Aviation Beer

They've driven the smokers out into the cold,

Well, I for one rejoice at that. Smokers should be driven out not
because it harms them to smoke (if you want to hurt yourself, be my
guest) but because it fouls the air for other people for days.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in news:GoO7i.24890$JZ3.3963
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:

They've driven the smokers out into the cold,

Well, I for one rejoice at that. Smokers should be driven out not
because it harms them to smoke (if you want to hurt yourself, be my
guest) but because it fouls the air for other people for days.

I haven't smoked in a long time, so I'm not upset that the laws supposedly
protect me from second-hand smoke, but I think they've taken it too far in
many areas.

In Seattle, for example, you are not allowed to smoke within 25' of a
building. I think that's ridiculous.

In New York, they have made it impossible to smoke at any restaurant or
Bar. I think that's also ridiculous.

The law should require some sort of signage on the restaurant to indicate
that is a smoking establishment, and if you don't like smoke, you don't go
there... If there is concern that all restaurants would choose to be
smoking restaurants (which they wouldn't) they could put an incentive in
for restaurants and bars that completely smoke free.

If a man owns a small business, he can't smoke in his office, even if he's
the only one there. I say let him smoke if he takes the necessary
precautions to prevent his smoke from venting into the rest of the
building.

The laws for asbestos are less rigid than the laws for cigarrete smoke.

Judah wrote:

Jose wrote in news:GoO7i.24890$JZ3.3963
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:


They've driven the smokers out into the cold,

Well, I for one rejoice at that. Smokers should be driven out not
because it harms them to smoke (if you want to hurt yourself, be my
guest) but because it fouls the air for other people for days.


I haven't smoked in a long time, so I'm not upset that the laws supposedly
protect me from second-hand smoke, but I think they've taken it too far in
many areas.

In Seattle, for example, you are not allowed to smoke within 25' of a
building. I think that's ridiculous.

25' of a door or a window that opens. Stupid.

"Erik" wrote in message
...
Judah wrote:

Jose wrote in news:GoO7i.24890$JZ3.3963
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:


They've driven the smokers out into the cold,

Well, I for one rejoice at that. Smokers should be driven out not
because it harms them to smoke (if you want to hurt yourself, be my
guest) but because it fouls the air for other people for days.

Just like a SFB jackbooted thug to tell someone how to live on THEIR
property.

I haven't smoked in a long time, so I'm not upset that the laws
supposedly protect me from second-hand smoke, but I think they've taken
it too far in many areas.

You do know that the "studies" about second-hand smoke were completely
bogus, dont you?


In Seattle, for example, you are not allowed to smoke within 25' of a
building. I think that's ridiculous.

25' of a door or a window that opens. Stupid.

What are those thugs smoking?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news:1AX7i.161259
:

You do know that the "studies" about second-hand smoke were completely
bogus, dont you?

Do you mean to imply that you believe that there is no harm caused to your
lungs when you breathe smoke in the air that you did not personally suck out
of a cigarrette? I'm afraid I just don't concur with that opinion.

However, I DO believe that you and I should both have the right to choose if
we want to take that risk. As long as I have proper warning that I might come
into contact with smoke if I go somewhere like a bar, restaurant, office
building, etc., it should be MY responsibility to determine what's best for
my well being and the well being of my family.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Barrow" wrote in news:1AX7i.161259
:

You do know that the "studies" about second-hand smoke were completely
bogus, dont you?

Do you mean to imply that you believe that there is no harm caused to your
lungs when you breathe smoke in the air that you did not personally suck
out
of a cigarrette?

That's not what the SHS studies were aiming at. Read what they concluded and
HOW they came to that conclusion. In the private sector it's called FRAUD.
IN the government sector it's called POLITICS.

If you're _really_ interested, Walter Williams did a two part series about
what a crock the SHS "research" was.

Here's a snippet:

"A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their
bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco
smoke is a class A carcinogenic.
Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from
secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that
conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval.
They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the
effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that
mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, "Admittedly, it is unusual to
return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and
declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect
one's theory suggests should be present." The CRS was being kind. This kind
of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from
a university."

I'm afraid I just don't concur with that opinion.

And neither did the SHS studies. Please dig a bit beyond what the MSM
force-feeds you.


However, I DO believe that you and I should both have the right to choose
if
we want to take that risk. As long as I have proper warning that I might
come
into contact with smoke if I go somewhere like a bar, restaurant, office
building, etc., it should be MY responsibility to determine what's best
for
my well being and the well being of my family.

Quite! And the notion that private property is no longer private because you
invite people in is BS collectivism.

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from
secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that
conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval.
They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the
effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that
mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.


Let's not quibble, you went from 5% to 10%. Ok, I'll call that doubling the
margin of error.

They're at 90 (friggin') % for crying out loud - down only (10%) from 95%
.....confidence.

Also...
"That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the
probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths."

Word games! Double-Plus Ungood. Yuck!

Again, ...they're at 90 (friggin') % for crying out loud.

Let's see if I can do those numbers in my head, hmm...that's 9 out of 10
case.

Sure, "mere chance" plays a role in some of the deaths, but a 9 out of 10
CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN THE REST. HELLO?

BTW, 90% is the statistical minimum. So we might be hanging around the 93.8%
mark. I'm just saying...

I might agree with your bigger point, but this argument, on its own, is
disingenuous - a sales job.


Montblack

"Erik" wrote in message
...
Judah wrote:

Jose wrote in news:GoO7i.24890$JZ3.3963
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:


They've driven the smokers out into the cold,

In Seattle, for example, you are not allowed to smoke within 25' of a
building. I think that's ridiculous.

25' of a door or a window that opens. Stupid.


I'm a smoker and I have no problem with that. Nobody likes to be hit in the
chops with a cloud of smoke coming out of a building.
For a year I had quit smoking and I learned a lot of respect for the comfort
of the non-smokers around me. After hosting a card game the stench would
linger in my house for days. So even if I am given permission to have a
smoke in a non-smokers home I will step outside if I need it that bad.
I do strongly belive that all airports should have an indoor smoking lounge
within the security area. During delayed/cancelled flight periods, stuck
passengers would easier to deal with not to mention relive the added burden
of multiple trips thru screening making those lines that much longer.

Judah wrote:


In New York, they have made it impossible to smoke at any restaurant or
Bar. I think that's also ridiculous.

The law should require some sort of signage on the restaurant to indicate
that is a smoking establishment, and if you don't like smoke, you don't go
there... If there is concern that all restaurants would choose to be
smoking restaurants (which they wouldn't) they could put an incentive in
for restaurants and bars that completely smoke free.

If a man owns a small business, he can't smoke in his office, even if he's
the only one there. I say let him smoke if he takes the necessary
precautions to prevent his smoke from venting into the rest of the
building.

The laws for asbestos are less rigid than the laws for cigarrete smoke.

I love Paris. People smoke everywhere.
No one complains.


I don't smoke anymore but...jesus cut the crappy state-control-of-every-
friggin' thing.

For those who do smoke, I encourage you to stop. If you were able to look
inside yourselves (I occasionally look inside many of you) you'd be horrified
to see what's goin' on.
Keep trying. It is possible.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200706/1

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:15:38 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
u33403@uwe wrote in 730e24cd823c8@uwe:

For those who do smoke, I encourage you to stop. If you were able to look
inside yourselves (I occasionally look inside many of you) you'd be horrified
to see what's goin' on.

How long after you quit does it take for your insides to look better?