Thanks Facist Pigs!

[Tailgater]

Anyone have cigar bars in the areas of their smoking ban? These businesses are mainly for smoking only (cigar smoking that is....Cigs not allowed). Do these have to shut down?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Had you a broader understanding of the world around you, you would know that whatever happens in the US is transmitted to Europe at a tremendous (but sometimes uncanny) speed. I have vaguely heard of Linking Park, but never of the others.

Were you not such a pig biggot you wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about what other people may or may not know about the world around them.

If YOU took a look at the recording industry in YOUR area you would see Im somewhat popular there

But hey, Im just an ignorant brown guy so I wouldnt know jack about the rest of the world right?

Im trying to think of any euro band that had as much world penetration in the 90's than the Gin Blossoms. Maybe you could help me out? Im tempted to say Oasis, but the GB's were on a hell of a lot more movies according to allmusic.com

SO yes, your ignorance shows thru brightly yet again, while we ignorant brown people are none the worse for wear

"Grunge" was nothing but a blip. Get over yourself.

I hated grunge, and how in the world are you tying that in in that statement? I merely showed a parallel similar market...btw, that blip completely changed the entire state of the music industry, the entertainment industry, the WAY music is marketed in stores and even the technology used to make that music

a BLIP????

a BLIP????

you are on KRACK

btw,

communism was a blip, get over yourself

No more "grunge"? Good!

I agree, I wish it were true but I still get lots of bands in that have pearl-garden-pilot voices...look at creed and stained for some modern ones like that

Employees have no rights? Everything is up to the employer?

employees have the right to a job too, without their smoking customers I bet they dont eat

 

[Tailgater]

Most of the bars I've been to lately (which is not many) have had an outdoor deck reserved for smokers that is legal. Can you do that Pipe?

 

[skeptifem]

I do not really care much for the occupational health argument.

Inhaling second hand smoke is a daily risk that workers endure that may or may not cause a health problem. This applies to many, many other jobs. any work place with machinery has employees that are at a risk for injury daily. This includes factory and food service workers, health care workers are at an especially severe risk if they have a needlestick injury. There are countless other examples. All of them accept the risk by working there and have the ability to look for other work or not accept the job if they do not like it. I fail to see how this is different. None of the risks people take in ordinary jobs are garunteed to cause any harm, including inhaling second hand smoke.

Ive heard the argument that compares banning indoor smoking in businesses to the health regulations put on food preparation before, and i dont think that comparison is good either. When entering/working in a place that allows smoking you knowingly accept the risk, that cant be said about other health regulations. Thats why the government is involved- i doubt anyone would eat at a place with an open kitchen that was filthy and had meat laying around all day at room temperature.


I think if someone wants to smoke in their own business, and wants smokers to go to that business they should be able to. I do not see how anyone is forced into anything. Plenty of places put up signs to let people know that the business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so people need to quit acting like they have some right to being inside someone elses business.

 

[skeptifem]

oops!

 

[Badger]

Were you not such a pig biggot you wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about what other people may or may not know about the world around them.

If YOU took a look at the recording industry in YOUR area you would see Im somewhat popular there

But hey, Im just an ignorant brown guy so I wouldnt know jack about the rest of the world right?

Im trying to think of any euro band that had as much world penetration in the 90's than the Gin Blossoms. Maybe you could help me out? Im tempted to say Oasis, but the GB's were on a hell of a lot more movies according to allmusic.com

SO yes, your ignorance shows thru brightly yet again, while we ignorant brown people are none the worse for wear



I hated grunge, and how in the world are you tying that in in that statement? I merely showed a parallel similar market...btw, that blip completely changed the entire state of the music industry, the entertainment industry, the WAY music is marketed in stores and even the technology used to make that music

a BLIP????

a BLIP????

you are on KRACK

btw,

communism was a blip, get over yourself



I agree, I wish it were true but I still get lots of bands in that have pearl-garden-pilot voices...look at creed and stained for some modern ones like that



employees have the right to a job too, without their smoking customers I bet they dont eat

Are you always this irrational and irate?

Perhaps it'd be more advantageous to focus your passion on searching for a solution to your problem, or lobbying for change.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Inhaling second hand smoke is a daily risk that workers endure that may or may not cause a health problem. This applies to many, many other jobs. any work place with machinery has employees that are at a risk for injury daily. This includes factory and food service workers, health care workers are at an especially severe risk if they have a needlestick injury. There are countless other examples. All of them accept the risk by working there and have the ability to look for other work or not accept the job if they do not like it. I fail to see how this is different.

