P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[Beerina]

Yeah, the whole problem that that particular episode was that they were debunking one story and acting like it solved the whole issue.

The issue isn't "does second hand smoke cause cancer," the issue is "do bartenders who can't be around second hand smoke deserve to be gaurenteed a working environment".

No, he does not, if the environment is "a bar where people can also smoke if they want to." If you don't like it, you should leave, not that you should jam your ideas down the bar's throat.

And, furthermore, that is not the real issue. The real issue is, "Can we smoke haters find a justification to get smoking banned everywhere? Hmmm, second hand smoke provides a mild threat. Let's feign we're suddenly concerned with the welfare of bar workers, when really we just hate smoke."

That's the real issue at stake here. "Follow the money".

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I thought P & T said they would revisit the issue in a future episode?

As a person with an allergy to tobaccy, I'm relieved I can now work, go to school, and patronize places without coming out wheezing, covered in a rash, and dealing with water blisters and itchy eyes, nose, ears, etc.

I tried to work for 3 months in a place where smoking was allowed (they didn't tell me this beforehand), and by the end of it I quit. It caused my allergies to flare, my mood to hit bottom for being so uncomfortable all the time, and for some reason I got all shaky and fatigued too. It really harmed my work performance in the office. Taking antihistamines every day really didn't help much, and they make me drowsy and irritable too, just minus as much itchy allergy symptoms, wheezing, and rash.

The restaurants I worked in way back weren't so bad, because they had much better ventilation and people maybe had one smoke after their meals. Workers weren't allowed to smoke in the kitchen, and that was pretty much smoke free. Made a difference. The office had the crap billowing around 100% of the time.

I'm glad I can go to any restaurant or establishment now without the steenk and allergy flare up for hanging around an hour or so. It's sooo nice.

 

[cafink]

As a person with an allergy to tobaccy, I'm relieved I can now work, go to school, and patronize places without coming out wheezing, covered in a rash, and dealing with water blisters and itchy eyes, nose, ears, etc.

I'm glad I can go to any restaurant or establishment now without the steenk and allergy flare up for hanging around an hour or so. It's sooo nice.

I know exactly how you feel! The Louisiana State Legislature just enacted the "Lousiana Smoke-Free Air Act." It feels liberating to be able to dine in any restaurant without worrying about getting a table away from the smoking section.

Even stronger than that liberation, however, is a feeling of disgust stemming from the knowledge that my desire for a smoke-free environment is being satisfied not out of consideration for me as a customer, or because the business owner feels strongly about the cause, but because he's been bullied into it. His restaurant is a privately-owned business, and he ought to have the right to permit (or disallow) smoking in it every bit as much as I have the right to disallow (or permit) smoking in my privately-owned home.

Allow business owners the right to run their operation as they see fit. No law is necessary to tell them whether a policy is good or bad--a business owner will learn the difference when he balances the books.

A non-smoking policy (as in a restaurant, bar, or other place of business) is a good thing, in my opinion, because I don't like smoke. However, forcing others (as through legislation) to do anything--good or bad--is a bad thing.

 

[Merko]

Well, my libertarian principles tell me it should be all up to bar owners to permit smoking, or not. However..

This has been the case everywhere until a few years ago. How many non-smoking bars have you ever seen? I know that I haven't come across a single one. Ok, so we might then think that this is because the overwhelming majority prefers smoke in bars, so there's just no market for non-smoking bars.

Then, a few years ago, there was a new health regulation put in place in Sweden. Bars and restaurant were required to provide smoke-free, well-ventilated areas. It turned out practically nobody built ventilation, everybody just banned all indoors smoking.

So what happened, people stopped going to bars? Nope. There was a huge public outcry against the ban? Nope. Polls showed that 90% supported the law, after it was in place. There had been a lot of criticism before the law was passed, but very little of that was seen afterwards. The restaurant industry, who opposed the law beforehand, switched around when they saw the consequences.


