CHOKE on this!

Wonder if the same can be said about biodiesel aroma refined from used deep
fat fryer oils! LOL

 

It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. It's
just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some
patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to
believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are
being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot
work.

In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day
smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders
healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of
bartenders who smoke.

Those are not good for you either. Wood smoke is highly carcinogenic. The
builder of my home could have put in a media room and even thrown in the
equipment for the cost of the fireplace, chimney, and gas lines (that's for
lighting the wood fire.) Also, fireplaces are not very efficient ways to
heat a home, especially when you have a furnace on anyway. They suck air up
the chimney, and much of that is air that you paid to heat.

I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly
use it at all.

I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some.
What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I
was growing up, there were no studies on second hand smoke. Yet, people who
were around smokers ended up with red eyes, coughs, headaches, stomachaches,
etc. It should not have been hard to figure out that if somebody came near
me with a cigarette and it made me cough that my body did not like it. It
should not have been hard for a smoker to figure out on the day he started
that his body didn't like it either.

I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes,
I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was
told that getting headaches at the end of the day was just a normal part of
life. That's what aspirin was for, and everybody used it regularly. I also
thought that coughing was normal. I knew that people coughed a lot when they
were sick, but I also thought that coughing was something that people
normally did occasionally on a daily basis as a way of reacting with the
environment. Having clothing that needed washing at the end of the day was
normal too. It didn't matter if it still looked clean, or never came in
contact with anything dirty. It was understood that if I went to any affair,
I would have to get my suit dry cleaned the next day. How anybody could
believe that smoke could impregnate everything around it, stink up rooms,
clothing, cars, and anything it contacted, turn ceilings brown, and cause
obvious symptoms in people who don't smoke, but not be harmful is a sure
sign of how people can delude themselves.

 

But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons.

 

Who cares? It goes through the on-board cleaning-up process.

DAS

 

No No No, a thousand times no!

Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work
in a smoking environment. Very different, eh?

If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work?
Or they can choose not to work in a bar.

If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any
degree at all, they cannot work in a garage.

If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in
a perfume factory.

Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to
be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the
rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right?

 

I did finish my sentence. If there is a job available, they cannot have it
if they do not want to be around smoke. You should have been able to
understand that from the context.

A dislike for booze or it is effects (whatever that means) does not cause
them physical harm and is not relevant. The government has no obligation to
protect workers from something they merely dislike.

Why should they have to make that choice? If the job is available, they
should have the right to take it if they are qualified, and should not be
subjected to unreasonable health risks. If I advocated that the asbestos
laws are stupid and people should just work somewhere else if they don't
want a contaminated workplace, I don't think I'd get much support. But
cigarette smoke is more harmful than asbestos. People should get the same
protection when it comes to smoke as they do for any other poison or
substance that causes cancer.

Any state OSHA will have rules protecting them from these. They must be
vented to the outside, and should not exceed certain levels. If anybody had
to work in a garage where exposure to those fumes was a serious issue, you
could expect that garage to be closed down, and the owner either sued or
jailed, depending on the extent.

Perfume is not a substance that has been shown to cause cancer. It is not
something that causes problems for people in general. If the concentations
in a factory were high enough to cause problems for most people, it would
have to fix the problem. This cannot be compared to cigarette smoke, which
is harmful to everybody.

Wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out why, and I'm
tired of explaining the obvious.

 

And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean.
Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-(

Huw

 

I was only pointing out that docs prescribe Wellbutrin, but I haven't seen in
prescribed in a very long time. I'm sure t the reason is that Zyban isn't
prescribed more often is that it was advertised as a smoking deterrant. I've
never seen it prescribed for depression.

I haven't seen a doc give a patient Zyban in quite a while. I'm a triage
nurse (usually for Family Practice docs), and I haven't called in Zyban in
several years.

We're in agreement there

Natalie

 

Good question. I'm sure none of it is good for us

Natalie

 

So much crap gets into our systems, it's a wonder any of us live past age 50

Natalie

 

Exactly! How did this crappy thread get into an automotive NewsGroup? ;-)
Please kill this annoying thread!

 

If you go to (or work in) a place that you know was primarily a smoker's
haven, then that's *your* problem, IMO. The fact is that there are a lot of
smokers, of course, so I don't see anything wrong with a group of people
participating in a legal activity (health risks or not), as I think they have
a right to poison their lungs, just as I have the right to use way too much
salt in my diet. I know the risks of eating so much salt, but I choose to
disregard it. I see a smoking club/bar as the same category.

See above

We had ours modified in some way that was supposed to decrease the residue,
but I doubt it did very much (back when we lived in New Hampshire and burned
firewood)

You must not be in New England

My parents were both potheads in the 70s (ironically, I never could stand the
smell of the stuff), and burned incense regularly, of course. I usually left
the house when they were tokin'

Whenever we visited my mother-in-law for the weekend, we'd come back and wash
all of our clothes, both clean and dirty. Nasty smell, that. It does
permeate everything. The bitch of it is that while in her house, you don't
notice the smell, but as soon as you go outside, you realize you reek of it!
I hated going anyplace while we were visiting my MIL, because we smelled like
heavy smokers. - yuck!

Natalie

 

I totally agree - if you know how things are before you start a job, then you
decide to put up with everything legally associated with that job.

Natalie

 

Sorry, I don't have the power, but at least I marked it 'OT' for the
remainder of it. I think this thread is actually useful, though. I think
folks are learning more about this deadly addiction, and how can that be a
bad thing?

