Know the Enemy part 1


In later posts I will get in to the science behind the bans. But first we have to know the enemy. Since Ryan posted about ASH today I will start off with John F. Banzhaf III the founder and president of ASH. If you look him up on WIKI they call him a “Legal Terrorist”. This can be said about all of the anti-smoking activists for that is how they act. If Banzhaf truly believed the legal stance of the science of the bans he would have followed through on his lawsuit against OSHA. Many don’t know that OSHA mulled over the scientific evidence for almost 20 years. They were not moving fast enough for ASH so Banzhaf sued OSHA to push for a complete ban in all workplaces.

OSHA determined, that available data with respect to exposures were insufficient to
demonstrate the existence of a “grave danger,” within the meaning of section 6(c) of the
OSH Act, from workplace exposure to ETS. OSHA denied the petitions in September
1989 but continued to investigate regulatory options.

In October 1989 ASH filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit for review of OSHA’s denial of its petition for an Emergency Temporary
Standard. The court denied ASH’s petition for review in May 1991, finding that OSHA
has reasonably determined that it could not sufficiently quantify the workplace risk
associated with tobacco smoke to justify an Emergency Temporary Standard.

OSHA fought back and the anti-smoker activist’s biggest fear was that OSHA might pass a very weak one. This weak rule in turn could pre-empt future and possibly even existing nonsmokers’ rights law — a risk that they were not willing to take. 12/14-06 ASH therefore reluctantly agreed to dismiss the law suit after consultation with other leaders in the nonsmokers’ rights movement.

OSHA then reiterated their existing policy.

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

This chart backs that up.

Advertisements

About Marshall Keith

Broadcast Engineer Scuba Diver Photographer Fisherman Hunter Libertarian
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s