You’re very proud of your ignorance, aren’t you. I’m sure you’ve sucked long and hard at the nipple of propaganda. Too bad you don’t bother finding out real facts.
Here are a few for you.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
Of course, cultists and propaganda zombies will refuse to read it.
“Propaganda zombie” checking in. At least, I guess I’m one if I don’t get my scientific education at davehitt.com.
To get a look at the science behind the reports of secondhand smoke dangers go to this site and plug the words secondhand smoke into the search engine. You’ll find convincing data, including right up near the top a recent study out of Boston University, which analyzed secondhand smoke risks in bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting parlors and bingo places (the “5 Bs”), and found that *
…estimated working lifetime excess lung cancer mortality risk from secondhand smoke exposure for workers in the 5 B’s is between 1.0-4.1/1000, which greatly exceeds the typical de manifestis risk level of 0.3/1000. CONCLUSIONS: Workers in the 5 B’s have high levels of occupational exposure to secondhand smoke and must be included in workplace smoking regulations.*
And that’s just lung cancer risk, and doesn’t include all the morbidity and excess death associated with asthma and other chronic lung conditions, when sufferers are exposed to secondhand smoke.
As for customers, I cannot just go to a non-smoking restaurant. They are virtually non-existent in my area. The typical smoking area occupies at least half of any desirable restaurant, and the smoke doesn’t stop before filtering into the non-smoking areas. There is currently a smoking ban in the works for public facilities in my city, and I’m all for it.
McDonald’s has been smoke-free for quite a few years now, but I’d suggest that a double quarter-pounder with cheese, super size fries, and a large coke are probably much worse for your health than spending an evening in a bar where people smoke.
In the olden days, public health regulation was about things that clearly affected everyone. Hey, don’t dump that toxic sludge into the river! A fire in your restaurant might spread to neighboring joints, so get a fire extinguisher and sprinklers! Sensible stuff.
The smoking thing is just a crusade by those who follow the left’s new religion, Healthism. Their official hymn is “Better Safe than Sorry, Better Safe than Free.”
And yet, the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to pass legislation, i.e. to create statutory law. And Congress itself was modelled on the British Parliament, which passed acts, i.e. statutory law.
So you are . . . what’s that word? Oh yeah, wrong.
And statutory law has nothing to do with why you don’t really own your car, or why property can be seized. Property has always been seizable. The difference is, they used to be able to seize your property because all things belonged to the king. Now, they can’t take your property without due process of law.
And none of this has anything to do with the power of a state to regulate public health and welfare.
**
Yeah, clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about. In order to have standing to bring a claim (i.e. to enforce your rights in court), you generally have to have suffered an injury or harm (certainly in federal court and in most state courts that I know of). It has nothing to do with the power of the state to promulgate rules governing public health and welfare. Statutory law has existed alongside common law for many centuries, both in the U.S. and in England.
The Constitution isn’t relevant here guys, anti-smoking regulations are all perpetrated on the public by municipalities or state governments, and it certainly falls within their traditional police powers. When the feds get involved, I cry foul at yet another abuse of the Commerce Clause (which oughtta be renamed the Catch-All Clause for how it functions), but the states clearly have this power.
There are a few points here that I would like to address; and will. But this is not the place for it. I’d rather not tangent the thread to a not so relevant blackhole.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I do take issue with the constitutional soundness of statutory law in the idea that it over rides common law.
All courts are based on statutory law alone, whereas they should common law based.
Let us say an owner decided to put “Iocane” poison into his drinking water. It’s his property- why doesn’t he have the right to poison everyone that drinks water from his fountain? :dubious: :rolleyes:
Now that that is dealt with- clearly an owner can’t do ANYTHING he wants to his employees and customers.
But you say that SHS is a known danger, and that customers & employees should be able to take that risk? I disagree here. As you can see by Dogfaces “Just the facts” site (which should be entititled “just my opinions” ) there are dudes out there that INSIST SHS is not dangerous (Note, there is some heated debate on whether SHS causes cancer, sure. But it certainly causes and or aggrivates lung problems, sometimes unto death). So- because of idiots like “just the facts”- SHS is NOT a “known danger”- too much denial.
But let say it IS a known danger. Can an employer simply say “OK, my peons, such&such is dangerous- but now that I have told you, you have two chocies- risk it or the highway”. No. There are not enough jobs, and some dudes don’t really have a huge choice in the job market.
But even if there were- let us say there were whirling saw blades. I can say that we all accept those are “dangerous”. Now if an employer could reduce the risk from those whirling blades by 90% by a $1 plastic guard- would you say the Government has the right to insist he use that guard? If it meant the difference between 5 deaths and 50 maimings down to only 5 injuries a year? Of course.
But I think you all are thinking about a sawmill- where whirling baldes of doom are nessesary to conduct his business, right? What if the whirling blades had no business purpose at all, the owner just liked the “way they sounded”? Even if he put up the plastic guards, would we think it was acceptable for there to be 50 injuries, 5 maimings and a death in the ten years he was open? Just so- smoking has no nessesary business purpose- the owner is hurting his employees and customers health- and causing an occasional death- for no good reason. “Just because I am addicted to nictotine” is not an acceptable reason to kill someone.
