Local Smoking Ban

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As long as the emlpoyer is up front with any potential hires, and tells them that they will be working around ETS, then the worker can make their own decision whether or not to work there. [/B]

Does this apply to all workplace hazards? And what do you mean by "up front"? Would it be enough to tell a nuclear plant worker that "they will be working around radiation"? Does that negate any requirement to avoid exposure to radioactive material?

 

[Ziggurat]

The other was a study of people with asthma. Those people should know enough to avoid situations that might cause them harm. That's their responsibility. Not mine.

(snip)

As long as the emlpoyer is up front with any potential hires, and tells them that they will be working around ETS, then the worker can make their own decision whether or not to work there.

So if you have asthma, you should never go to a restraunt you're not familiar with? That's what your argument amounts to. If you've never been to a given restraunt before, you can't know what the ventilation inside is like, you can't know how much smoke from the smoking section will drift into your area.

And I'm sorry, but your conception of worker's rights just doesn't square up with the law or the courts. Could an employer with dangerous machinery, for example, decide not to put safety measures in place and just warn his employees that it's dangerous? Apparently it's not just anti-smoking laws you have a problem with, it's worker safety in general.

 

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

If it is accepted that smoke contains a number of carcinogens and is responsible for causing cancer, which I think it generally is, then is it unreasonable to ban employers from exposing employees to it in the workplace? How is this different from banning exposure to, say, radiation or asbestos?

The vapor of gasoline contains carcinogens. I am not ready to close all gas stations, as it seems to me the risk is a reasonable trade off for the gains of the eternal combustion engine.

I can understand not wanting to work in a smoke filled bar. I am sure it is not healthy. Even though I think it will be difficult to attribute many cases of illness directly to second hand smoke, I am willing to say that second hand smoke may have contributed to illness.

But I do not think that justifies a ban. The consumption of Alcohol in bars can easily be directly linked injury and death for people who do not use the product.

I work in the IT department of a University. I sit in front of a CRT for most of the day. Computers have been linked to many aliments ranging from the common carpal tunnel syndrome to increased risk of miscarriage. Why not ban computers? My brother cleans hazardous waste for a living. His job is most likely going to kill him if he does it long enough. But he is young, single, and makes a lot of money doing it. He is the safety inspector (with a BS in hazardous waste removal) and it is not uncommon for me to see him with acid burns, weird rashes, or general complaints about how crappy his job is. But he chooses to still do it because of the money he makes.

If an employer is mandated to remove all potential hazards from a job, it would be impossible to do almost anything. At this point I do not think that there is enough evidence to show that health risks involved with second hand smoke warrant its ban from private establishments that are open to the public. It the risks are that high, why is the tobacco itself not banned?

What I do think is that smokers are a minority who use a product that the majority generally considers a smelly, unpalatable, bother. It is an easy target. It is going. I still have not seen an argument against second hand smoke that could not be applied to alcohol. The dangers of alcohol’s consumption to non-users are much easier to make. But alcohol is a not an easy target. There is not as much popular sentiment against it. There would be outrage in Toledo if the city council tried to ban the consumption of alcohol in bars or restaurants. Would it be safer to work in a bar if alcohol was not server? I seriously doubt anyone can say no with a straight face. Would fewer people die from drunk drivers if alcohol was banned? I suspect so. If the majority of people smoked, would there be initiatives to ban smoking? I suspect not.

 

[Tormac]

Ziggurat suggested (to VicDaring)

And I'm sorry, but your conception of worker's rights just doesn't square up with the law or the courts. Could an employer with dangerous machinery, for example, decide not to put safety measures in place and just warn his employees that it's dangerous? Apparently it's not just anti-smoking laws you have a problem with, it's worker safety in general.

Well I think a closer anology to the smoking ban in Toledo would be demanding that a factory remove all hazardus machinery period, reguardless of impact on final product, or the bottom line of the company invoved.

 

[VicDaring]

So if you have asthma, you should never go to a restraunt you're not familiar with? That's what your argument amounts to. If you've never been to a given restraunt before, you can't know what the ventilation inside is like, you can't know how much smoke from the smoking section will drift into your area.

Got a phone?

And I'm sorry, but your conception of worker's rights just doesn't square up with the law or the courts. Could an employer with dangerous machinery, for example, decide not to put safety measures in place and just warn his employees that it's dangerous? Apparently it's not just anti-smoking laws you have a problem with, it's worker safety in general.

