Another smoking thread. Anti-smoking. Or something. Can anyone explain what these two

[Sarahfeena]

@jsgoddess

Why not?

Because there is no reason for it. Smoking is a legal activity.

MOST public places aren’t as loud as this factory. If a person wants a job, there are plenty of places where they can go where it isn’t this loud.

Right. And they should. But, it’s pretty easy to mitigate noise, so it’s not really an apt comparison.

Why?

It violates private property rights because it does not allow the bar owner to control what legal activities go on in his bar.

There are two major reasons they are written up:

1. It’s our rule, and
2. It’s the law.

You think we should violate the law?

No, I don’t. But, I don’t believe that the law is right. I don’t blame the factory for having it as a policy, but I see no reason for it to be a law.

You do know that if someone is injured on the job, they have a claim against us, no matter if they signed a paper or not, right? If they violate our rules, we’re still liable for Worker’s Compensation. This is the real world, not a libertarian fantasy camp.

Which you should not be. A waiver signed by the employee should stand. I can understand, as I said before, that the factory has good reason for this to be a policy because it is a smart thing to do for their business…but that doesn’t mean it should be a law.

I see. So we show concern about our employees’ health by not forcing them to work here and anything else is hunky dory. Hello, coalmines!

No one is forced to work in a coal mine, either. And, there are unions for this type of job, so the workers have power when the companies are setting their policies. I believe this is a much more desirable way to handle the issue. And, again, you are mixing apples & oranges when you compare a coalmine to a smoky bar.

If he is damaging his workers’ hearing, he should be required to provide them with hearing protection and they should be required to wear it.

I think it’s fine to require him to provide hearing protection if it is desired. Requiring the employees to wear it is fine if it is the bar owner’s policy…but it should not be a law.

[wonky]

It violates private property rights because it does not allow the bar owner to control what legal activities go on in his bar.

That’s a runaround. If it’s made illegal, then it’s not an attempt to control what legal activities go on in his bar. It’s an attempt to prevent an illegal activity from going on in his bar. You’re saying it can’t be made illegal because it’s legal.

Besides, you’re saying you want the law changed in the case of hearing protection, so don’t hide behind it now.

@Sarahfeena

No one is forced to work in a coal mine, either. And, there are unions for this type of job, so the workers have power when the companies are setting their policies.

But I companies were protecting the workers’ health by not forcing them to work there? Now you say there are other ways workers’ health gets protected? Imagine that.

[yBeayf]

I guess people didn’t want clean skies and water either, since it required legislation to stop companies from polluting. Do you want to repeal those laws so the market can do the job instead?

Sure do.

[Lightnin]

If I start firing a gun randomly, out in public, it shouldn’t be your responsibility to leave the area. It should be my responsibility to stop shooting the damn gun. And, hey- it is.

And yet if smokers want to smoke, they insist that nonsmokers either suffer the consequences, or leave the area. Why isn’t the smoker required to accomodate the nonsmokers- after all, smoking is the volitional act. *

If smoking wasn’t a habit which affected everyone around the smoker, there’d be a lot less complaining about smoking, and fewer laws passed to limit the smoker’s rights.

*[SUB]Yes, yes, I know. “Smoking is entirely dissimilar to random gunfire for X reasons”, and therefore my argument is invalid. Blah blah blah. Call it Lightnin’s Law- analogies can never be successfully used in any online argument.[/SUB]

[Sarahfeena]

@jsgoddess

That’s a runaround. If it’s made illegal, then it’s not an attempt to control what legal activities go on in his bar. It’s an attempt to prevent an illegal activity from going on in his bar. You’re saying it can’t be made illegal because it’s legal.

I meant that smoking is a legal activity in & of itself.

Besides, you’re saying you want the law changed in the case of hearing protection, so don’t hide behind it now.

If I said I want the law changed, it’s to put fewer restrictions on businesses and personal choices, not more.

But I companies were protecting the workers’ health by not forcing them to work there? Now you say there are other ways workers’ health gets protected? Imagine that.

Look, I never said that responsible business owners (responsible to both themselves and their employees) don’t take steps to prevent harm. Of course, they do. But whether or not these steps should be legislated is a whole different thing. Besides that, it is one thing to have employees wear hearing protection. It is a completely different thing to change the entire nature of the business. The hearing protection is a good investment for the business…it makes (at least some) of the employees happier, it prevents them from losing a ton of money in the future by avoiding lawsuits. IMO, these are much better incentives for your business to provide hearing protection than creating laws. On the other hand, banning smoking IS changing the nature of the business. It would be like saying to your factory…we don’t want you to make widgets anymore…now you have to make thingamajigs. And we don’t care if your customers really like the widgets…you are going to have to try to sell them the thingamajigs instead.

