Time for a California Indoor Ad-Free Act of 2016?
It was pointed out to me that Western signs are incredibly drab compared to those written with Chinese characters. The primary reasoning as explained to me was that the Chinese characters tend to be incorporated as a main part of the design, while Latin characters tend to be used in a more practical nature and supplemented with other design features. Very subjective of course, but an opinion I find myself agreeing to.
For the record, Chinese characters (Japanese kanji) are considered ideographic. Pictographic implies that the meaning of the symbol can be derived from the design itself, which isn't true for the vast majority of Chinese characters. Only a small subset are actually pictographic in nature.
You can get a fair bit closer to that look by using an oil-based cracker. Those have finer particles than glycol-based, but they have their own drawbacks as they rely on an air compressor that's either noisy or needs to be placed somewhere far away, and the oil tends to get on every light fixture and surface in the venue. It looks fantastic though.
When they introduced a smoking ban at the concert venue I worked at, I noticed that we had to run our smoke machines a lot harder to get the same looks we previously got "for free" from the punters smoking tobacco.
Doesn't matter were it comes from.
Of course the putting it concentrated in your lungs a far more serious issue than it just being around so your statement stands :)
 No idea where glycol based smoke stands as far as cancer goes
A while back, I had occasion to re-visit Alabama to see friends and family. At that time in Alabama, bars and pubs are free to choose whether or not they prohibited indoor smoking. (I've no idea what current regulations are regarding the same.)
In bars that permitted indoor smoking, the atmosphere was a horrible eye irritant. My clothing reeked for a week, or until I washed it -whichever came first-.
Back in my college days, I didn't see what the big deal was. Then, I moved out to a place that prohibited smoking in indoor public places. It took that change of perspective to understand how much nicer I find an environment that is not saturated in tobacco smoke.
YMMV, of course, but I expect that I'm far from the only one who holds this opinion.
Or do you feel that OSHA & co.'s power to -say- require a warehouse operator to ensure that its shelving will hold the loads that are to be placed upon it and won't suddenly collapse and crush warehouse employees is an improper use of the power of coercion?
Edit: Upon further reflection, my last 'graph might sound a little too pointed. I ask the question because I've known many people who object in the strongest terms that everything that OSHA does is unreasonable and an obvious overreach. I have no way of knowing if you hold this opinion (or a similar one), hence the question.
Certain societal decisions need a central consensus point. The already extant coercive power of the state is something we are unfortunately stuck with; we may as well use it for good.