No need to get all technical. 
Greater precision, one variant:
Externalities justify governmental intervention.
Optimal intervention should be determined by benefit cost analysis.
Benefit cost analysis will often recommend mitigation, rather than prohibition.
I think it’s important to point out that smoking, unlike the hazards regulated by OSHA, is a personal choice that many employees participate in, involving a common product that’s sold legally at thousands of stores and heavily taxed. Many restaurant workers smoke during their breaks at work and their free time; very few miners, if any, have their own unsafe mineshafts in their back yards that they work in as a hobby.
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’m a nonsmoker and a liberal, but this seems like a perfect place to let the free market work its magic. The argument that employees are forced to work in smoky environments is bunk, IME, because I pass nonsmoking businesses every day. Here’s a partial list of smoke-free restaurants in Spokane (yes, “Asian Restaurant” is a real name). When there’s demand for nonsmoking restaurants, the supply catches up.
Hey ass-fuck. YOU stated
You’re the one that took it upon yourself to speak for all non-smokers in that predicament. Don’t fucking weasel out now. You’re busted. Keep using those wide brushes around here. It’s gonna bite you in the ass at some point.
And just cuz you’re new, let me christen you: Fuckin douchebag
By the way, MfM, care to counter the argument that a biker bar may not need your pansy-ass around to save them from the dreaded Smoke of Doom[sup]TM[/sup]?
Dude, you’re dumb.
How many times have I said that in this thread?
As I stated earlier, I was merely noting my presumably universal physiological responses to the exercise of your addiction, duffer. I am disappointed (but, alas, no longer surprised) that you decided not to reply to the clarification posted above. It speaks poorly of your intellectual and moral courage.
It is unclear to me, why you think I’m “new”, given my post count. The last characterization, however, seems consistent with the behavior that you have exhibited in this thread. I would recommend that you calm down a little. (If I see a more coherent biker argument, I will consider a response).
Slightly different argument. I was saying that both restaurant workers and nineteenth century miners can and do make decisions to avoid unsafe workplaces.
If it could be shown that nonsmoking restaurant workers face a substantially higher exposure to secondhand smoke at work than they do in ordinary life, your argument would not apply.
Well, your list doesn’t show the share of nonsmoking places, which is what’s relevant…
Just to be clear, I think California has gone too far on this. So, I’m sympathetic with the tone of your post, Mr. 2001. You may be interested in this article which shows the current state of the debate in Spokane. As it happens, I lean towards the industry-supported view, which mandates walls and ventillation in areas with smoking sections. At least when compared with a blanket prohibition. The latter would probably save lives, of course, but that’s not the sole legitimate consideration.
One more thing. I think Mr. 2001 has torpedoed point number 2 that I posted above [2. In practice, restaurants may not want to piss off their smoking patrons, without a governmental scapegoat to point at.].
IMHO, #2 may have applied in, say, 1980; it does not seem to apply in Spokane today.
According to Spokane Regional Health District, there are over 400 smoke-free restaurants in Spokane County. The county’s population is around 430,000, so I think that number is reasonable, considering that it doesn’t include restaurants with separate smoking sections.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that people are perfectly free to open a non-smoking bar if they so choose. Why is this insufficient for you? Please address the point.
I think it’s pretty clear he meant what I suggested he meant. And this removes any doubt:
I’d say he’s doing a fine job expressing himself. Unlike certain daft posters who twist the words of others and introduce hyperbolic nonsense into threads to get attention.
Do you find your strawmen are useful in keeping crows out of the garden?
We make help available to addicts in our society, but we also require that they make an effort to understand the negative consequences of their actions to themselves and others and take steps to overcome them. That is not “trivializing” addiction, but common sense and widespread private and public policy. And that is what smoking restrictions amount to as well.
Then what does he need you for?
Actually, that bit was a complaint about a caricature of libertarians. Tell him that the bit I addressed was the portrait he painted of addicts who “have [to] deal with a very minor inconvenience whenever they want to feed their addiction” — hedonists who complain about minutiae whenever they have a desire to get high. It isn’t that addicts want to get their fix. It is that they must do so. That’s why it is called an addiction. Also, tell him that it is an hypocrisy to demand that they go outside on the one hand, and on the other hand support a ban on outside smoking.
Then, once again, why the hell are you here?
Then y’all are clueless dumbfucks. What’s the difference between y’all and the puritanical Moralistas of the right wing, putting your noses in other people’s business, and telling them how to run their lives?