So in the end.. my conclusion is more that this is one of those cases which show that market forces don't really express infinite wisdom. Sometimes a governmental 'push' can do wonders. And I'm sure if there is a market for smoking bars, there are some bars, somewhere, offering the legally required ventilation. I just haven't found any..

 

[fls]

And, furthermore, that is not the real issue. The real issue is, "Can we smoke haters find a justification to get smoking banned everywhere? Hmmm, second hand smoke provides a mild threat. Let's feign we're suddenly concerned with the welfare of bar workers, when really we just hate smoke."

I think that summarizes the problem. The legitimate workplace exposure issue gets buried by the "smoke haters" looking for a justification. This means that the discussion rarely focuses on relevant issues, and that there is a large degree of mistrust about what people say the evidence shows.

Linda

 

[jimlintott]

Allow business owners the right to run their operation as they see fit. No law is necessary to tell them whether a policy is good or bad--a business owner will learn the difference when he balances the books.

I just grabbed this quote because it says what so many people say about the smoking bans.

Well, why shouldn't coal mines be allowed to employ ten year olds? Why does a factory need certain lighting and sound level standards? Workplace safety.

Many of you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that smoking is banned for the comfort of customers. Smoking is banned because it is a dangerous chemical that is not only cacinogenic but also contains a highly addictive drug. Why should the food and beverage industry get a free pass on workplace safety?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hey Linda,

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less? Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?

And just think of the dry cleaning bills everyone will save on.

 

[cafink]

I just grabbed this quote because it says what so many people say about the smoking bans.

Well, why shouldn't coal mines be allowed to employ ten year olds? Why does a factory need certain lighting and sound level standards? Workplace safety.

Many of you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that smoking is banned for the comfort of customers. Smoking is banned because it is a dangerous chemical that is not only cacinogenic but also contains a highly addictive drug. Why should the food and beverage industry get a free pass on workplace safety?

I don't think the food and beverage industry should get a free pass on workplace safety. At least, not any more so than any other industry. Until your post, however, no other industry was discussed.

Since you asked specifically: I would be in favor of relaxing the governmental regulations on workplace safety. A person does not have to work in a factory whose conditions he deems unsafe any more than he does in a restaurant or bar that permits smoking.

Because safety is important to me, I would be totally in support of a private organization that judged workplace safety. Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.

Because freedom is also important to me, I don't believe the government should have anything to do with this process.

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less? Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?

I'm not Linda, but if you happen to be interested in my opinion:

Of course it should. What kind of freedom do I have if I don't have the freedom to do something stupid or harmful to myself?

 

[baron]

Since you asked specifically: I would in favor of relaxing the governmental regulations on workplace safety. A person does not have to work in a factory whose conditions he deems unsafe any more than he does in a restaurant or bar that permits smoking.

Because safety is important to me, I would be totally in support of a private organization that judged workplace safety. Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.

So, let's try this out on a scenario based on a question I posted earlier (that nobody has yet answered) ~

Would you find it acceptable to scrap fire safety legislation in privately-owned businesses? Oh, this club doesn't have a fire escape but that's OK because the business owner doesn't want one. People don't have to go if they don't want to, right?

The club owner, being lazy, declines not to comply with the voluntery safety organisation. He opens his club and a fire occurs. The club burns down and because there is no fire safety equipment or fire escape, everyone dies.

In your view, it would not be the club owner's fault the these people died, it would be the employees' fault for choosing to work in an unsafe environment, and presumably the customers' fault for going there?

Does this seem reasonable?

If this seems a little extreme, then let's examine your ideas further ~

Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.

So, a packer decides to look for a job in a factory. To do this, you are saying this person needs firstly to be fully conversant with all hundreds of potential safety risks in that factory and be able to evaluate them against the measures put in place by the company (assuming public disclosure of these measures is not voluntary also). In other words, in addition to being a factory packer, this person also needs advanced health and safety training combined with an inordinate amount of free time in order to evaluate the safety of each prospective establishment.

Does this seem reasonable?

