It does seem that most people in the hospitality industry do smoke. The point I was raising though, was that people will often work in an unhealthy environment if they need a job. Is it fair to ask them to make this choice when we wouldn't accept an unsafe construction site, mine, oil rig or other hazardous work place even if the employees were OK with it? It all hinges on whether you accept that second hand smoke is a hazard. You also have to consider 35-40 hours a week exposure that staff face. Even those who smoke, may not ordinarily expose themselves to that much smoke. And to unleash the lawyers, could someone later sue if they became ill because of a known hazard and the establishment and government knew of this hazard yet chose to do nothing about it?
OK, completely unrelated, but still funny... Did anybody see South Park last night? Well, Mr. Garrison concocted this scheme to get the school to fire him because he is gay so he can sue the school for millions of dollars, but instead of getting fired, the school sends the kids to the tolerance museum to learn about accepting people of different races, creeds, cultures, sexual orientation, ect... Well, they get outside the museum and this guy is smoking on the fountain, and everybody in the group starts yelling at him, calling him names, and screaming at him for him to leave...basically shunning him for smoking... Even though it was funny, it kind of opened my eyes a little bit. If we don't watch out, smokers might eventually end up being treated like blacks, jews, and other minorities used to... That can be a really interesting show if you really watch it.
gr8-1...I have a yes or no question for you... (Hayes you can answer to if you want...better go get that feces...i mean thesis) Is a room of non smokers a more healthy environment than a room full of smokers and second hand smoke? (assuming there are no other "bad" things that are harmful to your health in the room)
I'd say a room full of non-smokers is much healthier. That's why I think if it's that important to the patrons, bar owners, employees, then they should make the bar non-smoking. I'll smoke outside, if need be. But, I think it should be the bar owners choice, not the city government's. They govt has their hands in way too many things right now. If it is about the employee's safety, then maybe a referendum is in order. If you only allow restaurant/bar employees to vote, it would be a landslide opposing any change in the law.
I couldn't agree with you more! Smoker are starting to become second class citizens, religated to the back of the social food chain. The worse thing about smoking is the hypocracy that the american lung association pushes about quitting smoking. On one hand they say quiting smoking reduces you risk of cancer, but on the other hand they don't try to give a cheap alternative to quitting smoking. For example, my standard cost for smoking is about 5 to 7 packs a week at a cost of $3.25 to $3.75 a pack which cost an average of $24.50, if I wanted to use nicorette or the patch to quite it would cost me $34.00 a week for the gum and $36.00 for the patch. Now what is wrong with this picture? Its cheaper for me to smoke than it is to quit. The other thing that pisses me off is that the states sue tobacco companies for lying about its addictive nature, well what do they do with the profits of the lawsuit? Nothing that deals with smoking or getting people trying to quit smoking. They have not started any type of programs to get people off cigarettes, they have not made any type of subsidies for using a smoking subsitutes. They just come out with the most asinine commericals and waste that money plus our tax money. If I was a junkie on smack at least I could get methodone or free needles. But since I am a smoker I become a taxable entity that has a price tag attached to it. Think about it this way as well, I get taxed when I buy a pack of cigarettes, I have to pay more for my health insurance, an I have to sit in the special areas of any building or area. Now this sound like a little discrimination to me doesn't it.
Of course, the whole point of quitting smoking is so you won't HAVE to spend 25 bucks per week for the rest of your life....Let's see, $36 vs. $1200/year (24.50 per week) for cigarettes....Gee, that's a hard choice to make... Besides, studies show that quitting cold turkey, which is free, is more effective and safer for your body than the patch or gum...
Thank you Surgeon General A-Train! I was trying to make a point, and you just had to come back with the "Well if you just quit it wouldn't cost anything" Thanks! Yes I think every smoker knows that it will kill them one way or another. And quitting cold turkey is not as easy as it sounds, trust me I have tried.
