Thanks Facist Pigs!

[TragicMonkey]

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.

Then why not employ them, then see if people still insist on a ban? Surely any step, even if not 100% effective, is better than none?

 

[EBU]

They could wear aspirators.

From dictionary.com:

–noun
1. an apparatus or device employing suction.
2. Hydraulics. a suction pump that operates by the pressure differential created by the high-speed flow of a fluid past an intake orifice.
3. Medicine/Medical. an instrument for removing body fluids by suction.

Personally, I'd rather be exposed to second hand smoke.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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....

I don't have much sympathy for the waitstaff. There are other places to work, and it's not like they had a reasonable expectation of being smokefree (unless they started work in a place that was already smokefree).

Hell, I've quit jobs because I found my coworkers stupid, or smelly, or had annoying conversational habits. Clouds of carcinogenic smoke is even more of a motivation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

3. Medicine/Medical. an instrument for removing body fluids by suction.

Personally, I'd rather be exposed to second hand smoke.

Surely it depends on the circumstances. Which fluids, I mean, from where, and with whom. Kinky!

 

[drkitten]

I don't have much sympathy for the waitstaff.

Doesn't matter if you do. The law does.

And the law specifically has sympathy for the waitstaff because of the tendency of workplace standards to be uniform across a particular area and industry. When all the steel mills in a given town are equally dangerous, and all the management is equally unresponsive, the result is the creation of health and safety laws precisely to give an individual worker the authority to deal with an individual mill owner from a position of relative equality.

Saying that I can get a job elsewhere doesn't help much when all the workplaces are equally dangerous. But since there are more workers than there are bar owners, we can simply get together and vote safety standards into place. If you don't like that, you can always sell the bar and re-open a different one where the laws are different.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Doesn't matter if you do. The law does.

And the law specifically has sympathy for the waitstaff because of the tendency of workplace standards to be uniform across a particular area and industry. When all the steel mills in a given town are equally dangerous, and all the management is equally unresponsive, the result is the creation of health and safety laws precisely to give an individual worker the authority to deal with an individual mill owner from a position of relative equality.

Saying that I can get a job elsewhere doesn't help much when all the workplaces are equally dangerous. But since there are more workers than there are bar owners, we can simply get together and vote safety standards into place. If you don't like that, you can always sell the bar and re-open a different one where the laws are different.

I guess I was assuming that working in a bar was the same as working in a restaurant, and the waitstaff would therefore have scores of other workplaces available. But that's probably not the case. Even though I can get the same beer from both places, the local Chili's is not much like the local leather bar. Except on Tex Mex Rubber Fetish Night. But the less said about that, the better.

 

[skeptifem]

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.



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.

If the logger went to the job interview with the monkey there (like a waitress would go to an interview in a bar where people were smoking, or there were ashtrays out, or that smelled like smoke, etc) they would know.

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.

It is the risk at that particular job. Different jobs may have different requirements or risks despite having the same title, because of the conditions that the employer puts on their work.

for instance, I have worked as a phlebotomist and drew blood all day. If I had worked at a childrens hospital I am sure my boss would prefer i use butterfly needles since they are a smaller gauge and make the patients feel more comfortable.However, most needlestick injuries happen when using those needles. Its possible to draw blood with the regular tube system on patients but usually they arent used on children because its easier for everyone. It depends on what the employer wants the customer to recieve.

 

[drkitten]

If the logger went to the job interview with the monkey there (like a waitress would go to an interview in a bar where people were smoking, or there were ashtrays out, or that smelled like smoke, etc) they would know.

Doesn't matter. The first time your monkey threatens to bite someone, they can go to court and demand that you get rid of it. Saying "I told them that the monkey was dangerous when I hired them" will simply be read as a confession that you knew you were being negligent.

And trying to fire them for filing that particular case will solve your problem even faster. Because now, after the "wrongful dismissal" claim, they own your logging company and you get to work for them.

 

[luchog]

Not only do I have to deal with the financial situation of most of my customers having lost their jobs to illegal mexican invaders, now we got a statewide no smoking policy in bars

No more bands

When tempe and mesa passed these laws, their clubs dried up and their music scenes died

Washintgon did the same thing, and the Seattle music scene is just fine. Not in favour of the ban at all, but it looks like Arizonans are just too whiny and lazy to just go outside for a few f**king minutes to smoke. Geez. If we can do that in Soggy Seattle, then I don't think it's that much of a hardship for you guys.

 

[luchog]

We had the phnomenon of "private clubs" happening in tempe

It may be the only hope for phoenix, but private clubs mean dj's not bands

Bands play in our private clubs.

 

[qayak]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

I don't like going to certain bars only to leave smelling like a$$, but it's ultimately up to me whether I want to patronize them or not.

In British Columbia the smoking ban was a WCB law. It seems that working in those environments is hazardous to your health and people were making huge compensation claims for related health effects. Waitresses who never smoked get lung cancer, etc.

Once the government has to start paying out these types of claims, things are going to get done. There is a bar near where I work that has a ventilated smoking room. The waitresses don't go in there. They serve through a window.

