14 area bars win exemptions to smoking ban

These people that are comming up with these kind of laws in my opinion should be took out and hung in the nearest tree, This country is getting so bad that we will have to pay to breath pretty soon, If the american people don't soon put a stop to all these laws that are taking all of our rights and freedom from us ,Then we all might as well pack our bags and move to Russia! We have already lost more freedom than I'm willing to give up and I'm ready to do what needs to be done to get it back. If other people don't want to smoke thats find with me, But leave me the hell alone to do what I want to do!

I agree with William.. What it is going to come down to is a nother Boston Tea Party....Except it is not the English this time it is right here at home.....Take a stand now before it is to late..Tell me what are our rights as they were written by our forefather??????????
Do you even know?

William L Adams wrote:

These people that are comming up with these kind of laws in my opinion should be took out and hung in the nearest tree, This country is getting so bad that we will have to pay to breath pretty soon, If the american people don't soon put a stop to all these laws that are taking all of our rights and freedom from us ,Then we all might as well pack our bags and move to Russia! We have already lost more freedom than I'm willing to give up and I'm ready to do what needs to be done to get it back. If other people don't want to smoke thats find with me, But leave me the hell alone to do what I want to do!

I see it just the opposite. I welcome the new smoking laws. It makes my life sooooo much nicer and more enjoyable. I see new laws as a step forward in our society. The majority of folks don't smoke and don't want to be around smoke but still want to enjoy the restaurant and bar scenes.
When you learn to walk upright you too will see the benefits of these much needed smoking laws.
I'm sure when you are sucking on oxygen like a fish out of water you'll be thinking twice about why you are a smoker, how dare you still think you can harm others with your second hand smoke. Smoking is just so yesterday, get with the times.

It's a well known fact, and easy to prove to yourself if you take the time to look around.
Most drunks, degenerates, lowlife-scum and other nothing type people are smokers. As a rule they smoke cigarettes but some who fancy themselves as "dandys", smoke cigars.

well just candid I did't think you would want to talk that way about your fellow anti smoker,calling them lowlifes and scums what will the anti smoking nazi's think?I know,I know,us smokers of cigarettes and cigars have a lot of class and one day you anti smoking nazi's wish to be like us!

Good grief, antis. Here's a list of 14 places in Clarion County, PA where smoking is allowed. All you have to do is to figure out how to avoid walking into them and your problem is solved.

Sign in just candid's shack reads: "Please doesn't throw butts in piss pot. It makes them soggy an' hard t'light! Fry mah hide!”

Drew wrote:

Good grief, antis. Here's a list of 14 places in Clarion County, PA where smoking is allowed. All you have to do is to figure out how to avoid walking into them and your problem is solved.

No, Drew, that would make too much sense. You don't get it--these ANTI-SMOKE NAZI a*holes do not want freedom of choice and be able to patron all the other bars/places that were not given exemptions. They want their will imposed upon the whole world. Well, guess what you SMOKE NAZIS---PA legislature has a ban that works for everyone---if a particular bar offers smoking, and you're a non-smoker---STAY THE F**K OUT.

Fletch wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Drew, that would make too much sense. You don't get it--these ANTI-SMOKE NAZI a*holes do not want freedom of choice and be able to patron all the other bars/places that were not given exemptions. They want their will imposed upon the whole world. Well, guess what you SMOKE NAZIS---PA legislature has a ban that works for everyone---if a particular bar offers smoking, and you're a non-smoker---STAY THE F**K OUT.

I can't believe all 14 of these bars are in one trailer park!!! But that's usually where the low-life smokers are.
Those 14 bars should have to pay a 1000% percent health care tax on all sales. Put the money into a special smokers healthcare fund. They'll sure need it.
You state "stay the F**k out" what if you said that to "Blacks" or "Asians" or "Gays". Once you learn to walk upright you'll understand what evolution is all about.
PA is the old West Virginia. What's a mile long and has three yellow teeth? The PA unemployment line!!!!

Smoking Hillbillys wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't believe all 14 of these bars are in one trailer park!!! But that's usually where the low-life smokers are.
Those 14 bars should have to pay a 1000% percent health care tax on all sales. Put the money into a special smokers healthcare fund. They'll sure need it.
You state "stay the F**k out" what if you said that to "Blacks" or "Asians" or "Gays". Once you learn to walk upright you'll understand what evolution is all about.
PA is the old West Virginia. What's a mile long and has three yellow teeth? The PA unemployment line!!!!

