# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/221 "2005-06-15T12:40:18Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. Labor is a commodity like any other. A savvy entrepreneur in a free market can attract workers at competitive wages by offering a safer environment for those that are interested in safety. Meanwhile, OSHA is not merely ineffective, but sometimes harmful both to workers and employers. Here is only [one example](http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-07-00.html). ---
**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 15, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/222 "2005-06-15T12:40:36Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > 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. Yet businesses have to regulate hearing protection despite a significant segment of the population recreationally damaging their hearing. Aside from _The Nine Tailors_, I’ve never heard of anyone dying from not wearing earplugs. ---
**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, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/223 "2005-06-15T12:44:30Z")
So the “toxic dusts” and “vapors” were not there when they applied for the job? If that’s the case then you might have something. Instead, these fictional workers applied for this fictional job with the knowledge that they’d be breathing in this horrible, horrible substance all day long. Sounds like your imaginary friends are morons to me. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/224 "2005-06-15T12:48:31Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Yet businesses have to regulate hearing protection despite a significant segment of the population recreationally damaging their hearing. > > Aside from _The Nine Tailors_, I’ve never heard of anyone dying from not wearing earplugs. The difference being, of course, that a business has a rational reason for permitting customers to smoke - that being the desire to attract smokers into their place of business. Asking workers to tolerate a certain amount of exposure to cigarette smoke as a risk of doing a job that requires it is no more unreasonable than asking construction workers to climb to high places. It’s a twisted sort of logic you anti-smoking crusaders follow. ---
**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 15, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/225 "2005-06-15T12:59:46Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The difference being, of course, that a business has a rational reason for permitting customers to smoke - that being the desire to attract smokers into their place of business. And again, my business has a rational reason for permitting employees not to wear hearing protection–that being the desire to keep and attract new employees who refuse to wear hearing protection because they consider it stupid, hot, uncomfortable, or a pain in the neck. It’s also easier and cheaper not to enforce the rules and not to provide the safety equipment. The defense made was that it’s silly to make a workplace non-smoking since some of the employees smoke on their own time. But that is not currently a defense against any other type of safety regulation. It doesn’t matter what employees do on their own time. It doesn’t matter what reasons an employer has for allowing it. It doesn’t matter how it impacts the employee. The standard for other safety rules is that the employer can regulate it, therefore the employer must regulate it. We are forced to regulate materials that have no scientific evidence for their carcinogenic or other detrimental properties. Smoking is a weird exception to these rules, not an example of the horrible victimization of smokers. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/226 "2005-06-15T13:42:48Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > I have addressed **duffer** ’s point multiple times. As has been pointed out, it wasn’t much of an answer. Several of my questions have note been answered, one of which is: Excluding bars and restaurants, name 10 places of employment near you in which smoking among the general work population is still permitted. And here’s a new one: Do you seek to eliminate all smoking from all places forever? Including private homes and smoking rooms in workplaces? ---
**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 17, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/227 "2005-06-17T01:02:24Z")
> [@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. What else you got? Ok 1. I’ve pointed to no such restaurant worker. 2. I’ve pointed out the identical logic can be used (and I’m guessing was used) to deny safety standards for coal miners and the like. (Recall refs to OSHA). 3. Though, again, whether exposure to secondhand smoke is worth regulating as such (and whether it is _best_ regulated via a uniform ban) is a separate matter. ---
**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 17, 2005, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/228 "2005-06-17T01:12:09Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > As has been pointed out, it wasn’t much of an answer. > > Several of my questions have note been answered, one of which is: Excluding bars and restaurants, name 10 places of employment near you in which smoking among the general work population is still permitted. Well, let’s look at the law in California: [http://lawzilla.com/content/ca-emp-015.shtml](http://lawzilla.com/content/ca-emp-015.shtml) "Quick Summary ``` No California employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in, the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment." ``` Then go down the web page and note the exceptions for 65% of guest rooms in hotels, hotel lobbies, banquet rooms, smoke shops, truck cabs, warehouse facilities, theatrical production sites if smoking is an intrical part of the story (lotta work there!), medical research (if ditto), private residences (except day care), patient smoking areas in long-term health facilities… … and more! See the link! But, gee, I’ve said that I think CA’s laws are too restrictive. Mandated smoking sections and ventillation, however, seem reasonable to me, (and reasonable to Spokane’s business community). > [@](#): > > And here’s a new one: Do you seek to eliminate all smoking from all places forever? Including private homes and smoking rooms in workplaces? Um, no. See preceding. ---
**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 17, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/229 "2005-06-17T14:07:58Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > I’ve pointed to no such restaurant worker. [Are you sure about that?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6252858&postcount=153) ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/230 "2005-06-17T14:25:18Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Then go down the web page and note the exceptions for 65% of guest rooms in hotels, hotel lobbies, banquet rooms, smoke shops, truck cabs, warehouse facilities, theatrical production sites if smoking is an intrical part of the story (lotta work there!), medical research (if ditto), private residences (except day care), patient smoking areas in long-term health facilities… … and more! See the link! OK, better than I thought, though one should question if hotel guest rooms, truck cabs, private residences, and patient smoking areas really constitute work environments. And it’s a true delight to know that California allows smoking in smoke shops, of all places. And the rest are extremely forgivable, except maybe hotel lobbies. I think my point still stands, however, that non-smokers can’t work anywhere without breathing in the demon smoke. That list represents a very tiny fraction of the world. ---
**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 18, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/231 "2005-06-18T20:07:06Z")
> [@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. What else you got? No. **FinnAgain** wondered why one couldn’t have some restaurants that catered to nonsmoking patrons and others that catered to smokers. I replied: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by M4M: > > 1. Restaurant employees. > > 2. In practice, restaurants may not want to piss off their smoking patrons, without a governmental scapegoat to point at. > > 3. In practice, some nonsmokers may prefer not breathe in smoke, but not enough to forgo their favorite steakhouse (weakest argument: in this situation, the nonsmoker enjoys a net gain by going to the steakhouse, assuming he is calculating the health costs of secondhand smoke properly, for him and his family). > > * * * > > But, hey, I like the color-code method, backed up by the issuance of smoking licences for restaurants. Show me where I said that nonsmoking restaurant workers could never get a job outside of a smoky restaurant or bar. You can’t, IMO. What I said is that this identical argument could be applied to early 20th century mine workers and the like: they had alternative employment as well. ## In the future **Lord Ashtor** , please do not characterize my posts without a direct quote. **tdn** : Admittedly, it’s not quite that bad. CA also allows for smoking lounges in large establishments, and a (highly qualified) opt-out for places with 5 or fewer employees. See the bottom of the link. You are correct that it’s pretty easy for a nonsmoking California worker to evade cigarette smoke, after the 1997(?) ban. After all that is the state of affairs that you (and I suppose I) are complaining about. ---
**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 21, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/232 "2005-06-21T20:11:54Z")
All right, I’ve heard back from Spokane Regional Health District, and here are some statistics on restaurant smoking status within the Spokane city limits. Note that these numbers count pretty much any place where you can get food and eat it: convenience stores, bakeries, hospital cafeterias, taverns, takeout establishments, mall food courts, espresso stands, hotel/motel eating areas, etc. June 17, 2005 Not designated: 0 Smoke free: 328 Smoking in designated areas: 83 Smoking anywhere: 51 August 31, 2004 Not designated: 62 Smoke free: 304 Smoking in designated areas: 94 Smoking anywhere: 51 And here are the current figures for outside the city limits (no older data is available): June 17, 2005 (county) Not designated: 0 Smoke free: 170 Smoking in designated areas: 51 Smoking anywhere: 30 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573.md?page=11)