Now, I do agree the Employer/owner should the right to require his employees to do anything that is not illegal or dangerous. Thus, IMHO he has the right to insist you all wear rubber chicken hats. Silly, yes, but not illegal or dangerous. And, he has the right to ask that they take nessesary risks- as long as they are fully informed. But he has no right to require his employees take any UNNESSESARY risks. Thus, if he runs a sawmill, he has the right to require the employees use whirling saw blades. BUT he must reduce that risk to what is the minimum nessesary. He does have to install those $1 plastic safety guards.
Note I used an obvious choice- $1 guards vs 50 maimings and 5 deaths. Every reasonable person will agree with that. But I also admit we get into a grey area where OSHA will require $10000 to reduce 1 injury. However- that’s not our debate here, so let’s not go there. 
ExecutiveJesus and Bruce_Daddy
Don’t you think employees should have a reasonable expectation that working in a given place will not adversly affect their health?
I guess I would be very surprised if you felt it would be okay for your employer to start dumping lead into the coffee or water.
I have no sympathy for customers who go in knowing the conditions they are walking into. On that I think we agree. In my mind, the smoking laws were enacted protect the workers, not the customers.
You know what, maybe it’s because I actually practice law for a living that ignorant statements about the law really set me off. So I apologize to everyone else, but I’m not going to give up the battle against ExecutiveJesus’ ignorance, nor am I content to let him or her have the last word on something he or she clearly knows nothing about.
The “common law” is nothing more than judicial precedents. Full stop, end of discussion. It’s not some magical alternative to statutory law. And it is ill-equipped to handle issues of public policy.
Statutory law is entirely Constitutionally sound because the Constitution specifically provides for it. Courts apply the laws as they exist. If there is a statute governing the case in front of it, it applies that statute because the enactment of the statute reflected a legislative directive that issues in a particular area are to be resolved a particular way. Courts follow statutes because legislatures enact them, and legisltures are (in theory anyway) supposed to represent the people. Unless the legislature did something actually unconstitutional, its statutes trump contrary judicial precedent.
A system where only the common law applies is not democracy. It is oligarchy.
The Constitution got dragged into this discussion because you said, and I quote:
I pointed out (correctly) that the Constitution says nothing about the right to smoke in restaurants. You then went into your entirely misinformed rant about “common law” and “statutory law.”
I’ll say it again: There is nothing in “what the Constitution regards as freedom” that concerns smoking in public. Or spitting on the sidewalk. Or rubber duckies. Or a lot of things, actually. So the Constitution says nothing about this. And your statements about the system that the Constitution set up are flat-out wrong in pretty much every sense of the word.
With this type of lead-in, I thought that you were going to direct us to a site like the National Academy of Sciences with some scientific reputation and standing. What’s next…The “real facts” on global warming from the Greening Earth Society?
By the way, here is a page of a 1986 report on environmental tobacco smoke from NAS (from which you can get to the rest of the report). I was hoping to find something more recent but couldn’t find one in my half-hearted search on the subject. At any rate, this page notes that “Considering the evidence as a whole, exposure to ETS increases the incidence of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Estimates of the magnitude of the increased risk vary.” This is based primarily on studies comparing spouses of smokers and non-smokers. The NAS admits more study is needed. I don’t know how the state of the science had advanced since 1986 and I am not up enough on the science here to venture a guess. But, your cite Dogface is of absolutely zero value in assessing the weight of the scientific evidence.
Then nobody should be allowed to mine coal? At least there are tangible, documented health effects to point to with coal mining. People take the risk to work there, all the same. I bet motorcycle cop is a dangerous job too, better take the CHiPs off the street.
**
I believe they should.
And do.
Thus the choice they make based on that knowledge.
To work there or not to.
**
It wouldn’t be OK.
Under those circumstances, you’d have no knowledge of the environment’s (or coffee’s in this case) potential “danger”.
In a place of work where there is smoke…
There is fire.
Or cigarettes.
The eyes should be able to judge.
Plus,
As an employee, you should be able to set your own tolerences for the amount of smoke you`re willing to deal with. Not the state.
Originally by RexDart
If coal miners are not protected against coal dust, then the safety requirements should be changed for coal mining. Just because one industry has lacking standards does not allow any and all other industries to disregard employee safety.
Motorcycle cops are at the same risk we all face each and every day on the road. That cannot be eliminated nor should the gov’t try.
Your statement “At least there are tangible, documented health effects to point to with coal mining” implies you believe the same cannot be said of second hand smoke.
My argument is based solely on the concept second hand smoke is a significant and documented health risk. I concede that if this is untrue, the gov’t should not be involved.
For the purposes of this debate, I think we will need to avoid the secondary debates which always arise around smoking. Whether or not it really is dangerous is a big one. This applies to both second hand smoke and smoking.
I have conceded that if it is not dangerous, the debate is over (from my perspective). Are you willing to concede to my claim if it is dangerous?
Hmmm, so if I want to open *Even Sven’s Super Unshielded Nuclear Radiation Plant, where workers handle uranium with their bare hands I ought to be able to as long as the workers are aware of the health risks?
