iwire, the reason stupid laws exist is because people say “I have no idea how to change this, and I never said I agree with it.” and “right now that is how it is”
What I do not agree with is who makes the determination of what is hazardous.
But I would not call the law that protects employees from things that have been determined hazardous “stuipid”.
And again you point out that you help keep workers safe by virtue of what you design. Do the people that hire you pay you because they care, or because the Govt. or there insurance company forced them.
I think you make the point that the work place can be safe. But it takes a commitment that many companies would not take without external pressure.
As usual, the newsmedia made an unjustified leap to conclusions.
As far as I can tell about this case, a nonsmoking person who worked where some smoke was often in the atmosphere, acquired lung cancer.
So did the smoke cause her cancer?
Maybe. Maybe not. Cigarette smoke is not the only cause of lung cancer, although it is often considered to be the most common cause or a significant contributor.
Note that even this site said “blamed on,” not “caused by.”
iwire, if after causing a reactionary law to be written and a lot of business owners and patrons to suffer in the name of public health, what if someone comes back and says “hey, I guess it wasn’t so bad after all. A fan and a filter would have fixed this problem.” Is it okay to have gone through all that? What about the people hurt by it? What recourse do they have? Now we have another stupid law restricting personal freedom. Great.
Still, nobody answers the question. Why can’t we just let the owners decide? Make the place nonsmoking, or install adequate ventilation. Why is a ban better than a choice? at what time has attempting to legislate behavior by the general public been sucessful?
I find this interesting “blamed on,” not “caused by.”
But I would rather we worked on the side of caution. Its not like we humans have not made mistakes before with regards to the health effects of products over the years, lead paint comes to mind. I am sure the people that used this product did not believe it was unsafe when first told of the problems.
I would say that the finical hurt by a mistake like this would be justified by the fact that what is trying to be gained is saving people from illness or death.
So, let’s stop using everything. Let’s stop driving, a lot more emissions come from cars than from smoke. Let’s stop cooking, because cooked meat contains substances known to be carcinogens. Let’s legislate everything out of existense because we “suspect” they might be dangerous. Great idea!
Will Anyone answer the question, “why is banning better than allowing the proprietors to choose to make their business nonsmoking or install adequate ventilation” Anyone? Anywhere?
b.
So why make the mistake? Why not do the research and find out for sure? How about NOT WRITING A RESTRICTIVE LAW WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS. is it justified if I stop you from eating beef sandwiches because beef sandwiches have fat and you might develop heart disease? Why can’t the approach be “let’s try to eliminate or minimize the risk by other methods before we jump directly to the loss of personal freedom?”
Well we certainly are working to make cars cleaner.
If you can come up with a catalytic converter for cigarettes you will be rich:)
As far as ventilation, if it would be installed and used correctly it makes great sense.
But to let the owner decide and we are back to the “slippery slope” of letting the employers decide what’s dangerous and what’s not. I am glad this is not how it is in my trade
So the slippery slope of controlling personal freedom is OK? The rights of the individuals are less important than the rights of other individuals? Or business owners? what exactly do you mean?
I’ve very specifically stated, let the employers choose between making the place nonsmoking or installing adequate ventilation. Each of those two answers solves the problem equally well as banning smoking altogether. Tell me why giving up personal freedom is better.
The question becomes is second hand smoke dangerous?
Until we are sure (my gut feeling is it can not be good for you)
We should do what we can to protect workers from exposure.
My way people may live longer.
Your way it saves money.
As far as personal freedom I am all for it I do things in my house that the Govt. thinks I should not. But My Personal freedom does not give me the right to blow it in your face.
Some states do let the owners decide, and some don’t. It’s not that they can’t let the owners decide, it’s that they decided not to. The question should be: Why should my state be disallowed from requiring restaurants to have clean air to breathe?
It’s successful all the time. You can’t just do whatever you feel like, anytime you feel like it. I can’t park my car in the middle of the freeway during rush hour. I can’t walk into my local Quickee Mart with a bullhorn and start screaming into people’s ears. I can’t walk into a restaurant and take a dump on your Eggs Benedict. Would you have to PROVE that shitting on your eggs is harmful in order to get me to stop? There’s a million things you can’t do in public, and many of these things are controlled by legislation, quite successfully.
