokes, but she has never complained about a non-smoking Restaurant UNTIL it happened in Tennessee! I could not figure that one out myself, I asked her what the difference was in Scottsvilles 2 newest eateries where she never complained and us going to a nice place in Tennessee that we like to eat in Nashville. She told me its because they tell me I can't!

I think I would get along rather well with your wife

Stupidity Runs Amuck

No doubt you would rae. Maybe sometime our paths will meet again, and her be with me. Her work keeps her away alot! In fact she is in NY State this week. Its me and the dogs keeping the home front secure again! I was thinking of a ride down to about Gulf Shores to visit friends but I'm unclear if I should because of weather issues.
Has anyone noticed the lack of hurricanes this year?
Sorry I am sticking my nose into the defense of you against this peter head calling you names, but I was taught to respect women and some show NONE!
I do believe it is the Jim feller that was supposed to be leaving. He seems to be the one that cursed you the most.
Maybe he got mad because I put him on the spinning wheel in my story. HAHA
Personally I hope he is wrong on the lengthy duration on Rand picking up where his fathers age is a hindrance and runs much sooner than 70 years from now!

Rae