Smokers..

[Wetcoaster]

I can understand that in principle, but my suggestion entails the people who run these lounges are already smokers, are already aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke, and that would be one of the conditions I think there would have to be. I 100% agree with anyone saying there is no fathomable reason to subject a NON-SMOKER to that kind of environment. Yes I'm aware I said something entirely different in regards to bars, etc but I thought it over for a few days. No one who isn't already a smoker should be subjected to an unsafe workplace. That's why my idea has the caveat of all employees of said smoking lounge preferably already being smokers.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

Your proposed solution is not a viable solution.

That cannot be done on a number of levels including occupational health and safety and requiring someone to be smoker to work there would be an unlawful employment requirement.

There are reasons why regulations exist to ban smoking in ALL public buildings.

Per the US Surgeon General:

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.

• The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

• Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.

• Operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

[Wetcoaster]

Bull crap, it's plenty viable, if people would cooperate...but if they all have stubborn attitudes and haughty arrogance like YOU do, you are correct...it isn't a viable solution. Thank god and all that is holy to whoever whenever that everyone isn't as mule-headed as you are.

[Jägermeister]

Your proposed solution is not a viable solution.

That cannot be done on a number of levels including occupational health and safety and requiring someone to be smoker to work there would be an unlawful employment requirement.

There are reasons why regulations exist to ban smoking in ALL public buildings.

Per the US Surgeon General:

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.

• The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

• Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.

• Operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

No it is not viable on so many levels.

[Mr. Ambien]

None of those points would apply to a freestanding building with its own ventilation.

With that being the case, the only people being exposed to the smoke would be those who have consented to being exposed to it. If people did not want to be exposed to smoke, they would not frequent the venue.

On a related note:

Hookah lounges are legal in BC, and research has shown that the smoke from Hookah is just as dangerous as is cigarette smoke.

http://www.cesar.umd...vol17/17-23.pdf

[Wetcoaster]

None of those points would apply to a freestanding building with its own ventilation.

With that being the case, the only people being exposed to the smoke would be those who have consented to being exposed to it. If people did not want to be exposed to smoke, they would not frequent the venue.

On a related note:

Hookah lounges are legal in BC, and research has shown that the smoke from Hookah is just as dangerous as is cigarette smoke.

Just to show more evidence towards the negative stigma towards cigarette smokers.

http://www.cesar.umd...vol17/17-23.pdf

[-SN-]

Munchie, quit it with the personal attacks.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

Apologize for my brutal honesty. Won't happen again.

[Jägermeister]

The lounge would still require employees of some sort including cleaners and that would be contrary to occupational health and safety laws. And good luck finding a free standing building that would be commercially zoned.

As far as hookah lounges... per the BC government's Ministry of Health:

How does the smoking ban affect hookah bars?

Hookah bars are not allowed to use tobacco or tobacco blends within enclosed or substantially enclosed areas. However, please check with your local government as some do ban the use of products like hookah pipes completely, regardless of whether or not they burn tobacco.

http://www.health.go...nities.html#q16

[Guest Gumballthechewy]

Apologize for my brutal honesty. Won't happen again.

[Wetcoaster]

Yeah ok well if you go into every experience and experiment in life BELIEVING something is impossible and listen to all the pooh poohers telling you "That's not viable, oh that'll never work, blah di blah blah blah" no...it probably isn't ever going to happen. Why don't you follow the advice in your sig...cos I'm listening to you tell me something can't be done...hypocritical if you ask me.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

It's incredibly hypocritical. You sit there, and pass yourself off as an expert on these smoking laws and regulations, while telling people in your sig to never listen to experts tell you something can't be done. I propose something that works as a compromise for both sides, and you write it off immediately telling me it can't be done. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Wetcoaster]

It's incredibly hypocritical. You sit there, and pass yourself off as an expert on these smoking laws and regulations, while telling people in your sig to never listen to experts tell you something can't be done. I propose something that works as a compromise for both sides, and you write it off immediately telling me it can't be done. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

Wrong again.

[NuckNuckNucks]

...For You smokers, Next time could you please not come and stand right beside me and blow smoke in my face to the point where I have to move?, I don't even care if it's a few feet away from me, if the winds blowing in my direction, you better believe it's hitting my face and it's such a piss off! why the F should I have to move because of your stupid habbit? ... just next time, be more considerate of others..and before you start an arguement about pollution and what not, take it from an asthmatic, nothing it worse.

Thanks,

/End Rant

[Guest Gumballthechewy]

It's incredibly hypocritical. You sit there, and pass yourself off as an expert on these smoking laws and regulations, while telling people in your sig to never listen to experts tell you something can't be done. I propose something that works as a compromise for both sides, and you write it off immediately telling me it can't be done. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Wetcoaster]

Again, I know it isn't legal. Thats why I am arguing that it should be.

As for Hookah, even non-tobacco hookah still has many hazardous chemicals.

So the fact that Hookah lounges are legal seems to contradict the reasons that smoking venues are illegal.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

It's not that it can't be done, it's that it shouldn't be done.

We could make vehicles increasingly more environmentally unfriendly, but we don't.

We could not recycle and just chuck everything into landfills, but we don't.

I could list many more but I won't.

[Wetcoaster]

Wrong again.