I sorry to tell you but that is a slope that we have been traveling down very fast for about 200 years.
As far as the ventilation issue I think it could be a viable option but to work would need inspection and enforcement that could be costly.
I wire HVAC equipment and the ventilating you speak of is not as easy as you think. All the air that the vents pull out of the building has to be replaced. This in itself is easy but cooling, heating and dehumidification will be costly. What would your heating bill be if you put a fan in one window blowing out and a window on the other side of the house was left open?
Now you’re a Bar owner and your heating or cooling bills are very high. But all you have to do to cut them in half is to shut off the ventilation system. Who will tell you otherwise?
Where is everyone getting the idea that smoking cigarettes in a public place is a RIGHT? If anyone’s rights are at stake, I would say it’s my right not to have to breathe your stinking smoke.
The law is in place because nobody even considered any alternatives. Because people think that 'oh, it’s a good law"
Prove, in any way, that the law makes people live longer. You can’t. It is merely conjecture.
Until we are sure we should not involve the government at all. If we do, it should be to mandate a choice between an adequate ventilation system or nonsmoking. That way, the business owner has choices he can make, and so do all his patrons.
Your way, the smoke is gone. The patrons and business owners suffer in the dubious cause of “public safety” when no conclusive third party evidence exists that there is a danger in the first place.
My way, the smoke is gone. Nobody suffers and there isn’t restriction of personal freedom. Why is your way better again? I still can’t see any logic there.
Oh, and Iwire? Any labaratory supply house will sell you a ventilator which is absolute proof against lethal gasses, people work in and around them all day, everywhere. Shouldn’t be a big deal to make one that will stop cigarette smoke. And I’ve installed HVAC stuff too, thankyouverymuch, and I know how possible it is.
It’s not quite that easy. People don’t want to go to restaurants that don’t allow smoking – they want the restaurants they like to kick the smokers out, who are diminishing the experience for the non-smokers. While the concept of “voting with your dollars” works to a certain extent, most people don’t think their purchases through to this extent. As well, mild second-hand smoke is a minor annoyance to most people, and won’t make them stay away from a restaurant that they otherwise like. So, the government isn’t “making the choice” for you, they’re applying pressure where it wouldn’t otherwise exist.
Personally, I don’t smoke. Although I don’t worry all that much about second-hand smoke, the way it makes you reek like a smoker is pretty annoying. It’s very hard to go to a diner or bar around here without smelling like you just stepped outside for a smoke break. It’s only polite to keep your drugs out of others’ personal spaces, IMO, and non-smoking sections are obviously sub-par in this regard.
Agreed. As in, the rights of non-smokers should have no more importance than the rights of smokers. Each person has an inalienable right to a pursuit of happiness. If that means smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, eating a pizza, whatever, that’s their own business. Should non smokers (like ME) have to breathe smoke? no. Should a law be passed preventing people from smoking in public places? no. Should a law be passed that requires adequate ventilation or nonsmoking, but let it be a choice that businesses can make? absolutely. That’s a good law. A law which doesn’t tread on the personal liberty of individuals but effectively solves the problem is always a good law. Especially since it doesn’t further grease the already slippery slope you feel we’re on, iwire.
I did not say I could prove it. I said I would want to go on the side of caution because we do not know.
As far as the “my way you way thing” I must have misunderstood that the owners choice was to always provide ventilation.
What is this ventilator you speak of? It’s made for a laboratory. I am sure that is not expensive
:rolleyes:
I am sure the venting could be done. I would be for it if used correctly (read this as: leave the darn thing on and serviced when needed) But with out outside pressures (Read this as: laws) it will fall by the wayside in tight finical times. That’s the real world>
So following up on my previous Hazardous waste theme, I have a habit of carrying a tank of ammonia gas because I really like the smell, and when I go to public places I like to vent it, exposing those around me to what ever health effects there might be.
According to your post that is my right, just as your right is to have a beer and a pizza?
