i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists have used that
there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm especially curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for class action suits
on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any thoughts? any heard
reactions from casinos or their employees? thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My response - take it to FreeVPFree
I'm a member of this site for VP info. Please keep it on topic.
agonpd@aol.com wrote:
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists have used that
there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm especially curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for class action suits
on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any thoughts? any heard
reactions from casinos or their employees? thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Brian, this was marked "XVP," meaning that it's not about VP but tangental to it. Cigarette smoke absolutely affects my casino experience and my ability to play for long periods of time. Posts like this absolutely belongs here. If you don't want to read the "XVP" posts, don't open them.
Brian Lavoie <blavoie46@yahoo.com> wrote: My response - take it to FreeVPFree
I'm a member of this site for VP info. Please keep it on topic.
agonpd@aol.com wrote:
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists have used that
there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm especially curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for class action suits
on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any thoughts? any heard
reactions from casinos or their employees? thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
agonpd@aol.com wrote:
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re
second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists have
used that there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm
especially curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for class
action suits on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any
thoughts? any heard reactions from casinos or their employees?
thanks.
The Surgeon General's "Sky is Falling" tactic is nothing more than a smoke
screen (pun intended) to further the agenda of anti-smoking lobbyists. All
the data contained in the "new" report is a rehash of data collected from
1986-up that has been proven to be inconclusive on the subject of exposure
to ETS.
Sure, tobacco smoke stinks, infiltrates your hair and clothes, is an
irritant, and an annoyance, but so is the smoke coming off your bbq grill
or your campfire.
Those of you that are anti-smoking, with your bias for your feelings on
the subject based on the "facts" surrounding the issue being ones of
health, would do well to keep an open mind, and read the debunking:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm
Those of you that are anti-smoking and just hate the stink and the mess,
well, I guess hiding behind the "health issues" to further your
non-smoking agenda is a better way to get non-smoking laws passed.
Anyone remember the Harrison Act of 1914? The beginning of the War on
Drugs. The anti-smoking agenda is nothing more than a very successful
attempt to erode our freedoms based on inconclusive evidence, just as was
the Harrison Act.
I don't want to hear any arguments based on "What right do you have to
subject me to your cancer causing second hand smoke". Especially when all
the reports published have been debunked. I can respect arguments based
on, "Your cigarettes stink and irritate my lungs".
Not to mention I don't want to continue this thread in a V.P. group, it's
off topic and will upset those that are here strictly for the V.P. info.
I had to say my piece though. If the issue is brought up, I feel I have to
defend the rights of smokers, since the empirical evidence has been proven
to be false in every report that has ever been published, and the push to
eliminate public smoking amounts to nothing more than prohibition and
erosion of freedoms.
signed, a non-smoker
--Brett
---------------------------------------------------
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and proclaiming,
'Wow-What a Ride!' "
The bbq and campfire are both outside, perhaps smoking should be restricted to outside also.
Paul
vex wrote:
agonpd@aol.com wrote:
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re
second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists have
used that there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm
especially curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for class
action suits on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any
thoughts? any heard reactions from casinos or their employees?
thanks.
The Surgeon General's "Sky is Falling" tactic is nothing more than a smoke
screen (pun intended) to further the agenda of anti-smoking lobbyists. All
the data contained in the "new" report is a rehash of data collected from
1986-up that has been proven to be inconclusive on the subject of exposure
to ETS.Sure, tobacco smoke stinks, infiltrates your hair and clothes, is an
irritant, and an annoyance, but so is the smoke coming off your bbq grill
or your campfire.Those of you that are anti-smoking, with your bias for your feelings on
the subject based on the "facts" surrounding the issue being ones of
health, would do well to keep an open mind, and read the debunking:http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm
Those of you that are anti-smoking and just hate the stink and the mess,
well, I guess hiding behind the "health issues" to further your
non-smoking agenda is a better way to get non-smoking laws passed.Anyone remember the Harrison Act of 1914? The beginning of the War on
Drugs. The anti-smoking agenda is nothing more than a very successful
attempt to erode our freedoms based on inconclusive evidence, just as was
the Harrison Act.I don't want to hear any arguments based on "What right do you have to
subject me to your cancer causing second hand smoke". Especially when all
the reports published have been debunked. I can respect arguments based
on, "Your cigarettes stink and irritate my lungs".Not to mention I don't want to continue this thread in a V.P. group, it's
off topic and will upset those that are here strictly for the V.P. info.I had to say my piece though. If the issue is brought up, I feel I have to
defend the rights of smokers, since the empirical evidence has been proven
to be false in every report that has ever been published, and the push to
eliminate public smoking amounts to nothing more than prohibition and
erosion of freedoms.signed, a non-smoker
--Brett
---------------------------------------------------
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and proclaiming,
'Wow-What a Ride!' "vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
That would work for me.
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Paul T. Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:21 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] XVP: new surgeon general's report on 2nd hand smoke
The bbq and campfire are both outside, perhaps smoking should be
restricted to outside also.
