U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kentucky
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2009, 06:39 AM
 
Location: The Beautiful Bluegrass!
623 posts, read 1,059,055 times
Reputation: 433

Advertisements

I don't get the whole "rights thing". No one says you can't smoke, just not in certain places. It's like, no one says you can't drive, just not on the sidewalks.

Laws are to protect the rights of others, those that don't want to breathe smoke, and those that want to walk on the sidewalks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2009, 08:53 AM
 
844 posts, read 1,816,532 times
Reputation: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by PONYPULR View Post
Laws are to protect the rights of others, those that don't want to breathe smoke, and those that want to walk on the sidewalks.
We need to outlaw bars, then - according to your logic! And campfires, and automobiles

It might make sense to prohibit smoke in places where we are all required to go... but a BAR? Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar that has smoke. You are not there for your health, either. Nice try though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 04:18 AM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,388 posts, read 5,742,845 times
Reputation: 3343
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibor75 View Post
yeah, it sucks that you can smoke in your own home.

Gotta love smokers whining about "rights"

Maybe I should have the right to spit in your face.
Smoking = considered an annoyance by LE

Spitting in someone's face = considered an attempted murder charge by LE (in some cases, at the very least assault)

Yes, I can TOTALLY see the resemblances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 04:23 AM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,388 posts, read 5,742,845 times
Reputation: 3343
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokygirl View Post
I'm hoping that you remain healthy, but contary to what many would like to believe, second-hand smoke has been proven to be dangerous. Excerpt (among other disturbing facts) from the Surgeon General's 2006 report:

"Scientific evidence shows that there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure to secondhand smoke".
Maybe not so much....

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)

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.

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.

*Taken directly from the report from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 04:47 PM
 
58 posts, read 126,710 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
Maybe not so much....

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)

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.

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.

*Taken directly from the report from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.
This study must be the easiest response to find on the internet to refute the dangers of second-hand smoke. I've read the same exact response quoted over and over again, many times posted by the same people on different forums. You don't by any chance go by "Harleyrider" on other forums, do you? Just kidding .

I could reply to your post by citing numerous other studies that prove just the opposite, but I'm sure you have the capabilities of finding and reading them for yourself; and I'm just as sure you will doubt the results no matter how much science is behind them. In the same way, a 1999 study solicited by the government will not convince me that second-hand smoke is not dangerous to one's respiratory health.

I suppose we should just agree to disagree ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 01:47 PM
 
Location: USA
120 posts, read 190,127 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoMikey617 View Post

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A DEADLY POLLUTANT. Just like asbestos. Just like lead pollution. Just like with any deadly pollution.
Ridiculous and proven false. Forces.org
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Location: USA
120 posts, read 190,127 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by PONYPULR View Post
I don't get the whole "rights thing". No one says you can't smoke, just not in certain places. It's like, no one says you can't drive, just not on the sidewalks.



Laws are to protect the rights of others, those that don't want to breathe smoke, and those that want to walk on the sidewalks.
ďI don't get the whole "rights thing"Ē Thatís obvious
These laws infringe on rights. No one says you have to be exposed to smoke. You should spend you money where they ban smoking (by the restaurant owner, not by the government). If youíre exposed to smoke, itís because you have chosen an establishment that caters to smokers. I must accept forgoing cigarettes if I use a smoke free restaurant. What happened to personal responsibility?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 02:28 PM
 
Location: USA
120 posts, read 190,127 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokygirl View Post
I'm hoping that you remain healthy, but contary to what many would like to believe, second-hand smoke has been proven to be dangerous. Excerpt (among other disturbing facts) from the Surgeon General's 2006 report:

"Scientific evidence shows that there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure to secondhand smoke".
here it is Forces.org
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokygirl View Post


I am a former smoker who cannot breathe cigarette smoke because of a comprised respiratory system due to smoking. However, I do agree with the post stating that if an establishment feels the need to permit smoking, then people like myself are free to go elsewhere.
You are sensitive to second hand smoke due to a condition caused by smoking. No doubt, first hand smoke can be hazardous. Second hand smoke isnít to good far asthmatics ether.
Epileptics may avoid strobe lights. But we donít outlaw them. Instead we take personal responsibility for ourselves. I agree with you that we should be able to choose. But I also believe that it is very unlikely that an other wise healthy person would suffer ill effects from second hand smoke. Other then the announce factor. The amount of smoke that a non smoker is exposed to is minuscule compared to a smoker. If it were that bad no smoke would live out their first year of smoking.
I tell non smokers I meet, donít ever start smoking. I tell ever smoker I meet, stand up for yourself, itís not the governments business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 05:54 PM
 
9,807 posts, read 13,453,739 times
Reputation: 8158
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYHLBLY View Post
Having been raised in rural Ky. I am very much aware that Kentucky is known as the Bluegrass State but one of the biggest products grown in Ky. is tobacco. So I am sure this is what most people in the big cities of Ky. don't realize. (Especially newcomers) I was a smoker for 50ish years and have chosen to quit. We have the no smoking in public buildings here in Az law and when I smoked I respected that and smoked outdoors at home or in my car. (I didn't want my house to smell like smoke) Bottom line...smoking is unhealthy and in my opinion nasty smelling (I know"reformed smoker") but I feel people should have the right to choose. Probably the most fair resolve is allow 50/50 of business to choose to be smoke friendly or anti-smoking. Then the people can choose which place they want to go.
The zealots are not satisgfed with 50/50.

They want to mandate no smoking in every privately owned bar or restaurant.

( I'm a non-smoker)

The same thing happened in Minnesota
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2010, 05:59 PM
 
9,807 posts, read 13,453,739 times
Reputation: 8158
It is the sight of smoking that upsets them.

One person proved this by going in a non-smoking area of a restaurant ( before the Minnesota ban) and pretended he was smoking.

The woman who reported him to management said she could smell the smoke and started coughing when the manager came to investigate.

He hadn't even lit the cigarette .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kentucky
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top