I don't think there has been a big impact on business since the laws went into effect. Everyone is playing by the same rules and people will go out drinking whether they can smoke or not. They figure out a way to work things out.

 

[luchog]

I am very mixed on smoking bans. Before reading this group, I was totally opposed to them on the same grounds as Katana. In fact, if you will look over previous threads on the matter, you will see that I have typiferously opposed them.

However, my thinking has changed lately. Smoking bans are not needed for so that customers can sit in clean air. They are, however, justified on the grounds of worker health and safety.

On the one hand...

As a libertarian, I'm somewhat torn on the issue of smoking and smoking bans. I'm firmly opposed to any restriction of behaviour that doesn't harm anyone else non-consentually. It's not the government's business to take care of us like some overweening nanny, to "protect us from ourselves". It's job is to protect us from the threat of force and fraud, period.

On the other hand...

Smoking does harm others non-consentually. The health effects of second-hand smoke are well documented. Smoking anywhere I am forced to breathe it harms me. I can definitely understand banning smoking anywhere people are required to be, such as government offices.

On the gripping hand...

It's not necesssarily that cut and dried. One can make the argument that no one is forced to go anywhere there is smoke (except for the aformentioned government offices). If their employer allows smoking, then they should switch employers. That's not that easy, however; and within my lifetime, it was almost impossible to find an employer that banned smoking in the workplace. It's much more likely these days for employers to do so without government pressure (what with the fire hazard, the threat of lawsuits from non-smokers, and the fact that it can cause problems for now-ubiquitous computer hardware); but that isn't guaranteed. It could prove too much of a hardship for too many people.

It's difficult to say where I stand on smoking bans; but even as an occasional smoker myself (I like a nice pipe once and a while), I am increasingly leaning toward restricting the harm caused by non-consentual exposure.

 

[luchog]

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?

No. The cigar and hookah bars in town have simply restructured as private clubs with very liberal membership polices.

 

[luchog]

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

Just because you can't read, doesn't mean the response was incoherent. You're being disingenuously obtuse again. Anyone with any knowledge of popular music knows that Grunge was one of the most influential movements of the previous century, with far-reaching effects not only musically, but also in fashion and marketting. It's importance is rivaled only by Punk.

 

[luchog]

I don't think there has been a big impact on business since the laws went into effect. Everyone is playing by the same rules and people will go out drinking whether they can smoke or not. They figure out a way to work things out.

When the smoking ban was proposed here, there was a huge brouha about how it was going to kill nightclubs in the city, how it was going to end music in the city, how it was going to bring a flood of pestilence... and so on. There was constant whining about "jack-booted thugs" one the liberal side and "nanny state" on the conservative side. And it was all doom and gloom.

Well guess what. Not a single club closed because of the smoking ban, and there's still plenty of music of all sorts in the city. Someone else noted that there was a brief drop off when their government enacted a similar ban, but we didn't even see that. It was pretty much business as usual.

 

[pipelineaudio]

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.

show me the ignorant part please

yes Im always irate It increases circulation

 

[pipelineaudio]

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?

Actually thats happening in many many places

First of all, as once industrial areas have been rezoned for chic "urban" housing, the new neighbors WHO KNEW VERY WELL WHAT WAS ALREADY LEGALLY IN THE AREA, decide to make noise ordinances to shut down first the music, then any outdoor talking then the parking lots

Second thing that happens are people who gfo to the bar to talk, get annoyed that there is a band playing next to them and lobby for new noise laws

Fascist pigs never stop, till the world is exactly how they want it, for them alone and dont care for the rights or desires of others

 

[pipelineaudio]

Hey, at least I can spell "bigot".



You? Who the hell are you?



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



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



"Brown people"?



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



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



That doesn't answer the question.

So clause, you claim to show I am ignorant about the music business yet you PROVE you are utterly clueless in that area

If we had a music business trivial pursuit I would cut you down like a clown. This is the deep end. Stick to the kiddy pool.

I KNOW what Im talking about, you may doubt me in other areas but this one is mine. You are WAY out of your league

Bring it on

 

[pipelineaudio]

I don't have much sympathy for the waitstaff. There are other places to work, and it's not like they had a reasonable expectation of being smokefree (unless they started work in a place that was already smokefree).

Hell, I've quit jobs because I found my coworkers stupid, or smelly, or had annoying conversational habits. Clouds of carcinogenic smoke is even more of a motivation.

So you arent worried about the waitstaff but you are worried for the dictators that can chose whther to show up at the bar or not, with no economic loss to them?

This is hypocrisy of the highest order

but indeed, dont worry about the waitstaff, they are a HELL of a lot more pissed about this ban than I am

 

[pipelineaudio]

Washintgon did the same thing, and the Seattle music scene is just fine. Not in favour of the ban at all, but it looks like Arizonans are just too whiny and lazy to just go outside for a few f**king minutes to smoke. Geez. If we can do that in Soggy Seattle, then I don't think it's that much of a hardship for you guys.

errr

your scene is dead man

it only lives on in bands in other places

Mid level acts dont even plot Seattle on tours anymore