You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT"



Natalie

 

Thanks...I think If trying it once and barfing counts, then that's me!

Sounds dumb

LOL OK, but I find that it really doesn't take all that many smokers to stink
the place up, and the 'smoker' bars had some sort of filtering mechanism to
try to trap as much of the harmful ingredients as possible. I don't know
what they used.

*gasp*

You were on-topic! Shame on you!

;-)

Natalie

 

Re: You can kill the thread yourself, by filtering the word "choke" or "OT"

In theory that should work, but in practice, it hasn't. The thread keeps
reappearing through my I.S.P.'s NewsGroup.

As far as "folks learning more about this deadly addiction", you are
preaching to the converted. But there is nothing in this thread that is new
or particularly informative. Nor does it belong in an automotive NG. Amen.

 

And we're to blame for that? When I kill something with OE and Individual,
it dies - no other outcome

You have no way of knowing who is reading this thread. It's clearly marked
OT, so why do you keep reading it? I still believe there are people reading
the info here for the first time. Yes, it's old news, but it's still
relevant, as the struggle between smokers and non-smokers is ongoing.

Killfile those of us you find offensive, because I can tell you without
reservation, that trying to get people to stop discussing a subject, no
matter how inappropriate one feels the topic is, will simply not work.

For instance, when some moron posts spoilers in their subject line regarding
a movie or show I haven't watched yet, I killfile them without making a big
fuss. All that happens when you try to 'netcop' is a flame war. It's not
worth it.

Natalie

 

Bars are not primarily smoker's havens, and I don't know if the majority of
patrons were smokers before smoking bans. It's not the same as dietary salt
at all. You can put all the salt in your food you want, and it won't make
my food saltier.

Before smoking bans, people argued that smoking and drinking went together.
It was a stupid argument. Most of the adult population in my state drinks
on occasion. Only about 18% smoke. Most drinkers are not smokers. On
average, bars did not suffer a loss of business. For many, business
increased. Instead of taking away rights from people, the rule gave rights
back to four out of five drinkers who can now go to a smoke-free bar.

Your argument may make sense for a smoking club, but it makes no sense for a
bar since there's no reason to believe that people there smoke in any
greater percentage than people anywhere else. Decades ago, people said that
smoking and eating went together. 100% of people eat (rounded to the nearest
percent) and most of them don't want to do it where people smoke.

In my state, workers are protected from health risks, and bars are no
exception. If you were advocating that people should have the right to smoke
in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't have to go there, then I'd
agree with you. I don't see that same argument for a public place. If the
owner of a greeting card store knew that most of his customers smoked, I
suppose you could make the same argument that it's a smoker's haven, but
even if smoking were allowed there, I'd bet that it would be a smoker's
haven because it turned other potential customers off.

See above

I don't know if it did any good either, but taking steps to minimize
exposure to harmful particles is what it's all about. Automobiles have
pollution controls, and so do many other things. The easiest way to get rid
of pollution from smoking is to disallow it where it can affect others.

No, I'm not.

If you are going to be a pothead, you shouldn't force it on others.

I would notice the smell, but that's because I'm almost never around smokers
any more.

 

Sadly, there is no reasoning with the likes of you and your ilk. If you
think your meandering diatribe is good for us, then you impose yourself upon
us. If you have to label something as "OT", has it ever occurred to you
that perhaps you should not post it and impose your compulsive obsessive
behaviour upon us? No, of course not. Such are the inane ramblings and and
selfish motives of your type. "Why should I stop posting off-topic when I
can force all the legitimate users of these automotive NewsGroups, to filter
the topic and killfile all who respond?" I find your demeanor quite selfish
and your rationale more than just a bit absurd. ;-) Natalie, if I may offer
some gentle advice, take a walk outside, take a deep breath of fresh air,
give your head a shake and then proceed to get a life and move your soapbox
down the street! If we feel the need to be saved from ourselves, I'm sure
that we will be able to find you or someone just like you. Thanks for caring
about our well being. Now do us all a favor and find a new pulpit. Your
welcome is worn out here.

 

I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying that some bars in AZ decided to make
themselves 'smoker-friendly'. I think they have the right to serve their
customers as they (legally) see fit.

I dunno. Back in my single days, it seemed like at least 1 in 3 of the
patrons at bars were puffing away. Maybe that's changed since the late
70s/early 80s

No, what I was talking about were places that catered to smokers in
particular. I don't see that as a loss of rights. There are certainly more
non-smoking public places than the reverse, so I don't see the harm. If I
know a bar caters to smokers, I'll stay the hell away from there. Some
people who are non-smokers don't mind being in a nicotine permeated
environment. Bottome line: If you know what you're getting into, don't
complain when you see it (in this case smoking)

I did - I still stand by my statements

Hmmm while I agree that cig/cigar smoke is harmful, I don't know that it
equals the amount of toxicity you get from machine exhaust. If we're talking
sheer numbers here, I tend to believe cars emit much more harmful fumes than
smokers. Do you have some data I could see? Seriously, I'd like to know.

See above

You say that like it's a good thing

And they didn't. I saw it, of course, but my parents never tried to get me
into it. One of my mom's friends did, but I flatly refused.

Wish I could say that. It always saddens me to take a pregnant woman back to
the exam room and notice that the room is filling up with that odor. I feel
sorry for the baby as well as the mom.

Natalie