Straw man. So is Jaggy's nuclear stuff. Neither one is what we're talking about here.

I think we're also about a post or two away from just talking this in circles as well.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Tormac

I still have not seen an argument against second hand smoke that could not be applied to alcohol.

If I have a drink and do not break any laws (drink driving, assault, drunk & disorderly, etc.) does this have any impact on anyone other than me? Is the same true of smoking?

Does the fact I had a glass of wine in the same room as you mean that your clothes smell? Is it likely to bring on an asthma attack in someone who suffers from asthma? Both of these are true of smoking.

The fact that there is a level of consumption of alcohol that appear to be beneficial to health, which is not true of smoking?

Three specific arguments differentiating second hand smoke and alcohol.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I do think is that smokers are a minority who use a product that the majority generally considers a smelly, unpalatable, bother. It is an easy target. It is going. I still have not seen an argument against second hand smoke that could not be applied to alcohol. The dangers of alcohol’s consumption to non-users are much easier to make. But alcohol is a not an easy target. There is not as much popular sentiment against it. There would be outrage in Toledo if the city council tried to ban the consumption of alcohol in bars or restaurants. Would it be safer to work in a bar if alcohol was not server? I seriously doubt anyone can say no with a straight face. Would fewer people die from drunk drivers if alcohol was banned? I suspect so. If the majority of people smoked, would there be initiatives to ban smoking? I suspect not.

Well, let's think about this for a moment. People want to smoke, and other people don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke. Proposed solution: make them do it outside. Oh, the tragedy of it all! Now, will that sort of solution work with alcohol? No, of course not, that doesn't get you anything, getting drunk on the street isn't a step up from geting drunk at the bar. Outright bans on alcohol have also been tried, and been shown not to work in pretty much any sense. Outlawing smoking completely would probably also not be effective. But bans on smoking cigarettes in restraunts are in effect in many places, and they are working exactly as intended. Sorry, but I really can't feel very sorry for those poor oppressed smokers.

 

[Silicon]

Okay, I said:

Find me a respected body of medical professionals that look at ALL the evidence of all the studies, and say there is no evidence for ETS health risks.

Then VicDaring said:

Okay, how about This one *warning...pdf document*

From a UCLA professor and SUNY prof., published in the British Medical Journal in May. Using data from the American Cancer Society.

Okay, what part of my challenge was unclear?

Thats ONE STUDY from a "body" of professors, not doctors (if you call the two who did the study a "body"), who didn't look at all of the evidence from all of the studies, they looked at the methodology of ONE study, the American Cancer Society study.

I asked for "ONE reputable medical organization who has NOT come out against second-hand smoke."


One study isn't a medical organization. Like, for example, the British Medical Association. (Which "called the report "fundamentally flawed," and said it was based on questionable data. ")


The Fair and Balanced New York Post article is kind of comical. They don't even cite the article or the authors! That's like something out of the Weekly World News! Cite sources, you hacks!

Wow, they quoted Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, head of THE American Council of Science and Health?

That's a libertarian science advocacy group, not a medical organization. Hey, they're your go-to-quote machine when you need a grabber on this one. If ever the Heritage Foundation had a favorite environmental group, it's the ACSH!


She also seems to flip-flop on whether second-hand smoke is proven harmful or not. Read around their site, you'll find letters by her that say both. I guess there's the controversy, both sides of Dr. Whelan can't agree on this!


Why the Post quotes her, rather than the authors of the study, I can only guess. Probably out of being fair and balanced.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Straw man. So is Jaggy's nuclear stuff. Neither one is what we're talking about here.

I think we're also about a post or two away from just talking this in circles as well.

Your argument was that it was sufficient for an employer to tell an employee they will be exposed to a substance that is known to cause cancer (smoke) and that no other protection was needed (smoking ban).

Could you point out the logical difference between that statement and "It is sufficient to tell an employee they will be exposed to a substance that is known to cause cancer (radiation) and that no other protection is needed (measures to reduce exposure, radiation suit etc.)."

It is not a strawman to point out the logical consequences of your argument.

 

[Silicon]

It the risks are that high, why is the tobacco itself not banned?
[/B]

Cause the addicts would storm the gates, and the Libertarians would lend them their guns.

But you knew that.

 

[shanek]

I assume then you would have no objection to employees working in premises with nuclear waste/asbestos etc without any protective equipment? After all, the employee must be "free" to do so.