Such industries adopt safety standards. There is equipment purchased, and training given, and practices followed to reduce or eliminate the risk. Health care workers don't toss used needles over their shoulders, nuclear technicians don't carry plutonium in their pockets, and food service workers don't polish the spoons by breathing on them.

In the case of spewing clouds of carcinogenic smoke, the only viable safety practice is to stop the production of it. This is not to say that smoking is more dangerous than plutonium or used needles, but that owing to the pesky laws of physics, it is more difficult to think of ways to contain the danger. Personal plastic tents worn around the head? Powerful fans? Switching to chewing tobacco?

 

[pgwenthold]

Er, no. Property owners do not have the "right" to demand that other people be exposed to health hazards.

Of course they don't. But then, it's not like property owners are forcing anyone to do anything. Customers choose to show up on their own, they are not required to come. We aren't just talking about "other people." We are talking about customers at their place of business.

There is a local bar that plays very loud music. Should we ban them from playing very loud music because I don't like it and it could hurt my ears? They don't have the right to demand that other people are exposed to loud music, right?

 

[The Atheist]

Waaaahoo for Ao Te Aroa! Last time I was there, pubs still allowed cancer-fog, and naturally I stayed the hell out of them. I badly wanted to tip a wet one and talk with the colorful island natives in their ancestral habitat, and now I can.

But: Wot in the L is a pokie bar? Should I ask?

Yep, no worries now, although it shows how bad things were when you go into a bar which has been smokefree for three years, yet it still reeks of tobacco smoke!

A pokie bar is a bar which mainly exists to provide slot-machines - we call the stupid things "pokies" over here.

I can't believe this thread's still going - it's a no-brainer. What the hell do smoking and civil rights have to do with each other? Smoking is a choice. Breathing air not polluted by one of the most carcinogenic gases there is, in concentrated amounts, is a right. You choose to smoke, go outside - nobody else deserves to inhale that filth. Or shall we make drunk-driving legal?

 

[drkitten]

This applies to many, many other jobs. any work place with machinery has employees that are at a risk for injury daily.

Which is why there are such stringent safety regulations regarding the equipment.

The equipment basically must be made as safe as possible while allowing the employees to do their job. If your job involves cutting sheet metal, there's obviously no way to eliminate the risk entirely. But if your job doesn't involve cutting sheet metal, then you should not be exposed to the risk created by cutting sheet metal.

There are countless other examples. All of them accept the risk by working there and have the ability to look for other work or not accept the job if they do not like it.

Wrong. They accept the essential risk. If you expose them to a risk that is not necessary for the job, you are putting yourself at legal risk.

You cannot ask -- let alone demand -- that someone accept an unnecessary risk as a condition of taking a job.

 

[pgwenthold]

Such industries adopt safety standards. There is equipment purchased, and training given, and practices followed to reduce or eliminate the risk. Health care workers don't toss used needles over their shoulders, nuclear technicians don't carry plutonium in their pockets, and food service workers don't polish the spoons by breathing on them.

In the case of spewing clouds of carcinogenic smoke, the only viable safety practice is to stop the production of it. This is not to say that smoking is more dangerous than plutonium or used needles, but that owing to the pesky laws of physics, it is more difficult to think of ways to contain the danger. Personal plastic tents worn around the head? Powerful fans? Switching to chewing tobacco?

They could wear aspirators.

As I said, some jobs certainly have inherent risk. Part of the job of being a logger is the risk that a tree will fall on top of you. OTOH, that does not mean that the employer does not have to take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of their workers. For example, they can't say, "The job is inherently dangerous so we won't pay for hard hats."

This is a case where the government is requiring the employer to provide a smoke free work environment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There is a local bar that plays very loud music. Should we ban them from playing very loud music because I don't like it and it could hurt my ears? They don't have the right to demand that other people are exposed to loud music, right?

If you are a customer, no. If you are a neighbor, yes. At least, you can demand they contain their music within their own building. Soundproofing materials are expensive, but they do exist.

 

[Francesca R]

There is a local bar that plays very loud music. Should we ban them from playing very loud music because I don't like it and it could hurt my ears? They don't have the right to demand that other people are exposed to loud music, right?

Not enough people think that is a hazard. The "slippery slope" / "all or nothing" argument that you and others are peddling is very weak. This is not strictly about logic and reason. It is about societal preferences expressed through the legislature. Society does not have to be consistent.

 

[CFLarsen]

Were you not such a pig biggot you wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about what other people may or may not know about the world around them.