“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” — Henry David Thoreau, Walden
He doesn’t. But posters often defend others who views are being distorted and who are being unfairly attacked. And you have been here long enough to know this full well.
Your mock outrage about supporting another poster is getting a bit overdone, don’t you think? Besides, I don’t recall any pro-ordinance posters in this thread telling smokers to go outside and also demanding bans on outdoor smoking.
Tell Liberal that he is behaving like an ass. Then go tell the bears to stop taking dumps in the woods and use litter boxes instead.
Smoke up my environment, and you are putting your business in my nose. Think about that logically for a bit, and come on back with a sensible argument when you’re through melting down, Henry David.
Y’all.
Jackmannii has pretty much nailed what I was saying. Stepping outside for a few minutes seems to be some sort of persecution for smokers, but in reality it’s a small inconvenience. And very often you get to do some bonding with fellow addicts!
“Smokers can just find some non-smoking place to work.” First, this may not actually be the case. Second, it’s so easy to give the whole workforce access to more jobs by banning smoking in the workplace. At almost no cost to anyone. Isn’t this exactly what a good government does? This is beneficial to a majority (actually, a cleaner worlplace is probably beneficial to everyone) with a very tiny price to pay. How is this not a good thing?
Smokers have been getting away with making the world a dirtier place for so long that they think every effort to stop them from doing this is akin to being anally raped by a cactus. Talk about a sense of entitlement.
That said, I would vehemently oppose an outright prohibition on smoking (not that there is any danger of this). I don’t care what your drug of choice is as long as I’m not forced to share it.
Thanks 
I’d b e totally against a general ban on outdoor smoking. There are situations where I’m happy there’s a ban, say in a stadium where getting away from the smoke is impossible without having to leave. Or on the beach where smokers can’t seem to avoid trashing the place (I guess the sand remind them too much of ashtrays). But in places where it’s easy enought to avoid the smoke, smokers should be allowed to have at it.
Would this be the “your” environment that belongs to private business owners? Goodness, we do have a mightily inflated sense of propriety, don’t we?
So, about that question of mine (and that of half the other ban opponents in this thread) - were you planning on answering it, or can I expect another non sequitur?
Please illustrate such a case, and explain why it is so common, or so important, that it is necessary to ban the entire country from smoking indoors to prevent it from occurring. This mythical person being forced to work in smoky bars has been repeatedly invoked, and yet … who are they? Why are they only able to work around smoke? Are they frustrated firefighters?
Who’s forcing you? There are lots of smoke-free places to go. Why should the entire country be forced into adjusting every indoor premise to your liking?
Thanks. I’m curious though (really). What share of restaurants are coded red, yellow and green? Do any of the shares show a trend over, say, the past year? Or have the shares been roughly stable since the color-code system was introduced? (Is the color code system voluntary? Or is it in another city altogether?) Feel free to give a WAG (or even ignore these questions if you don’t want to bother).
Dead Badger
I’ve addressed this point twice now. The arguments I’ve given have been neither extremely weak -nor particularly strong- as Mr. 2001 and others will attest.
But the point …has… …been… …addressed…
My view:
It is entirely legitimate for the government to regulate hazardous working conditions (and personally, I wish they would do more about carpal tunnel). The issue here turns on the extent to which secondhand smoke is actually hazardous. (The master’s take on the subject is here: Does second-hand smoke really cause cancer?. Quick summary: :dubious: ) That was as of 2000; an update might be interesting. I seem to recall an interesting study involving 4 year olds (who presumably have more sensitive resporatory systems).
I don’t have answers to any of these, but I’ve contacted SRHD about it and I’ll let you know if they can help. Red signs seem pretty rare; I’ve only ever seen them on bars.
Since 1997, the signs have been mandatory for all food and beverage establishments within the county.
And, admittedly, here’s where I balk: it seems unreasonable to me for all public restaurants and bars to ban the habit (or at least reroute it towards the outdoors).
My philosophy of government runs towards one of “Mutual accommodation”. Outright bans violate this. Existing bans in Delaware, California and Florida are highly convenient for nonsmokers like myself. But they seem overdone for the approximately 1/6 of the country that is addicted to nicotine.
On preview:
Mr 2001: Thanks. Another general principle of government that I like is incrementalism. Mandating that restaurants make their policies easily discernable seems like a sensible idea.