# I'm done with my state's GOP. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 9, 2005, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573 "2005-06-09T08:05:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/201 "2005-06-14T17:40:31Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > I’m still waiting to hear from someone who has no other choice of employment than a gas chamber. Er, I mean known smoking establishment. Don’t worry, I’m patient. I realize it’s going to be almost impossible to do, but I’ll keep waiting. A few questions have been asked of the anti-smokers, and it seems they don’t feel compelled to answer them. I’d give up hope if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/202 "2005-06-14T17:45:01Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > A few questions have been asked of the anti-smokers, and it seems they don’t feel compelled to answer them. I’d give up hope if I were you. Zealotry and reason are incompatible. They can choose to avoid smoke, and to do so easily. They choose not to, because they’d rather have an excuse to take our rights away. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/203 "2005-06-14T18:33:48Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > In other words, even if secondhand smoke were as dangerous as firsthand smoke (which it isn’t), it’d still be a risk that millions of people see fit to subject themselves to on their own time, so why should they be prevented from working around people who do it and vice versa? I meant to comment on this earlier. There are lots of ways in which businesses are restricted in order to provide a safer working environment even against the wishes of their employees and counter to their employees’ instinct and general practice. At-home safety precautions aren’t sufficient. Banning smoking would probably be more in line with current safety requirements than not banning smoking. I think an argument could be made that smoking has been an exception to workplace safety policies rather than the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/204 "2005-06-14T18:41:20Z")
My experience has shown that this sanitized vision of OSHA, DOT, and related agencies providing safer working environments is not always accurate. There are often unforseen consequences to central plans, and Googling or searching sites like Cato will provide plenty of examples. But one that springs to my mind is a warehouse where I worked in my youth. A DOT rep came by and forced us to put our boxes of gloves on the top shelf of pallet rack, in accordance with regulation so-and-so. The boxes, he explained, were dangerously blocking access to the aisles. Only thing was, we didn’t use those aisles, but when we moved the gloves to where he commanded, the pallet rack became top-heavy and fell over as he watched with a terrified expression. Had it fallen the other way, the guys could have been killed. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/205 "2005-06-14T18:47:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I meant to comment on this earlier. > > There are lots of ways in which businesses are restricted in order to provide a safer working environment even against the wishes of their employees and counter to their employees’ instinct and general practice. At-home safety precautions aren’t sufficient. Banning smoking would probably be more in line with current safety requirements than not banning smoking. I think an argument could be made that smoking has been an exception to workplace safety policies rather than the other way around. Not at all. Laws like these are always cognizant of the particular situation of the industry. Just as antidiscrimination laws don’t entitle me to become a runway model - since being a hot, sexy woman is an integral requirement of the job - a business has a very rational reason for permitting smoking. Regulations on what employees may do in a workplace when it poses a risk to themselves or to others are not new, but when restaurants and bars (at least in the view of their owners, apparently) choose to permit their clients to smoke, it’s for the reasonable purpose of attracting smokers to their establishments. Just as construction workers are expected to undertake some risk in order to climb girders when building skyscrapers, people who choose to wait tables have the right to do so at nonsmoking establishments, or to only work in the nonsmoking section. (I’m not sure how most restaurants work; I think I’d support a law requiring restaurants to permit servers to only work non-smoking if they wish and don’t mind the potential loss in scheduled hours.) Treating servers as incapable of making their own career choices is vastly inconsistent with what is expected in every other field, which is ironic given that (as others have pointed out) servers are less skilled (in a skilled-labor sense of the word - I don’t wish to question the skill and talent of servers) and thus _less_ tied into their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/206 "2005-06-14T18:47:49Z")
