2 ms·
It's misdirection to disregard the extremely effective mitigations to the risk of secondhand smoke in the context of a legalization debate.
by linkregister 9y ago
It's misdirection to disregard the extremely effective mitigations to the risk of secondhand smoke in the context of a legalization debate.
- XorNot 9y agoNeverminding that I made no reference to second hand smoke, let's unpack that anyway: Research has shown that the volume of airflow needed to be mitigate the second hand smoke risk in at-risk workers is not met by any establishments, nor is it likely to be (because it's huge) - http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/FedOHSHAets.pdf http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/FedOHSHAets.pdf. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/ventilation/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco.... So please tell me, what "extremely effective" mitigations exist? Does anyone implement them in the workplace?
- linkregister 9y agoI don't really understand your rationale. You reply to someone who is refuting a point related to cannabis legalization. I'm not interested in following this argument to whatever winding road you're attempting to steer it to. I don't like secondhand smoke, and studies are clear about its harmfulness. Nobody in this entire thread is advocating burning carcinogens indoors. The effective mitigations (not sure why you used scare quotes) are 1. Burning carcinogens outside 2. Accomplishing the goal without burning carcinogens, e.g. ingesting chemicals through oral consumption or vaporization.