Paul
vex wrote:
agonpd@aol.com <mailto:agonpd%40aol.com> wrote:
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re
second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists have
used that there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm
especially curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for class
action suits on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any
thoughts? any heard reactions from casinos or their employees?
thanks.The Surgeon General's "Sky is Falling" tactic is nothing more than a smoke
screen (pun intended) to further the agenda of anti-smoking lobbyists. All
the data contained in the "new" report is a rehash of data collected from
1986-up that has been proven to be inconclusive on the subject of exposure
to ETS.Sure, tobacco smoke stinks, infiltrates your hair and clothes, is an
irritant, and an annoyance, but so is the smoke coming off your bbq grill
or your campfire.Those of you that are anti-smoking, with your bias for your feelings on
the subject based on the "facts" surrounding the issue being ones of
health, would do well to keep an open mind, and read the debunking:
org/evidence/index.htm
Those of you that are anti-smoking and just hate the stink and the mess,
well, I guess hiding behind the "health issues" to further your
non-smoking agenda is a better way to get non-smoking laws passed.Anyone remember the Harrison Act of 1914? The beginning of the War on
Drugs. The anti-smoking agenda is nothing more than a very successful
attempt to erode our freedoms based on inconclusive evidence, just as was
the Harrison Act.I don't want to hear any arguments based on "What right do you have to
subject me to your cancer causing second hand smoke". Especially when all
the reports published have been debunked. I can respect arguments based
on, "Your cigarettes stink and irritate my lungs".Not to mention I don't want to continue this thread in a V.P. group, it's
off topic and will upset those that are here strictly for the V.P. info.I had to say my piece though. If the issue is brought up, I feel I have to
defend the rights of smokers, since the empirical evidence has been proven
to be false in every report that has ever been published, and the push to
eliminate public smoking amounts to nothing more than prohibition and
erosion of freedoms.signed, a non-smoker
--Brett
---------------------------------------------------
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and proclaiming,
'Wow-What a Ride!' "vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ignore this, I grabbed the wrong group message to reply to. Sorry
I have to say this every time. Please no smoking discussions. They always degenerate to flaming. If you want to discuss smoking in casinos join the nonsmokingcasinos group.
siona@siona.org
owner - acvpp
I am not on either side. But since Casinos are not public places
but privately owned I think they are not going to be liable for
someone walking in there and breathing second-hand smoke. Most
casinos already have smoking and non-smoking areas so - if you don't
want to be around the smoke or find it unbearable - play in the non-
smoking section or go to a casino that has better ventilation. I
think the same can be said that if you want to smoke - go to an area
that smoking is allowed and will not bother non-smokers. Again, I
am not on either side of this argument as I see both points of
view.
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re
second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists
have used that
there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm especially
curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for
class action suits
on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any thoughts?
any heard
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, agonpd@... wrote:
reactions from casinos or their employees? thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I must have missed something. Where are the non-smoking sections of LV casinos? I keep looking, and I haven't found one yet. The closest non-smoking casino I've found is about 90 miles away (in Laughlin). Care to share???
missdeuces <missdeuces@yahoo.com> wrote: I am not on either side. But since Casinos are not public places
but privately owned I think they are not going to be liable for
someone walking in there and breathing second-hand smoke. Most
casinos already have smoking and non-smoking areas so - if you don't
want to be around the smoke or find it unbearable - play in the non-
smoking section or go to a casino that has better ventilation. I
think the same can be said that if you want to smoke - go to an area
that smoking is allowed and will not bother non-smokers. Again, I
am not on either side of this argument as I see both points of
view.
i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report re
second
hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists
have used that
there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm especially
curious to
hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for
class action suits
on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any thoughts?
any heard
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, agonpd@... wrote:
reactions from casinos or their employees? thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have found svereal around town you just need to ask personnel or
look for the signs. I guess it depends on the casinos you play in.
However, Casinos are private property, like your own home and they
are free to make their own rules. Again, I see both sides on this
issue.
I must have missed something. Where are the non-smoking sections
of LV casinos? I keep looking, and I haven't found one yet. The
closest non-smoking casino I've found is about 90 miles away (in
Laughlin). Care to share???
missdeuces <missdeuces@...> wrote: I am not on either
side. But since Casinos are not public places
but privately owned I think they are not going to be liable for
someone walking in there and breathing second-hand smoke. Most
casinos already have smoking and non-smoking areas so - if you
don't
want to be around the smoke or find it unbearable - play in the
non-
smoking section or go to a casino that has better ventilation. I
think the same can be said that if you want to smoke - go to an
area
that smoking is allowed and will not bother non-smokers. Again, I
am not on either side of this argument as I see both points of
view.>
> i'm surprised that no one else has commented on the new report
re
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, agonpd@ wrote:
second
> hand smoke, which should now remove the 'screen' that lobbyists
have used that
> there is no proven danger of second hand smoke. i'm especially
curious to
> hear others' reactions in terms of this now opening roads for
class action suits
> on the part of casino employees and/or patrons. any thoughts?
any heard
> reactions from casinos or their employees? thanks.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I only know of a couple of places that will place little cardboard No Smoking signs on a bank of (usually very bad) machines surrounded on all four sides by banks of machines with smoking permitted. I don't consider that a non-smoking casino area.
However, if there are non-smoking areas that have video poker in Las Vegas, I would really appreciate a list.
Skip
missdeuces wrote:
I have found svereal around town you just need to ask personnel or
look for the signs. I guess it depends on the casinos you play in.
However, Casinos are private property, like your own home and they
are free to make their own rules. Again, I see both sides on this
issue.