Bottom line is, we think the antis are being unreasonable by wanting every cubic inch of air to be pristine and they think we are being unreasonable by wanting to allow smokers some indoor places where they are allowed to smoke. I don’t think there can be any kind of compromise here. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/207 "2005-06-14T18:50:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > My experience has shown that this sanitized vision of OSHA, DOT, and related agencies providing safer working environments is not always accurate. There are often unforseen consequences to central plans, and Googling or searching sites like Cato will provide plenty of examples. But one that springs to my mind is a warehouse where I worked in my youth. A DOT rep came by and forced us to put our boxes of gloves on the top shelf of pallet rack, in accordance with regulation so-and-so. The boxes, he explained, were dangerously blocking access to the aisles. Only thing was, we didn’t use those aisles, but when we moved the gloves to where he commanded, the pallet rack became top-heavy and fell over as he watched with a terrified expression. Had it fallen the other way, the guys could have been killed. Regulations are always a double-edged sword, and it’s not whether they can account for every possible situation so much as what their overall effect is. I’ve never actually had direct experience with OSHA, but when I worked in a chem lab on campus, we were _very_ aware of the threat of an unannounced inspection. While I’m not one to take foolish risks with my health, I know I was more particular about wearing gloves and goggles in that lab than in high school chemistry; the possibility of the lab being charged anywhere from five to twenty-five thousand dollars if I was seen without them was something to pay attention to. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/208 "2005-06-14T18:52:39Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Bottom line is, we think the antis are being unreasonable by wanting every cubic inch of air to be pristine and they think we are being unreasonable by wanting to allow smokers some indoor places where they are allowed to smoke. > > I don’t think there can be any kind of compromise here. Then I guess it’s war. Shit. None of us can run; we have reduced lung capacity. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/209 "2005-06-14T18:59:11Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Not at all. Laws like these are always cognizant of the particular situation of the industry. Just as antidiscrimination laws don’t entitle me to become a runway model - since being a hot, sexy woman is an integral requirement of the job - a business has a very rational reason for permitting smoking. We are required to force our employees into wearing safety gear that they do not want to wear. We are required to force our employees to take safety precautions that they do not want to take. We lose employees who are unwilling to abide by our safety rules, which are imposed upon us by the government. We don’t get to say, “Our employees don’t like that rule” and thereby get exempted from enforcing it. We have a very rational reason to permit our employees not to wear, for example, hearing protection. Our employees hate it. We end up with numerous disciplinary actions for failure to wear protective gear. I live in a very rural area. Lots of our employees hunt with guns. They don’t wear hearing protection then, even though shooting is more detrimental to their hearing than the noise levels in the factory. They would choose to accept a risk that we are not permitted to allow them. Exposing yourself to loud noises without earmuffs or plugs is legal, just as smoking is legal. We are forbidden to expose workers to the former, but not forbidden to explose them to the latter, even though the latter has more detrimental health effects and is not a necessary part of the job (the way noise is). ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/210 "2005-06-14T19:29:43Z")
I’m sure there are plenty of examples of OSHA regulations that don’t make a lot of sense, are ineffective, or are just plain silly. But on the whole, the American worker is better off with OSHA than without it. Without it, employers who cut corners and don’t do things the safe way are going to have a competitive edge over those that look out for their workers’ safety. [While this is obviously not an impartial cite,](http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/oshasaveslives.html) , there are some examples of where OSHA is indeed making a positive difference. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/211 "2005-06-14T20:05:25Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Then I guess it’s war. > > Shit. None of us can run; we have reduced lung capacity. We can always smoke 'em out. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/212 "2005-06-14T21:52:54Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > And their position is just philosophically inconsistent with many, many other things we accept. No one is under the delusion that we have absolute freedom from being impacted by the things others do, but the anti-smokers hold this standard up as the one smoking should be judged by. > > You breathe the air - cigarette smoke is a much smaller problem than factory pollution and automobile exhaust. The water you drink? Agricultural run-off. Lawn chemicals. Motor oil and gasoline from the roads. The food you eat is - if you’re lucky - merely contaminated with pesticides and antibiotics, and not teeming with bacteria introduced during the handling and packaging process. > > Many of these problems could be fixed, in some cases eliminated entirely. By the twisted logic of the anti-smoking