[wonky]

@Sarahfeena

we don’t want you to make widgets anymore…now you have to make thingamajigs. And we don’t care if your customers really like the widgets…you are going to have to try to sell them the thingamajigs instead.

Right. It’s exactly like that only the widgets kill people and customers prefer thingamajigs. Otherwise, exactly!

[Sarahfeena]

@jsgoddess

Right. It’s exactly like that only the widgets kill people and customers prefer thingamajigs. Otherwise, exactly!

Apparently, we still have the right to kill ourselves with the widgets if we choose to. And if there were no customers who prefer widgets, you wouldn’t be making them in the first place.

[Seven]

@jsgoddess

What about it?

I’ve told this story before, but no one ever has a rebuttal, so I’ll tell it again.

I work at a factory. In the factory, it is noisy. We are required to provide our employees with hearing protection, to have them tested regularly, and to require they wear the protection. It doesn’t matter that many of our employees would rather not wear the hearing protection. It doesn’t matter that many of our employees probably do things on their off-hours to damage their hearing. We are required not to damage their hearing on the job.

Tell me how it’s different for a bar and a smoking employee.

So,…

Create a law which forces the bar owner to give bartenders and waiters masks to filter smoke.

[Jackmannii]

@Sarahfeena

IOn the other hand, banning smoking IS changing the nature of the business. It would be like saying to your factory…we don’t want you to make widgets anymore…now you have to make thingamajigs. And we don’t care if your customers really like the widgets…you are going to have to try to sell them the thingamajigs instead.

I find this to be an exceptionally weak argument in defense of “private property rights”.

Some visitors to strip joints have an expectation that there will be access to prostitution. There are laws in most places to ban such activity.

Some patrons of indoor entertainment venues came to expect rock shows with pyrotechnic displays. There are regulations to control such displays, though adequate enforcement was a bit late in the case of one Rhode Island bar.

Some bar patrons like to become rowdy and get into fights. That is not a legal activity and will commonly get you thrown out and/or arrested. It is commonplace in some bars but it is not reasonable to expect that it will be tolerated.

The “nature of the business” for bars is selling drinks. A number of people seem to think they can drink all they want in a bar. Many places have dram shop laws and drunken customers will be cut off. So not even this “essential nature” of bars is free from regulation.

There may be an expectation on the part of some customers of bars that smoking is an accepted activity. Times change, though, and increased knowledge of the hazards of secondhand smoke is making that expectation unrealistic.

Antismoking regulations for bars are not incompatible with many other regulations for this type of business, just as they are fully in line with protections for employees of many other businesses.

[duffer]

How about this? I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned yet, but often someone will say “Well, it’s a private business, but it’s accessable to the public.” We may need a lawyer to chime in, but it may be tough as each stat’s law is different.

Let’s say I open a bar and make it members only. And, I require the staff to be members of the club. Membership is $1 per year, with a $20,000 fund to cover the dues of those that can’t afford it. (Because you know the $1 will be reason to complain about economic exclusion.) Also, there are absolutely no requirements for membership other than the dues and membership agreement. Which, of course, will state that in my private club smoking is allowed. Even encouraged if I have one of the $6/pack vending machines.

No exclusion to the general public other than the liquor laws, but not accessable to any member of the public that doesn’t want to join. There’s got to be some loophole where this could be argued. There’s probably also about 30 different lawsuits I’d face from various groups. The only thing I can think of is the exclusionary appearance of employment requirement, but let’s spitball it and say I and my wife are teh only employees.

Keep in mind, the proposed ban would affect me. Now explain why it makes sense that it should given the above.

[duffer]

@Cheesesteak

The idea that people don’t really want non-smoking is too laughable a concept to even bother with. Has your head been in a box the last 20 years?

There’s a bar here that’s been non-smoking and profitable for well over a decade now. Dagwood’s. The people that want to go to a full service bar and not be around smoke have been able to find it. Smoking isn’t required in bars here. If people want a bar to get drunk at while staying healthy by avoiding smoke, a bar owner would be a fool to not cater to that group.

Maybe what we need is, instead of another study finding percentage of general population that smokes, is finding the percentage of regular bar customers that smoke. Has anyone done that sort of study?

[Sarahfeena]

@Jackmannii

I find this to be an exceptionally weak argument in defense of “private property rights”.

Some visitors to strip joints have an expectation that there will be access to prostitution. There are laws in most places to ban such activity.

Prostitution is illegal. Although IMO it should not be, and strip joints should be allowed to run that kind of activity.

Some patrons of indoor entertainment venues came to expect rock shows with pyrotechnic displays. There are regulations to control such displays, though adequate enforcement was a bit late in the case of one Rhode Island bar.

