-------------------------------------------------- REMINDER: Only 2 Posts Per Day Per Person -------------------------------------------------- C'mon people, get with it. None of your analogies work and you know it. For one thing, unless you actually inhale or consume those items mentioned, there's no danger. Also, those items cause allergic reactions, not cancer, heart and pulmonary failure by merely being in their presence.
Walk around the perfume counters, Phil. You have no need to sit there and inhale those fumes while others are throwing them around. And maybe perfume sample *shouldn't* be willy-nilly included in magazines if any measurable percentage of readers react negative to their fumes - and many do. Be careful using that napkin, then, Phil. But its presence in the restaurant doesn't drive you to your deathbed. Other people's peanuts aren't your concern the way other people's smoke is, Phil. Don't eat the peanuts when you're in the bar that serves them. You don't eat 'em, they can't hurt you. But if I just walk in and sit down in a restaurant - even the nonsmoking section of most restaurants that allow smoking, I'm in danger for the air I cannot control. This is about the public health of smokers and nonsmokers alike, but it's also about making what are licensed public accommodation - not simply privately own eateries and bars - available without the danger of smoke-filled air infesting any patron. This is not extreme in the extreme. This is so long overdue, it's been sickening. So, you don't have to begrudge those who smoke, just the smoke itself will do. Inhaling second-hand smoke is as bad as sticking your face in Gopher State Ethanol's exhaust stacks or Xcel's coal plant chimney. Somehow I doubt you'd ever consider that, now, would you. Remember now, kids - it's what smoking is doing to *other* people (including workers who have to live on that air for five to eight hours a day, six days a week) that counts, not just what smokers are doing to themselves. Lord, the bad analogies. Andy Driscoll Ward 2 Crocus Hill ------ on 5/6/04 10:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Phil Fuehrer > > Just to throw some smoke on the fire: > >> From a 1998 World Health Organization study (from the abstract): >> > "CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure > to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response > relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and > workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure." > > ETS is second-hand smoke. > > This ban would be extreme - but, if we go ahead with it, then.... I have > near-death reactions to perfumes ergo we must ban those stinky (and > dangerous) fragrance counters at all retail stores. And, while we're at it > magazines with perfume samples should be banned as well. I like that loud > music ban too. And, I get skin rashes from certain types of detergents - we > must ban those or require that napkins at St. Paul restaurants be made of > paper. Oh, don't forget my peanut allergies - I won't ask for a ban on that > - just require postings at the door and in the menus if a restaurant has any > peanut products on site. > > Phil Fuehrer Highwood Hills > > Note: I don't have any of the above, they're only examples. I also don't > smoke, but don't begrudge those who do. _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