zealots, I’m entitled to at very least question every automobile trip, since your refusal to take the bus is impacting on my lung health. We have certain liberties in this nation, and many of them are annoying to others. Many, in fact, pose risks to other people. Why is there a fantasy that one is entitled to be entirely free of the risk of smoke, when no one would apply the same standard to any other risk? This has been addressed. If we could eliminate all these other forms of pollution as easily as we can eliminate the problem of smoky restaurants, we should do it. The difference is that we can’t eliminate these other problems without doing some serious damage. Banning automobiles would destroy the global economy. We’re not willing to pay that price. Banning cigarettes causes smokers to step outside occassionally. A miniscule price to pay in comparison. As it is, we do pass laws that try to make the world cleaner and healthier. I have to get my car smog checked every couple of years. > [@Excalibre](#): > > And medicine doesn’t support them - there’s just not evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful; Tell that to someone with asthma. > [@Excalibre](#): > > this idea was created both as a propaganda piece and out of a false extrapolation from the effects of high levels of exposure to these chemicals to low levels, while simple science shows that the effects of chemical exposure are non-linear. So next they start self-righteously proclaiming that they just don’t like it, and thus theys houldn’t have to be exposed. Then sit in the damn non-smoking section, As if this helps. Smoke never stays in the smoking section. > [@Excalibre](#): > > asshole, since restaurants are about the only place you can go in public where smoking is permitted. If people would enjoy a smoke-free bar, then start one. Don’t need to. I live in a place with sane smoking laws. All bars are blessedly non-smoking. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Why am I not entitled to be free of any glimpse of others’ annoying choices? You can sit in the no-smoking section; where’s my no-children section? I don’t like seeing children run amok in restaurants, I don’t like hearing them scream, hell - I just don’t like children. I’ve never claimed some fundamental right never to see one, though - because everyone has to accomodate the fact that others do things that annoy them. Why, then, to anti-smokers claim some imagined privilege never to be exposed to anything that they don’t like? If children running amok caused a health hazard to employees and were as common as smokers, you might have a point. It also helps that many, many parents will take the problem child outside. Screaming children are far rarer than smokers, and thier parents to be far more considerate than smoker. If smokers had shown any amount of consideration in the past, the bans may never have happened. Think about this, the only reason that the smoker at the Kraftwerk concert was considered an asshole was because he lit up when it was against the rules. Isn’t he an asshole no matter what the rules are? Isn’t lighting up in a crowd pretty assholish behavior? It seems to take a law to make people realize what an asshole he was. > [@Excalibre](#): > > There are not many places that permit smoking. It’s good that most workplaces don’t permit you to smoke inside, and same goes for airplanes and buses. Once upon a time, a person really would be exposed to cigarette smoke, and it was impossible to reasonably avoid it. Those days are long past, and not only are non-smokers no longer under the slightest risk of health problems from exposure to smoke, but they can - easily, even! - make tiny changes in their lives that mean essentially never seeing a cigarette. If a restaurant has lousy ventilation and even the non-smoking section is smoky, then _go somewhere else._ What fundamental right do you have to find the ambience pleasant everywhere you might want to stuff your face? Make adult decisions for yourself - either tolerate the smoke, or avoid it. Why are you entitled to more than that? Why are you entitled to pollute the air? There’s no group with a bigger sense of entitlement that the smokers. What a bunch of martyrs. Walk out the door for a few minutes? “It’s draconian! Why are you entitled to breathe clean air! Deal with our smoke!” But the world is changing…in this case, for the better. But thanks for providing an example of the rudeness of smokers. What if every time I ordered a drink, everyone around me was forced to have a swallow? Even though there’s probably no health hazard, would this be tolerated? Not a chance. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/213 "2005-06-14T23:14:17Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > Tell that to someone with asthma. If there were a sign on the door informing her that people might be smoking inside, she could keep walking and give her money to a smoke-free business instead. > [@](#): > > As if this helps. Smoke never stays in the smoking section. With proper ventilation, it does. Setting strict standards for the air quality in non-smoking sections is a sensible compromise. > [@](#): > > Why are you entitled to pollute the air? There’s no group with a bigger sense of entitlement that the smokers. What a bunch of martyrs. I see you’re still ignoring your _own_ sense of entitlement. It’s so important for you to visit _this particular_ bar or restaurant, instead of the smoke-free one down the street, that you want to limit the choices of the owner and patrons (who were there first) just so you don’t have to be around smoke. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/214 "2005-06-14T23:43:55Z")