And let's not even broach the subject of workers who don't have the luxury of choice and need to grab work where they can get it.

 

[Greyman]

So, let's try this out on a scenario based on a question I posted earlier (that nobody has yet answered) ~



The club owner, being lazy, declines not to comply with the voluntery safety organisation. He opens his club and a fire occurs. The club burns down and because there is no fire safety equipment or fire escape, everyone dies.

In your view, it would not be the club owner's fault the these people died, it would be the employees' fault for choosing to work in an unsafe environment, and presumably the customers' fault for going there?

Does this seem reasonable?

If this seems a little extreme, then let's examine your ideas further ~

So, a packer decides to look for a job in a factory. To do this, you are saying this person needs firstly to be fully conversant with all hundreds of potential safety risks in that factory and be able to evaluate them against the measures put in place by the company (assuming public disclosure of these measures is not voluntary also). In other words, in addition to being a factory packer, this person also needs advanced health and safety training combined with an inordinate amount of free time in order to evaluate the safety of each prospective establishment.

Does this seem reasonable?

And let's not even broach the subject of workers who don't have the luxury of choice and need to grab work where they can get it.

Lets look at some of the safety factors here.

A fire will damage you. Heavy crates falling on you will damage you. Excessive volume <extreme> will damage you. Excessive chemicals will damage you.

See a pattern forming in what our current safety laws prevent?

In all cases things we have laws protecting against WILL cause damage, not may increase the risk of damage, WILL cause damage.

Show me conclusivly that second hand smoking is as harmful as the majority of these factors and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

 

[fls]

Hey Linda,

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less?

Like seatbelt and helmut laws? What about it?

Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?

Do I have a duty to try to stop you from killing yourself? Yes. Part of belonging to a social group means recognizing that individual members have value and that we have a responsibility for the care of others. This means that it should not be made difficult for you to make informed choices. And that it is reasonable to provide an environment in which it is easier for you to make choices that you consider to your benefit.

Personal freedom should extend to allowing healthy people to make choices that could include death as an outcome. But that shouldn't serve as an excuse for neglect on our part. It is a delicate balancing act, and anti-smoking laws for the sake of reducing opportunity shows us where the line is, I think.

And just think of the dry cleaning bills everyone will save on.

So you are in favour of stifling the growth of small businesses?

Linda

 

[fls]

Lets look at some of the safety factors here.

A fire will damage you. Heavy crates falling on you will damage you. Excessive volume <extreme> will damage you. Excessive chemicals will damage you.

See a pattern forming in what our current safety laws prevent?

In all cases things we have laws protecting against WILL cause damage, not may increase the risk of damage, WILL cause damage.

Show me conclusivly that second hand smoking is as harmful as the majority of these factors and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

It is more reasonable to compare regulating second-hand smoke to regulations protecting us against other carcinogens. Your argument breaks down in that situation.

Linda

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Hey Linda,

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less? Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?

well that argument went out of the window when I turned 18.

It is not up to anyone else to "give" me opportunities, less or more, in order to control my health.

You seem to forget that something is going to kill you and no act of congress/parliament is going to change that.

I've made my decisions and my trade offs. If do not force you to follow my judgements on this, why would you feel the need to force me to follow yours?

I happen to enjoy smoking while I am having a few beers. I am quite willing to forgo expecting a non-smoking bar to accomodate my wishes and avoid going there. I would expect the same courtesy from non-smokers about going into a bar that permits it.

Ah well, I can, for the moment, sit out on my deck with Stella Artois in one hand, a cigaret in the other and enjoy a good sunset or mooonrise over the Colorado plains.

That is, of course, until the puritan gestapo decide that I am not allowed to smoke on my own property, that beer is the brew of the devil and must be banned and they find a way to tax sunsets.

[rule 8] 'em all.

 

[cafink]

So, let's try this out on a scenario based on a question I posted earlier (that nobody has yet answered) ~

The club owner, being lazy, declines not to comply with the voluntery safety organisation. He opens his club and a fire occurs. The club burns down and because there is no fire safety equipment or fire escape, everyone dies.

