The freedom to slowly kill yourself and others in your vicinity is being limited once again . . .
Grandview Board of Alderman adopts ban on smoking in public places
The freedom to slowly kill yourself and others in your vicinity is being limited once again . . .
Grandview Board of Alderman adopts ban on smoking in public places
Comments
Post a Comment
TKC COMMENT POLICY:
Be percipient, be nice. Don't be a spammer. BE WELL!!!
- The Management
Not to be outdone, Avondale has announced that smokers will be publicly flogged in the city park each Tuesday at 12 noon.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, Grandview is still allowing the sale of cigarettes within the city limits so that it can get the tax revenue. The way the aldermen see it, there's no reason to go to extremes.
ReplyDeleteI think these cities are in for a real hurt - when everyone stop smoking and then all of sudden no revunue. Then they will have to raise taxes to something else to make up for the loss.
ReplyDeleteSan Francisco has just announced that hamburgers and fries can no longer be eaten in public places.
ReplyDeleteThey do-gooders leave alcohol alone because most of them drink. Yet drinking causes more problems than tobacco ever did.
ReplyDeleteI just got of the phone with Leonard D. Jones, Jr.
ReplyDeleteAlderman (Ward I). I asked him since bars that allow smoking have to post signs noting the dangers of second hand smoke if they couldnt also in the same sign post OSHA's policy on second hand smoke and here it is:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..
ReplyDeleteThey did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 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.
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
ReplyDeleteWritten By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Sho...
myth-of-second-hand-smoke
http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke
BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-h...
The thirdhand smoke scam
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html
Now to put it bluntly the alderman didnt want to debate the second hand smoke junk science after I educated him! He asks me do you think people should have to wear their seatbelts........I said NO! its an individual rights issue just as smoking is an individual business owners decision!
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:28 says: "Then they will have to raise taxes to something else to make up for the loss".....how about a tax on liberal blogs?
ReplyDeleteI've smoked for 25 years. I've been trying to quit for a couple of years now without success. All the recent tax hikes have really hurt. It's not like I make much money to begin with. Seems to me a more humane way to handle this would be to just to get rid of all tobacco products. Rather than make me poor, make it very hard for me to get. I want to quit anyway...it would make that easier if I simply had no access to it.
ReplyDeleteSo, either stop with the tax hikes, or just ban it outright.
Thank you 8:21. That's exactly how I feel. In one day, my cost went from $7.50 for a six ounce bag to $22.00 for the same six ounces. Its no longer cheaper to buy loose tobacco, so I now buy regular cigarettes which are not as enjoyable, but I cough less. If you can justify making marijuana illegal, then you can justify making cigarettes illegal. Yes, I could quit, but its way to late to matter.
ReplyDelete