I’m fed up with the GOP in my state too. I’m also fed up with it in your state as well. I think that every state needs to boot that jowly piece of shit Karl Rove out of it whenever he rears his fat tapering-at-the-top head. I quit smoking when I realized that [Ken Starr](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whitewater/starr_4-23.html) was employed by Big Tobacco. He was a persecuting my homie Slick Willy and I didn’t like that. Personally, I think that the risks of second-hand smoke are inflated. I also believe that smoking is not as bad for you as most people think as well. However, I believe that because it is an accepted belief of the society at large, negative health effects will manifest themselves regardless. So I quit cold turkey and I have not smoked a cigarette in 3 years. For the first 2 years, I don’t think that a day went by when I didn’t think about smoking. I still get the cravings but they are easy to resist now. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/215 "2005-06-14T23:45:40Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > But thanks for providing an example of the rudeness of smokers. It must be awfully convenient to be able to equate disagreement with rudeness. It looked to me like **Excalibre** was just asking for _some_ places to go where he could smoke in peace. My God, the bare-faced cheek! You still haven’t explained why you have to have your preferences catered to at every single venue in the country, however, yet you persist with the consumer convenience line. I’m sure that any moment now you’ll explain why every single bar in the country must bend to your whim, but for some reason I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/216 "2005-06-15T01:55:56Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > A few questions have been asked of the anti-smokers, and it seems they don’t feel compelled to answer them. I’d give up hope if I were you. I have addressed **duffer** ’s point multiple times. You may not like the answer. But it has been addressed. (I agree with duffer though that this thread is petering out.) Thanks to the poster linking to the CDC report: facts fight ignorance. OBTW: Here’s a twist on the “Freedom” argument. Perhaps state law should be disallowed and restaurant regulation should be left to the localities. If any smoker doesn’t like local smoking bans, he doesn’t have reside in that particular municipality. Similarly for nonsmokers living in Butt, Texas. (As it happens, I am dubious about [Tiebout’s theory](http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/43), of which this is an application. But I thought that I might throw it out there anyway.) ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/217 "2005-06-15T06:47:34Z")
> [@The Highwayman](#): > > I’m fed up with the GOP in my state too. I’m also fed up with it in your state as well. I think that every state needs to boot that jowly piece of shit Karl Rove out of it whenever he rears his fat tapering-at-the-top head. You’re fed up with your state’s GOP? YOU?!? Say it ain’t so. :rolleyes: Where the fuck does Rove enter this? I live here and I never heard of anything from him concerning the ban. Stay on topic dummy. Or open another thread instead of shitting in this one. Douchebag ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/218 "2005-06-15T11:26:10Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > I have addressed **duffer** ’s point multiple times. You may not like the answer. But it has been addressed. All you’ve done is pointed to the mythical restaurant worker who can’t get a job anywhere else except in a restaurant or bar that allows smoking, and that’s been shot down. What else you got? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/219 "2005-06-15T12:05:12Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > All you’ve done is pointed to the mythical restaurant worker who can’t get a job anywhere else except in a restaurant or bar that allows smoking, and that’s been shot down. Yes, we’ve established that some smokers are so oblivious to their effluent that they’d demand occupational changes of workers rather than inconvenience themselves. Toxic dusts or vapors in your factory? How dare you suggest we regulate the factory owner? It’s not like you’re suddenly going to drop dead or anything. If it bothers you or those bleeding-hearts out there, find another job. Machinery in your plant tends to be defective and cuts off the occasional hand or toe? Suck it up, and find a new line of work. Don’t gripe about your working conditions if it annoys some of the customers. Just move on, son. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/220 "2005-06-15T12:11:30Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Toxic dusts or vapors in your factory? […] Machinery in your plant tends to be defective and cuts off the occasional hand or toe? If someday, a significant segment of the population ever starts recreationally inhaling toxic factory dust and slicing off their own hands and toes, this analogy might have some connection to the real world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573.md?page=12)