Page 2 of 2

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:32 pm
by Jeff Boettcher
If MN & IL already ban smoking in bars, how could a state-wide WI ban be a competition liability??

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:00 am
by aphephilia
The 2006 Surgeon General’s report clearly concludes that second-hand smoke should not be considered a legitimate health or environmental hazard. The report states no less than 108 times on its 707 pages that the evidence is inconclusive regarding the health aspects of second-hand smoke.
Even the Occupational Safety and Health Administration doesn’t regard second-hand smoke an environment hazard.

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:50 am
by Runnergirl
There is no risk-free level of exposure: The U.S. Surgeon General issued a health warning in late June 2006 emphasizing that secondhand smoke is both “toxic and poisonous.” Secondhand smoke contains poisonous gases and chemicals, including carbon monoxide (commonly found in car exhaust), ammonia (used in household cleaners), toluene (found in paint thinners), and hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons). Toxic metals in secondhand smoke include arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries). The Surgeon General’s warning concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke; even short exposure can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, and reduce heart rate variability, which may increase the risk of heart attack.

You can view the full report at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/s ... oke/report

OSHA stand on tobacco smoke is that it is worker generated and not employer generated, so the PEL’s do not apply. I do not agree with this and I’m sure it is political. Think about the flood of litigation, if OSHA made employers accountable for second hand smoke.

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:41 am
by Old Scout
As I am reading these posts, all I can do is laugh at the two sides of the issue. Drinking and driving cause a lot more deaths than smoking and driving, but the people that want to go to a smoke free bar think drinking is ok but smoking isn't. Personally I don't care either way but I guess it all depends on what your habit is. If you smoke you must be a bad person, but if you drink too much and get into your car that is ok even if you are putting others at risk. Hummm :? :? :? :?

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:13 pm
by Runnergirl
I agree with you Old Scout. Having a drink is legal and at that point the user does not inflict anthing negative to the people around them. A smoker does. Driving under the influence is a crime and that is a different issue.

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:26 am
by Old Scout
Still sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black, or my habit is ok but yours isn't. Oh well, I appreciate the chuckles I get from reading these posts and their holier than thou attitudes. :lol: :lol:

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:01 pm
by Kerry Tobin
Well, if you put your drink in your mouth and then spit it all over me I'm going to have a problem with you too! :-)

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:23 pm
by goodfood4u
Thanks Runnergirl I appreciate it..

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:01 pm
by Jeff Boettcher
Scout,
I met you in August at the Pine Tree. I had one beer. Was I a danger to anyone else in the bar or on the road when I drove back to the cottage? If we had to sit next to someone smoking cigarettes while we "shot the bull" for that time, what's more dangerous to our health? How about to the bartenders or the waitresses who are there all day?

Irresponsible drinking is a crime. Accidents caused by drunken drivers are well known. If caught they pay. Smoking filtered cigarettes causes lung cancer. Breathing in smoker's unfiltered exhalations is even worse. Which kettle is black? Which case is humorous?

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:41 pm
by Old Scout
For every person that drinks responably there is one that has too many, gets obnoxious and drives after drinking. That one beer we had is not the problem, it is those who have several, cause problems at the bar and drive that are the problem. You can chose not to be around smokers at the bar but none of us can chose not to be on the road when someone who has been drinking decides to swerve into your lane or go through a stop sign. I had a good friend that was almost killed driving home from work after getting off at midnight by a guy that had just stopped for a few. He didn't have the choice of not being around the person that was drinking. That is one reason I don't see a whole lot of difference between one bad habit or the other. The only difference is you have the choice of being there or not when people are smoking. For every drunk driver the police catch dozens make it home to drink another day, and that may be the day you get in his way.

Re: Protect Private Property Rights Of Business Owners In WI

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:55 pm
by abnerman
Runnergirl wrote:I agree with you Old Scout. Having a drink is legal and at that point the user does not inflict anthing negative to the people around them. A smoker does. Driving under the influence is a crime and that is a different issue.



But in this particular case, there are non-smokers that are literally going out of their way to expose themselves to something that they say they feel is dangerous to their health.

It's completely different than a drunk driver putting others at risk without their knowledge or consent.

(ie: Kerry mentioned earlier in this thread how he felt he was being exposed to smoke in his car against his will, on the road, in a completely public setting. That to me (even as a smoker), is a much more legitimate argument than non-smokers purposely going somewhere that they obviously feel their health will be put in jeopardy, and then complaining about it.)