Typical smoke nazi--a lot of insults, very little facts. Why so hostile? Afraid that PA hasn't caved 100% to the will of your so-called majority.

Another thing I get such a kick out of is your Smoke Nazis hate the product, but are sure willing to accept the $$ from the taxes--ANTI SMOKE NAZI WHORES, if you ask me.

Telling someone to stay out of an environment that offends them is simply repeating common sense. If you don't like what goes on inside those four walls, don't spend your money there.

Why is that so hard for your narrow-minded little weasels to grasp. Freedom of Choice!

Smoking Hillbillys wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't believe all 14 of these bars are in one trailer park!!! But that's usually where the low-life smokers are.
Those 14 bars should have to pay a 1000% percent health care tax on all sales. Put the money into a special smokers healthcare fund. They'll sure need it.
You state "stay the F**k out" what if you said that to "Blacks" or "Asians" or "Gays". Once you learn to walk upright you'll understand what evolution is all about.
PA is the old West Virginia. What's a mile long and has three yellow teeth? The PA unemployment line!!!!

Typical anti response.

Fletch wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical smoke nazi--a lot of insults, very little facts. Why so hostile? Afraid that PA hasn't caved 100% to the will of your so-called majority.
Another thing I get such a kick out of is your Smoke Nazis hate the product, but are sure willing to accept the $$ from the taxes--ANTI SMOKE NAZI WHORES, if you ask me.

Yes, please... build me a new stadium with your smoking taxes, but you sure the hell can't sit beside me and have a cigarette while there. Hypocrites. Start paying your fair share, losers.

Opposite wrote:

<quoted text>
I see it just the opposite. I welcome the new smoking laws. It makes my life sooooo much nicer and more enjoyable. I see new laws as a step forward in our society. The majority of folks don't smoke and don't want to be around smoke but still want to enjoy the restaurant and bar scenes.
When you learn to walk upright you too will see the benefits of these much needed smoking laws.
I'm sure when you are sucking on oxygen like a fish out of water you'll be thinking twice about why you are a smoker, how dare you still think you can harm others with your second hand smoke. Smoking is just so yesterday, get with the times.

LMAO, we will see what is so yesterday Moron when the Russians or some other country takes this land over because you were not allowed to own a gun, smoke, or what ever law they pass to keep there jobs in Washington. You missed the point as most of you do. We need our freedom of choice not someone telling us what to do.

Sooner or later the health police will ban things most of these antis enjoy. Thats when the real crying begins. Hard to believe so many want a government to make choices for them. and they call it progress....

just candid wrote:

It's a well known fact, and easy to prove to yourself if you take the time to look around.
Most drunks, degenerates, lowlife-scum and other nothing type people are smokers. As a rule they smoke cigarettes but some who fancy themselves as "dandys", smoke cigars.

Candid knows, her mother is one.! and she comes from a long line of drunks,degnerates,lowlife-scum .

just candid wrote:

My Mom smoked when she was carring me, just look at the results by checking out my spelling "ability/not " on other threads. COL

She is actually a degenerate, lowlife-scum herself.

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> I used to be a club dancer

William L Adams wrote:

These people that are comming up with these kind of laws in my opinion should be took out and hung in the nearest tree, This country is getting so bad that we will have to pay to breath pretty soon, If the american people don't soon put a stop to all these laws that are taking all of our rights and freedom from us ,Then we all might as well pack our bags and move to Russia! We have already lost more freedom than I'm willing to give up and I'm ready to do what needs to be done to get it back. If other people don't want to smoke thats find with me, But leave me the hell alone to do what I want to do!

william is correct,I would like to tell ya william its all a made up lie second hand smoke is a joke it doesnt harm anyone.

THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

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)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"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, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

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.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking,[it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts")--not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

The Smoking Ban is a Smoke Screen to get people minds on a issue... If Smoking is such a Health Hazard.. Outlaw it, Then where would they get all the Tax money from???
We loose so many freedoms every year... Taxes keep going up... When will it end???