Risking setting the bar on fire and killing a couple hundred people in an instant is not really analagous to the risk one takes being around cigarette smoke, which elevates your risk of lung cancer to a miniscule degree.

Some bar patrons like to become rowdy and get into fights. That is not a legal activity and will commonly get you thrown out and/or arrested. It is commonplace in some bars but it is not reasonable to expect that it will be tolerated.

Because, as you say, it is not legal

The “nature of the business” for bars is selling drinks. A number of people seem to think they can drink all they want in a bar. Many places have dram shop laws and drunken customers will be cut off. So not even this “essential nature” of bars is free from regulation.

That is to avoid public drunkenness and drunk driving, which are usually illegal activites.

There may be an expectation on the part of some customers of bars that smoking is an accepted activity. Times change, though, and increased knowledge of the hazards of secondhand smoke is making that expectation unrealistic.

Times should change due to social expectations & the desire of the customers and the proprietors, not the law.

Antismoking regulations for bars are not incompatible with many other regulations for this type of business, just as they are fully in line with protections for employees of many other businesses.

I am probably against many of those regulations as well…not sure, since you don’t mention which ones (although I think I made my opinion clear in my discussion with jsgoddess.)

[wonky]

@Seven

So,…

Create a law which forces the bar owner to give bartenders and waiters masks to filter smoke.

Okay, but you know what? I’ll bet you quite a bit that the employees would rather go nonsmoking than wear such equipment, if our experiences with earmuffs and earplugs are anything to go by!

It makes me wonder just what other things some people in this thread would support happening in bars if the patrons wanted it and if the bars could find someone to agree to do it.

[wonky]

@Sarahfeena

Apparently, we still have the right to kill ourselves with the widgets if we choose to.

You may be my guest to kill yourself in any way you choose. But if someone’s offering you money to kill yourself? That’s wrong. And if you’re taking other people with you? That’s wrong too.

And if there were no customers who prefer widgets, you wouldn’t be making them in the first place.

You can find a customer for some pretty disgusting and reprehensible things. Not much of a defense.

[Seven]

@jsgoddess

Okay, but you know what? I’ll bet you quite a bit that the employees would rather go nonsmoking than wear such equipment, if our experiences with earmuffs and earplugs are anything to go by!

It makes me wonder just what other things some people in this thread would support happening in bars if the patrons wanted it and if the bars could find someone to agree to do it.

Of course. But wouldn’t that be fine.

Isn’t the argument “all bars should be non-smoking because we’re really protecting the workers”?

If you have a smoking bar, and provide your non-smoking staff with protection, then you comply with a safe working enviroment. Then it is in the hands of the employee on if they really want to work said job or seek employment in a bar where masks are not needed.

It’s all bullshit anyway. Who are we kidding with this argument? It really comes down to the non-smoking fundamentalist jihad against anything that has to do with smoking.

“I shall not rest until my air is free of the evils of tobacco and I shall fight this war from behind the wheel of my SUV”

Of course it makes sense to have both smoking and non-smoking places of recreational business. If the health conscience public wish to visit a location and trash their liver and braincells into submission via drink, they should have the choice of a smoke-free enviroment to do this - because, of course, they care about their body.

That said, I fully agree public places like hospital, banks, shopping, and other needed locations be fully non-smoking. But honestly, if a bank wants to have a smoking branch, more power to them. Non-smokers can visit the non-smoking branch or change banks if it bothers them so much.

[wonky]

@Seven

Of course. But wouldn’t that be fine.

Isn’t the argument “all bars should be non-smoking because we’re really protecting the workers”?

If you have a smoking bar, and provide your non-smoking staff with protection, then you comply with a safe working enviroment. Then it is in the hands of the employee on if they really want to work said job or seek employment in a bar where masks are not needed.

I’d be fine with it. How about you?

[Jackmannii]

@Sarahfeena

Risking setting the bar on fire and killing a couple hundred people in an instant is not really analagous to the risk one takes being around cigarette smoke

True. 100+ deaths in a bar fire is far fewer than those attributed annually to secondhand smoke in America by the Surgeon General’s report (close to 50,000). Viewed in those terms, we see approximately 500 times the fatalities of the Great White concert fire each year due to secondhand smoke.

which (secondhand smoke) elevates your risk of lung cancer to a miniscule degree.

We are unwilling to accept a 25-30% increase in lung cancer risk as “miniscule”, nor is it acceptable to significantly increase risks of cardiovascular disease, sudden infant death syndrome and other chronic and/or fatal diseases among the nonsmoking population due to secondhand smoke exposure.