I believe someone's opinion can be 'wrong,' either factually or morally. In this case you are both. Again, I get worked up over this topic because I was really suprised at (a) the difference between public perception and proven fact, (b) the dogmatic nature of the push for government intervention, and (c) the chilling effect the perceived 'scientific consensus' has created on discussions of policy. First I had to look up 'opine.' ... Really my original interest in the subject came from a broader examination of the phenomenon of 'scientific consensus,' and its effect on policy in several places. I ended up concentrating on Big Tobacco's corporate apologia in relation to ETS because my original area was too large. I also thought an in-depth look at how Big Tobacco's lying had destroyed their credibility on future disputes would be interesting. A quote from it, yes. That is from Congressional testimony (not my own writing). Well, the timelines are a little messed up. My thesis was written quite awhile ago so this addendum was not in the original release. Besides, the quote from above merely points out that the newer studies had not been included in the EPA's meta-analysis. As for the factual dispute (whether or not the new studies showed increased risk) I don't know. We'd have to go back and look at the actual studies. I do not believe they did conclude increased risk. And the reason I reproduced those quotes was to give you an idea of the type of manipulation the EPA's Report and subsequently much publicized conclusions included. Its the same reason the Courts criticized the EPA's Report, because they startlingly shaped their conclusions to their political goal, not from an objective viewpoint. I am curious, Cohen. I don't think you would come into my house and tell me not to smoke. You might tell me you don't think its good for me, but I doubt you would make some effort to force me to stop. Why do you then feel morally correct going into a bar/restaurant and telling the owner to stop smoking? Customers do not normally tell the owners what to do, right? Consider this: if there are enough people to support and pass a ban on smoking, aren't there enough people to lead a boycott on smoking establishments? You and others say owners WON'T change, but isn't that because this supposed 75% majority won't actually use their market mechanism to affect change? Do you really think that if 75% of the customers did not frequent certain establishments they would not see a change in the number of non-smoking establishments? Empirically when people do exercise their right to economic boycott, changes are forthcoming from the private sector. Non-smokers are more interested in projecting their moral snobbishness than in affecting satisfactory change. It is not enough to have places that are smoke free, you want EVERY place to be smoke free. And isn't it silly to declare something a health hazard when you admit the magnitude is unknown? If you used that as a standard for policy decisions (acting against 'health hazards' without consideration of risk) would ANY industrial activity be allowed? Good point. It would save mucho time and retreading of arguments. No, you are just a moron. I wouldn't argue with some drooling loon on the street, but that doesn't mean their rantings have any validity. Yes, it is unreasonable. No one is forced into working at a bar or restaurant, anymore than someone is forced to go out to eat or drink. They have the same market mechanism to affect change as consumers. No one has to work in a smoking environment. They can demand change or move to another job that does not allow for a smoking environment. And at least in my experience waiting tables and bartending, I always preferred smoking sections because smokers drink more, and tip better, than non-smokers.
Exactly...so shut your mouth, go write another thesis because the 1st one obviously was full of a bunch of BS and move on.
Good post. bnb. This is my last post on this topic. I'll sum up my view: 1) If it's a matter of health, it is not a matter for market forces or voters. If 80% pf the voters are smokers, they do not have rights to force illness on even 1 non-smoker. Market forces will not work unless patrons do not see an immediate or visible threat (I mean, they won't get lung cancer that night will they, and how many young bar patrons believ that they ever will die). Buildings are limited by fire marshalls on how many people can safely occupy the buidling. Shall we leave leave that up to voters or patrons now? 2) It may not yet be definitve how significant the risks are to nonsmokers if you use the 95% confidence interval as a threshold. But if you relax that threshold much at all, you can see the writing on the wall. These studies take time (like the original smoking studies). All indications are that ETS will be proven highly dangerous and more municipalities and States will outlaw it in public places. I underestand how some smokers can get inflamed ( ) over this topic. But don't worry, you'll always be able to smoke in your home...I think.
Not only are they OKwith it, they prefer to wait on smoking customers. They tend to be more mellow andtip better. Most of the bartenders I know will light up if you let them. I think the 3 things you listed could consist of things that would kill you immediately. Second handsmoke does not. I've said my piece. I think it should be left up to the owners or from patrons who decide to protest by voting with their pocketbooks. Don't let the government decide this one.
Except no one is FORCED to be there. A fatal flaw in your argument. I know you don't want to post again but please answer the question I posed to you before: why should you be able to tell an owner whether they can smoke in their business anymore than you can tell me not to smoke in my house? Please don't say I couldn't set fire to you in my house, I understand that, but what about 'smoking?' WTF? Then how do you explain support to BAN smoking in these places??? It makes no sense to say there is enough support to cause legislation but not enough to create an economic disturbance. It would be the same people taking a different route to solve the problem, right? C'mon Cohen. That is not a comparable example. 'All' is quite an overstatement and that is my point. Don't project a scientific consensus when there isn't one, rather there is a political consensus. The most annoying thing is not your inability to make a sound or well reasoned argument, its that your stupidity reaches such a high level that you continually misunderstand other people's arguments.
Hayes...your ignorance and overwhelming bias on this topic is laughable. You have nothing to dispute the fact that second hand smoke is bad for you (other than your ****ty thesis). I, on the other hand, cited several government agencies who have done extensive testing on the subject and proved you and your ****ty thesis wrong. Kindly piss off.