In your view, it would not be the club owner's fault the these people died, it would be the employees' fault for choosing to work in an unsafe environment, and presumably the customers' fault for going there?

Does this seem reasonable?

Firefighting is one of the few duties that I think probably should be handled by the government. That's because, unlike smoking, a fire has the potential to harm even those who don't patronize the offending establishment. A building that is on fire poses a threat to surrouding buildings and to people in the area.

Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to enact mandatory, government-enforcable fire safety regulations, just as we have right now in the United States.

If this seems a little extreme, then let's examine your ideas further ~

So, a packer decides to look for a job in a factory. To do this, you are saying this person needs firstly to be fully conversant with all hundreds of potential safety risks in that factory and be able to evaluate them against the measures put in place by the company (assuming public disclosure of these measures is not voluntary also). In other words, in addition to being a factory packer, this person also needs advanced health and safety training combined with an inordinate amount of free time in order to evaluate the safety of each prospective establishment.

No. I did not, in fact, say that. If you'll re-read my previous post, you'll surely notice that I specifically supported the establishment of a private safety organization. The packer doesn't need to know anything about workplace safety; he need only trust this safety organization to alert him to potential safety hazards, much like he trusts the MPAA to alert him to films that might be inapropriate for his children, much like he trusts Consumer Reports to alert him to the drawbacks of the new cell phone he's thinking of purchasing, and much like he trusts the government to do the exact same safety-monitoring job right now.

This organization needn't operate significantly differently than existing regulatory agencies, with the important exception that the government would not be involved, so participation and compliance would not be compulsory.

 

[malha111]

We have a nationwide ban on smoking in all establishments wich serve food and/or beverages here in Sweden. I'm a former smoker (quit half a year after the ban, but not because of it and still smokes when I drink alcohol) and I must say it's a wonderful thing. And after all — it's not that hard to go outside to have a smoke.

 

[blutoski]

What matters is that tintinus is a very real illness that can cause very real pain, for days, for someone exposed to loud noises.

Not to make light of your statement, but is that the disease where you slowly turn into a Belgian reporter with a cowlick and a white dog?

 

[Greyman]

It is more reasonable to compare regulating second-hand smoke to regulations protecting us against other carcinogens. Your argument breaks down in that situation.

Linda

I agree and was speaking to this discrepancy in Barons challenge that ignoring fire safety <and other work safety measures> is the same as allowing second hand smoke.

I may have taken Barons post differently than it was meant. It wouldn't be the first time.

Speaking of carcinogens. What are the workplace safety measures in place re: carcinogens? How does secondhand smoke measure up when compared to them?

 

[blutoski]

It is more reasonable to compare regulating second-hand smoke to regulations protecting us against other carcinogens. Your argument breaks down in that situation.

Linda

Particularly re: "chemicals". Benzine "may" cause damage. Vicose "may" cause damage. Heavy metals "may" cause damage. Coal dust "may" cause damage.

Ionizing radiation "may" cause damage. Depends on a lot of unpredictable factors, such as intensity and duration of exposure and genetic predisposition.

So, exposure to toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, &c, is covered by occupational code.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought there were ground rules for cancer studies. Like exposure must double the rates, elimination/treatment must halve the rates, otherwise statistics/clusters can overly influence a study. Look at the 2,000,000 deaths in this country every year, 2,500 hundred extra from hand-me-down smoke is a pretty small risk.

Casebro, all research results of this nature include statistical analysis giving the probability the results are from chance alone. Results are typically reported as confidence [level] of P<5 or P<1 meaning less than 5% or 1% respectively, chance of a false result.

There are no ground rules as you are describing per se. Maybe someone described the statistical analysis in over-simplistic terms and that is what you are recalling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here I am again thinking this is a new thread and when I post I see there are 5 pages and it's an older thread. I have to start remembering to check that. D'oh

Never mind, the above was probably addressed in the previous 5 pages.