Because, as you say, it is not legal…That is to avoid public drunkenness and drunk driving, which are usually illegal activites.

Laws (or the lack of them) are not immutable. Various activities have been made illegal because of a consensus that they are damaging to society. Secondhand smoke is increasingly seen as a social ill subject to appropriate laws.

Times should change due to social expectations & the desire of the customers and the proprietors, not the law.

Well, let’s see how this response stacks up on an historic basis.

“We can greatly reduce work-related disease and injury by requiring safer conditions on the job.”

Times should change due to social expectations & the desire of the customers and the proprietors, not the law.

“Discrimination should be a thing of the past. It’s time to make it illegal to deny jobs or housing to people on the basis of race or religion.”

Times should change due to social expectations…not the law.

"This is a new era in public health. Mandatory vaccinations will greatly reduce deaths and serious complications from smallpox, polio, measles and other communicable diseases.

Times should change due to social expectations… not the law.

“Many lives can be saved and chronic health problems reduced by eliminating secondhand smoke exposure in public places.”

"Times should change due to social expectations & the desire of the customers and the proprietors, not the law.

Sorry, we aren’t waiting around any longer for smokers to get the hint.

[duffer]

@Jackmannii

Secondhand smoke is increasingly seen as a social ill subject to appropriate laws. Well, let’s see how this response stacks up on an historic basis.

If it’s a social ill and needs to be eradicated, make it illegal. Seriously, if this is such a deadly threat to mankind, why are we allowing it to continue? Sold like a loaf of bread provided proof of age is presented? And taxed? The government is telling us how deadly it is to just be exposed to it, but they happily cash the checks each quarter.

Our daily fishwrap’s website is a pain in the ass to search for past articles, but I promise to look for this one. A few years ago a state Rep from Grand Forks, Michael Grosz, proposed a bill to ban tobacco of all kinds in North Dakota. It was an amusing attempt to finally call out all those pushing for smoking bans.

In a follow up Op-Ed piece, there was a letter calling for defeat of the bill saying it wasn’t needed. (Meaning people should be allowed to kill themselves.) It was signed by IIRC, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, and the instigators of the city laws, the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition.

So we’re allowed to smoke, just so long as we stay in our caves. Anything to keep the money pouring in. If tobacco were banned, these people would actually have to get jobs. It is not about saving lives, it’s about keeping everything just hyped enough to keep the funds rolling in.

[quote=Jackmannii"We can greatly reduce work-related disease and injury by requiring safer conditions on the job."[/quote]

I realize how assinine this sounds, but stay with me a momemt.

How long until police, fire and EMT’s can refuse to enter a smoker’s home? For practical purposes, it’s their workplace at times. I can think back when the rolling bans started cropping up where people accepted it in the obvious areas but never dreamed it would get to the point that you couldn’t smoke in a bar.

@Jackmannii

“Discrimination should be a thing of the past. It’s time to make it illegal to deny jobs or housing to people on the basis of race or religion.”

People are being fired for not stopping smoking. Smoking is as much a choice as religion. Or declaring yourself gay.

I see all 3 of those as equal harrassment for being denied employment. In all 3 of those, it can be easily “hidden” from an employer. (Unlike your race.) The religion and sexual orientation aspects are, of course, wrong, but they can be reasonably hidden from an employer compared to smokers. My company reserves the right to test for nicotene if you file for insurance as a non-smoker. And as mentioned above, it’s not just insurance. Your job itself can be lost for using a legal product.

It’s not just a matter of not being seen doing something “wrong”. They can fucking test for it.

@Jackmannii

Sorry, we aren’t waiting around any longer for smokers to get the hint.

Sorry, when the Forces of Good decide that us smokers cannot have anywhere to smoke other than our cars and houses (for now), we’re going to bitch about it.

And the calls of “Go smoke outside” aren’t cutting it anymore. Most places with these over-the-top bans limit how close you can be to any building entrance. The ban in Grand Forks, for instance, originally called for a 50 foot “Clean Air” zone from any entrance to a public building. Thankfully, somebody that was treated for the rabid mindset realized that a shitload of people would literally be standing in the middle of streets to fund the coffers. It was reduced to 5 feet. Of course, of the 5 entrances to the building, the only one you can smoke at is exclusively populated by smokers. In the 16 months there, 3 non-smokers that I’ve seen have used that door. Maybe we’re just trying hard enough to comply.

[Sarahfeena]

@jsgoddess

Okay, but you know what? I’ll bet you quite a bit that the employees would rather go nonsmoking than wear such equipment, if our experiences with earmuffs and earplugs are anything to go by!

Which should be their choice!

[duffer]

Crap. Can someone fix that coding in the last post of mine?