Posted on 05/02/2015 2:27:29 AM PDT by harleyrider1978
OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud
Reference Manual Scientificn Evidence Third Edition
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''
OSHA SAFE LEVELS
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
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.
Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
I suggest that you go read “The Brave New World” and then you might have a better understanding of the reference.
OK, I have to run for now. Thanks for at least being polite in the discussion.
Have a great weekend.
We may yet find ourselves defending and losing freedom at the last ditch, but I am confident that we did not arrive at and fail that extremity when smoking was banned in restaurants. For sound reasons of public health, safety, and welfare, restaurants and other public places have long been closely regulated. The temperature of refrigerators, vermin in the kitchen and dining area, employees washing their hands properly, and so on are all intrusive but fully reasonable and necessary requirements. Banning cigarette smoking in restaurants because of second hand smoke is easily defended as such a regulatory measure.
Only in post-progressive advancement america. The same that brought us Prohibition, for the very same reasons that you seem to support in your post.
The smoking bans have brought us the transition from the clearly defined use of the term “private property,” to the nebulous, all encompasing term “public accommodations.” This is the precise terminology used in punishing the bakers in Oregon and Washington, the photographer in Colorado and the Bed and Breakfast owners in Vermont.
The banning of cigarette usage on privately owned property, gave us the tool now being used to punish those that do not want to accomodate those that they find morally objectionable.
Yes, this is not the singular item that is causing the loss of a whole host of freedoms, however it IS THE SINGLE VICTORY THAT HAS ALLOWED FOR THE TRANSITION OF THE ATTACK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INTO AN ATTACK ON THE CONSCIOUS.
In the early years of the Republic, taverns were highly regulated enterprises, with local and state limitations on alcohol service and gambling being especially common. Banning smoking in taverns or restaurants and other public places simply would not have been thought unconstitutional by the men who drafted the federal constitution.
Indeed, before the 14th Amendment was adopted and, through the development of case law, gave rise to the doctrine of incorporation, most of the Bill of Rights was seen as applying only to the federal government and not to state and local governments. Thus banning smoking in public places by state or local law would not have been seen as contrary to any federal constitutional right. In fact, there has never been a federal constitutional right to smoke in public or even to smoke at all.
Ultimately, every society takes aim at and bans or regulates practices and substances that impose harms on innocent third parties. There is no sound reason to see that smoking in public bars and restaurants should be exempt from such considerations.
“Your belief in the singular importance of smoking in restaurants as an expression of freedom is wrong.”
You are the one of singular mind. I am concerned with the rights of the property owner, you are concerned with the “rights” of the government.
“Banning smoking in taverns or restaurants and other public places simply would not have been thought unconstitutional by the men who drafted the federal constitution.”
Not true at all. The Founders originally included the phrase “The right to Life, Liberty and Property” in the declaration, however they realized that the slave states would use this to promote slavery and ultimately changed it to “Persuit of happiness.” Yes, they were equating the rights of property to the right to life!
Remember, they were declaring this right to the King, or government, that controlled ALL property. They were directly stating that the people cannot be free if property is under government control. They went so far as to call that a Tyranny.
“Ultimately, every society takes aim at and bans or regulates practices and substances that impose harms on innocent third parties. There is no sound reason to see that smoking in public bars and restaurants should be exempt from such considerations.”
If you support such changes in liberty at the whims of the mob, then you will surely be pleased when the mob is at the steps of the churches demanding their accomodations. When such positions as yours is now the standard for society, you do not have ANY property rights and by extension you have anarchy.
A little reading about the history of regulation of taverns in the United States quickly disabuses one of the idea that they were unregulated. The phrase “pursuit of happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
“Yeah, smoking is good for you”
Thats not the point...schmuck. Second hand smoke is not bad for you is the point...schmuck.
“The smoking brigade on FR can never answer one question: Is it safe to sit in a room full fireplace smoke?”
Yes if you open the flue. Have you figured that out yet?
“There are smoking bans because people believed the ‘science’ put out by those with an agenda.....
Realistically, even though I am a smoker, I prefer to be in a building where others are NOT smoking”
The same pe0ple who give us global warming “science”.
“Funny sign! Smokers don’t get the main reason non smokers don’t like what they think is Heaven. It stinks Ya,II, to the non smoker tobacco smoke stinks.. It makes our hair stink, our clothes stink just like it does yours.
DO YOU MIND IF I SMOKE? Yes, do you mind if I fart?”
I wont go to where you are farting if you dont go to where i am smoking. Deal?
“Funny sign! Smokers don’t get the main reason non smokers don’t like what they think is Heaven. It stinks Ya,II, to the non smoker tobacco smoke stinks.. It makes our hair stink, our clothes stink just like it does yours.
DO YOU MIND IF I SMOKE? Yes, do you mind if I fart?”
I wont go to where you are farting if you dont go to where i am smoking. Deal?
I wouldnt bet my life on it....pilgrim.
“HA! The smoking wars are over. You lost. Deal with it”
Dont bet your life on it. Truth eventualky wins.
““Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!”
Because it made some people’s clothes smell bad, therefore the elimination of private property rights was well worth it! /s”
Well some people shouldnt hang out in places where their precious clothes might pick up a tobacco odor.Is that asking too much?
“I do not lease my rental property to smokers, or dog or cat owners, either”
When i had rental property i wouldnt rent to non smokers or non pet owners. Vegetarians also.
“That is up to the democratic process. A few years ago, Florida adopted by referendum a constitutional amendment banning cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants. I voted against it on philosophical grounds, but the measure won by a large margin and does not seems to have done appreciable damage to bars and restaurants as businesses. It turned out that most people preferred not to eat or drink with the odor of cigarette smoke about them. Arguably, this also has health benefits for nonsmokers”
How about letting the business owners decide? That used to be the American way.
I agree, mostly, which is why I voted against the smoking ban. Nevertheless, the now wide public disapproval of smoking is well-founded as a matter of public health and safety. There are far better instances in which to make a case for freedom than going up against a reasonable measure in support of public health.
“÷If the issue is that of self-medication by nicotine (which is a poison), current technology permits this craving to be satisfied without stimulating rejection of non-smokers”
Actually, nicotine is benign.
“To: Bonemaker
I agree, mostly, which is why I voted against the smoking ban. Nevertheless, the now wide public disapproval of smoking is well-founded as a matter of public health and safety. There are far better instances in which to make a case for freedom than going up against a reasonable measure in support of public health.”
Thanks for voting against it.But you cave to BS?
You been in a deep sleep? On vacation? What
Day late dollar short
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.