Hey, at least I can spell "bigot".

If YOU took a look at the recording industry in YOUR area you would see Im somewhat popular there

You? Who the hell are you?

But hey, Im just an ignorant brown guy so I wouldnt know jack about the rest of the world right?

"Brown"? I have no idea what you mean. Why are you so intent on bringing skin color into this?

Im trying to think of any euro band that had as much world penetration in the 90's than the Gin Blossoms. Maybe you could help me out? Im tempted to say Oasis, but the GB's were on a hell of a lot more movies according to allmusic.com

I am trying to figure out what it is you are trying to say here. Perhaps if you used proper English?

SO yes, your ignorance shows thru brightly yet again, while we ignorant brown people are none the worse for wear

"Brown people"?

I hated grunge, and how in the world are you tying that in in that statement? I merely showed a parallel similar market...btw, that blip completely changed the entire state of the music industry, the entertainment industry, the WAY music is marketed in stores and even the technology used to make that music

a BLIP????

a BLIP????

you are on KRACK

btw,

communism was a blip, get over yourself

O......K. I'm sure the intent was to provide a coherent response, but I'm afraid you failed utterly.

I agree, I wish it were true but I still get lots of bands in that have pearl-garden-pilot voices...look at creed and stained for some modern ones like that

...I recognized some of the words, but, as a whole, it didn't make much sense.

employees have the right to a job too, without their smoking customers I bet they dont eat

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[drkitten]

If you are a customer, no. If you are a neighbor, yes. At least, you can demand they contain their music within their own building. Soundproofing materials are expensive, but they do exist.

Or if you are a member of the waitstaff. Unless they can provide you with a set of earplugs that somehow manages to keep the noise below a hearing-damaging level, while still letting you hear well enough to take orders....

 

[skeptifem]

Such industries adopt safety standards. There is equipment purchased, and training given, and practices followed to reduce or eliminate the risk. Health care workers don't toss used needles over their shoulders, nuclear technicians don't carry plutonium in their pockets, and food service workers don't polish the spoons by breathing on them.

In the case of spewing clouds of carcinogenic smoke, the only viable safety practice is to stop the production of it. This is not to say that smoking is more dangerous than plutonium or used needles, but that owing to the pesky laws of physics, it is more difficult to think of ways to contain the danger. Personal plastic tents worn around the head? Powerful fans? Switching to chewing tobacco?

None of those things eliminate the risk. In the case of 2nd hand smoke ventilation systems can be used to improve the conditions, there are pieces of equiptment created for that EXACT purpose, and they work pretty darn well.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not enough people think that is a hazard.

Whether or not it is a hazard is not a matter of public opinion.

What you mean is that, not enough people CARE that it is a hazard.

 

[TragicMonkey]

They could wear aspirators.

But now you are shifting the burden to the people who are not creating the danger. Rather than telling the batter not to throw the bat, you are issuing everyone behind him with protective gear.

As I said, some jobs certainly have inherent risk. Part of the job of being a logger is the risk that a tree will fall on top of you. OTOH, that does not mean that the employer does not have to take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of their workers. For example, they can't say, "The job is inherently dangerous so we won't pay for hard hats."

Part of the job of a logger involves danger from falling trees because that is the nature of the job itself. The logger is not expected to shoulder the danger of being bitten by the manager's pet chimpanzee.

A bar worker would be expected to bear the risk of inhaling alcohol fumes, getting cut after dropping a glass, and maybe getting punched by a drunk. Clouds of carcinogenic smoke are not essentially part of the serving of alcoholic beverages. Can one serve alcohol without that smoke? Yes. It doesn't seem to be necessarily related to the job, then, any more than breathing asbestos is part of teaching, despite the school roof being full of the stuff.

 

[fuelair]

STOP RIGHT THERE.

IF this building allows smoking, at the owner's discretion, and you don't like it, don't go in and take your business elsewhere. That's what it means to live in a free country.

And, yes, that applies to being employed, too. (QUOTE from above)

If it is, then you need to be aware that the US has always been a controlled freedom country, not a free country. Please do not, however, assume that I write this to be negative or am saying that it is negative - and quite frankly I do not know of any country that ever has been completely free except in times of extreme turmoil that precluded controls being in place.

 

[Francesca R]

Whether or not it is a hazard is not a matter of public opinion.

What you mean is that, not enough people CARE that it is a hazard.

Public policy is a matter of public opinion. (To some extent—and I am convinced that in the matter of tobacco smoke it is driven by public opinion)