If they're fully aware of the situation and voluntarily assume all of the risks, sure. Of course, the workplace would still be responsible for any injuries or other health problems incurred by an employee while working there.

 

[shanek]

So if you have asthma, you should never go to a restraunt you're not familiar with?

Of course. It's YOUR condition, so it's YOUR responsibility to check out if any substances you're sensitive to will be in the vicinity. It's not like it's hard; it just takes a phone call.

Should we ban the wearing of perfume and cologne in restaurants because some people have severe allergies to them?

 

[Ziggurat]

Should we ban the wearing of perfume and cologne in restaurants because some people have severe allergies to them?

If the majority of people think we should, then yes. I'm not personally in favor of that, because I don't think that's a big enough issue. I happen to think smoking in restraunts is, and I'm far from alone. Welcome to democracy.

 

[VicDaring]

I asked for "ONE reputable medical organization who has NOT come out against second-hand smoke."

That'd be pretty tough since none can politically afford to make anything but anti-tobacco public statements. I mean, I guess I'll concede the point, but it seems kind of meaningless to me.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I wasn't real thrilled about citing the Post. They probably quoted Whalen because the study authors wouldn't return their calls.

And I'm seriously considering lobbying for that Karaoke ban.

 

[Silicon]

That'd be pretty tough since none can politically afford to make anything but anti-tobacco public statements. I mean, I guess I'll concede the point, but it seems kind of meaningless to me.

I'm not talking about them making any public statement. I'm just talking about finding one that HASN'T made any statement, hasn't taken a position.

You're right, it would be difficult to make a pro-ETS statement, as a health organization. I recognize that probably nobody would do that. That's why I tried to make it easier somewhat, and just request one that is still silent on the matter.

I will admit that is a harder thing to Google, and so the discussion deck is somewhat stacked in my favor on that one. I would be willing to cede that there IS in fact a controversy IF there were prominent medical organizations that were undecided.

Seeing none, I think that there isn't a controversy within the medical establishment.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I wasn't real thrilled about citing the Post. They probably quoted Whalen because the study authors wouldn't return their calls.

And I'm seriously considering lobbying for that Karaoke ban.

Gotcha. Yeah, that article wasn't the best. What the hell's with the Post anyway running articles without attribution? That article wouldn't have run in my high school paper!


And I'm with you on the Karaoke ban!

 

[Silicon]

Duplicate post. ignore.

 

[shanek]

If the majority of people think we should, then yes.

So, then you favor tyranny. If a majority of people thing that black people are offensive then we should let the government ban them from restaurants, I guess...

Welcome to democracy.

yourself. This isn't a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. The reason it's a Constitutional Republic is to try and prevent people like you from doing exactly what you're advocating.

If a majority favor restaurants that prohibit smoking, then why don't they all prohibit smoking on their own? Since you seem to be in complete denial about restaurants doing that voluntarily, perhaps you could explain this contradiction.

 

[Grammatron]

Well, let's think about this for a moment. People want to smoke, and other people don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke. Proposed solution: make them do it outside. Oh, the tragedy of it all! Now, will that sort of solution work with alcohol? No, of course not, that doesn't get you anything, getting drunk on the street isn't a step up from geting drunk at the bar. Outright bans on alcohol have also been tried, and been shown not to work in pretty much any sense. Outlawing smoking completely would probably also not be effective. But bans on smoking cigarettes in restraunts are in effect in many places, and they are working exactly as intended. Sorry, but I really can't feel very sorry for those poor oppressed smokers.

Why do you feel the need to protect people who do not wish to be protected? I may not like smoking, but I don't mind going into a bar once in a while that is full of smoke. And guess what, if people truly do not wish to go to places that have smoking in them, the market will adapt and the owners of those establishments will themselves ban smoking. I saw that trend in LA before they banned it all together. But again, I could still find a place where I could enjoy a drink and a smoke, now I can't because it's illegal to do a legal activity.

 

[Ziggurat]

But again, I could still find a place where I could enjoy a drink and a smoke, now I can't because it's illegal to do a legal activity.

It is, by definition, never illegal to do a legal activity. That SHOULD be an obvious tautology.

 

[Grammatron]

It is, by definition, never illegal to do a legal activity. That SHOULD be an obvious tautology.

Yet it's illegal to smoke in a bar while still being legal to smoke.