ExecutiveJesus
In my example of lead being put in the water, my assumption was that it was being done with the employee’s full knowledge. You were told. No secret was made about it.
So if an employer does not have an obligation to ensure a safe environment, just how little responsibility does the employer have to the employee?
Also, not every danger can be sensed. What about the less obvious dangers? Do you need to be told of all the risks to your health? Be careful how you answer that. Again, these are known dangers and proven health risks.
If you think your employer is under no obligation to inform you of those risks, then your employer can start putting lead in your water without telling you.
If you can be put at risk at the whim of your employer under the assumption you are told (your assertion), how are these risks to be conveyed to you? Big neon signs? A 250 page document in legalees explaining it all in gory detail? Maybe a few sticky notes around the office?
So now your employer has made it clear what risks you take by working there. They spell it out to your satisfaction. Is that really their only obligation?
Why is burning a substance that smells like crap to all that don’t burn that substance in an eating establishment, where taste is something like 90% smell such a hard thing for people not to do?
People USED to ask the people around them IF they minded if they light up, now it’s taken as a God given right, so more people do it and make live stinker for all.
Also there is a saying that your right to swing your arm ends when you contact the tip of my nose. Your smoking is not ending with you, I’m not saying that you are effecting the health of others (which you may be doing), but you are disturbing others and causing them expenses with dry cleaning bills(or even regular washing which wears out cloths), and expense that you SHOULD be paying.
As pointed out, if you are running a business there are laws that must be followed. I don’t see any problem banning smoking from places that are open to the public with limited exception. Perhaps a smoking room can be set aside as an alternative/
Ummm, no.
It’s my opinion that if it is dangerous, then those that patronize that restaurant or choose to be employed there are assuming the risk. The health effects would still be confined to that property and those who visit it, which makes it a matter of individual choice…provided, of course, that there is full disclosure so that the choice is informed rather than induced by fraudulent misrepresentation.
As an analogy, consider some food preparations which are considered dangerous by the FDA. There are, as I understand it, some seafood dishes that customers enjoy but which are hindered by FDA regulations. If the market provides a demand for those dishes by consumers informed of the risk, I would suggest they be allowed. As illness from food prep is not contagious, the informed actor puts only himself at risk. This would not damage the overall safe food preparation standards, because there is no similiar market demand for undercooked pork or soup with rat droppings. As long as consumers remain informed of the conditions, their choice should be honored. The consumers market demand for a place to eat, drink and smoke is strong enough that many restaurants choose to allow smoking. That choice should be honored.
That non-smoking patrons who wish to avoid smoke have limited options is, to be blunt, nobody’s problem but their own. The market adjusts to meet demand. If there is sufficient demand for non-smoking establishments, they’ll be built. If there is not, tough cookies. Nobody has a “right” to go out for dinner, dining out is a service that has to be provided by someone.
Property rights have been eroded by treating restaurants, bars, and shops as “public accomodations”. Those places are someone’s private property, and if I want to enter that property and I have the owner’s consent, that should be all there is to it. Any ensuing transaction is between me and the owner, and I can look out for myself.
As for the employees, there is often disagreement on that point due to differing notions of the word “choice”. I argue they have a choice whether to work at a smoke-filled bar. My opponent retorts with something like “a single mother with little education may only be able to support herself by working as a tipped waitress, so is it really a choice?”
This represents the fundamental distinction between passive and active force. Under the “active” sense of the word, unless she is being held prisoner at the restaurant then nobody is forcing her to work there. Under the “passive” sense of the word, then she is forced by the circumstances surrounding her to work there in order to meet her responsibilities. (I would suggest that in the absence of active force there is almost always some course of action that is neither the status quo nor total loss, but we’ll assume for a moment she faces only those two options.)
We can nevertheless acknowledge that she has the choice whether to get up in the morning, the choice to board the bus downtown, the choice to put on the uniform, the choice to enter the restaurant, and the choice to begin working. She is not being actively constrained to do any of those things. Additionally, her present circumstances were largely created by her previous choices. She could choose not to meet her responsibilties and face the consequences of that decision. I do not find it a tolerable action for government to redress a harm caused by passive force by initiating active force against a property owner.
RexDart
In your poison fish example you are referring to a customer/seller scenario. I stated earlier the for me a situation a customer chooses to put themselves in is their own business. I’m arguing about the well being of employees.
You spent many paragraphs on a point I fully agree with you on. I never once held that a job wasn’t a choice.
However, see my post to ExecutiveJesus about employer responsibility. If you are going to say the employer has no responsibility to guard your well being, I’d be surprised. If you say the employer does hold some responsibility, I’d like to know where you draw the line.
Why is it that when we get into these arguments, you libertarian-types always essentially assume your conclusion? Sure, I agree that if you are a market fundamentalist who believes that the only legitimate avenue for people in a society to decide what they do is through the market then your conclusions necessarily follow. But, that begs the question of whether the market is the one and only way to resolve these questions. Those of us who believe that the Market and God are not one and the same don’t necessarily buy this proposition.