Smoking bans GOOD!

[shockingelk]

In another thread, decrying smoking bans as "jackbooted, motherfucking, Nazi SHIT" and crying out for rational arguments supportive of smoking bans, I read the following,

Or why a business can't start up, that clearly states that it's a smoking establishment, and gives people the choice to come and come and work, or not?

I responded,

Or why a business can't start up, that clearly states that it's built on a toxic waste dump, and gives people the choice to come and come and work, or not?

I see no difference except for perhaps varying degrees of wrong.

Nobody responded to me - to this or a similar post in the same thread. What's wrong with my argument? If it's the rightful role of government to ensure workplace safety, why should an exception be made for cigarette smoke?

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. I have made the point many times here.

Replace 'second hand smoke' with 'Benzene', and the whole picture changes.

Smoking is very ingrained in society, and it will take time for things to become clear to some folks.

[Bluebear]

4. "Cigarettes were a part of gracious living in the 1960's"

The above from an exhibit I just saw at the 6th street musuem in Dallas, explaining that JFK and Jackie preferred not being photographed smoking, but all the same it was de rigeur.

Your post is very true, Lincoln, smoking indeed is ingrained in society and it will take a few more generations for the 'air to clear'.

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. One of my bosses collects antique smoking adverts./paraphernalia

Some of the ads are just downright sick, knowing what we know today.

[MisterP]

2. you suburban Jew-hating Republican-helping traitor you!

[niyad]

3. because the "credible" evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke

is somewhat limited, to say the least?

I am not trying to be a smart -aleck-- I happen to be an allergic non-smoker. but frankly, I find other things far more damaging to my health than other people smoking around me--for example, that putrid crap called air that people in heavily industrialized cities have to breathe. I have other things to worry about--dioxin, mercury, phosphorus bombs, tear gas used against legal protestors, etc. etc.

the second-hand smoke debate has always struck me as a red herring. I can avoid smokers when they really bother me, I have NO CHOICE about breathing the polluted, foul air that our anti-enviornmental government permits.

you might, for example, want to investigate real statistics on the incidence of lung cancer in smokers vs non-smokers, just might surprise you.

[GrumpyGreg]

7. People who hate smoking would just blame the cancer in

non-smokers to second hand smoke. They see what they want to see.

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. I have seen that around here lately.

In the year 2005;

Are there still folks who think smoking isn't dangerous? Seriously?

I am open to reading opinions and discussions about perceived flaws in testing/study methodology, as yet all I have seen is folks "questioning" evidence.

It brings to mind the tactics of M Malkin saying last year that "Some folks are saying John Kerry shot himself for his purple heart" Or perhaps the righty talkers and pay rolled "scientists" who say global warming is a manufactured emergency, when 99% of scientists agree that the planet is warming, and we are the cause of it.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Are you kidding?

I have to breathe in the smoke from up to 100 cigarettes every day in a cramped airless office.

What is more damaging to me than that?

Indoor smoking bans do not persecute smokers, they benefit everyone.

I smoked for twenty years and never tried to justify poisoning myself or others with pseudo science.

I went outside and didn't whine about my "right" to force other people to smoke.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. I agree with the original post....

...but this thread will turn into another flamefest, with people who don't even live in Washington State telling us how to make our laws.

And yes, the "jackbooted, motherfucking, Nazi SHIT" was WAY over the line. Tobacco companies fund the Republicans. You know... those guys who are REALLY doing jackbooted motherfucking Nazi shit!

Just reading the rants from the tobacco junkies about to bust a blood vessel in these threads makes me want a drink. Too bad the ban isn't in effect until December 8.

[skids]

20. My tobacco company doesn't fund Republicans.

FWIW.

[dcfirefighter]

50. It's OK to tell Texans and Kansans how to make their laws. n/t

[The Traveler]

8. The flaw in your argument is obvious

It is absolutist. It also ignores the entire issue of value judgments.

The "varying degrees of wrong" is the crux of the matter. The issue is not whether it is the rightful role of government to ensure workplace safety, but a) what constitutes acceptable levels of safety and b) what other values are we willing to sacrifice to achieve those levels.

While toxic waste dumps offer little in the way of esthetic value or pleasure, it can be said that tobacco and other mind alterants can. Additional questions emerge. Is pleasure without value? Is fifty years of pleasure worth shaving off the last ten years of your life span? Who gets to make that choice?

That is a value judgment of the sort that a free society would choose to leave at least some control in the hands of individuals.

I like the way this wound up working in Georgia. Like all compromises, it is not perfect. Smoking is banned in restaurants and bars that admit those under age 21. This has caused certain dismay among non smokers who were shocked when several establishments elected to not admit those under the legal drinking age. But in my view, that is merely expressing dismay that businesses and individuals are still permitted some degree of choice in this matter.

[shockingelk]

12. The value judgement ...

... ought an employer be allowed to run a dangerous workplace?

I say no.

It seems to be you would either disagree, or claim second-hand smoke is harmless.

[The Traveler]

15. Nonsense.

A refusal to admit the point does not invalidate it. The point, made clearly enough I think, is that people should have the right to choose their risks.

I have many philosophical problems with your line of argument.

You are presuming, for example, that a risk free workplace is both possible and desireable. Risk reduction is achieved at some cost to some other value or ethic, and a point of diminishing return is eventually encountered.

One may debate where that point is and how far prudence commands one go beyond it. But to frame it in absolutist terms is hardly useful ... much like the old yarn about the physicist who assumed a spherical cow ...

But the point is lost on some people, who by and large assume that their values are the correct ones for everyone else. A significant minority disagrees with you, and in the state of Georgia that has translated into a workable business decision for some people. Many bar workers smoke, and do not mind the risk. There are many non-smoking restaurants and bars to provide employment and service to others. Everyone gets to choose. I like it that way. But then, I don't trust absolutists or their logic.

[shockingelk]

40. Yes I'm presuming

You are presuming, for example, that a risk free workplace is both possible and ah. desireable.'
Yes, I think a smoke-free environment is desirable. Don't you?

[opiate69]

18. Employers run dangerous workplaces every day...

welcome to reality.

[LincolnMcGrath]

19. So that is a good thing?

[opiate69]

21. Not good or bad.. it just is...

I don't particularly feel like falling off of a cable catwalk 500 feet above a dangerous narrows, so I don't build bridges for a living. The point being, the post I originally replied to was fallacious. There is no such thing as a 100% safe work enviornment.

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. I missed where the poster claimed there was such a thing as 100%

safe work place. :shrug:

Workplace safety has come a long way.

[opiate69]

24. Perhaps glasses would help.

From the post:

". ought an employer be allowed to run a dangerous workplace?

I say no."

Happens every day. Safety measures can be taken, but again, there is no such thing as a non-dangerous workplace.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. 20/20 on my end. I don't see 100% But, thanks for the condescension

My ex is a secretary in a grade school. Would you describe that vocation as dangerous or non dangerous?

My industry has a national average RIR of 11. Our plant has lowered that RIR from 9 in 2001 to 3.005 YTD this year. Are we wasting our time trying to maintain a high level of safety?

[opiate69]

28. Wasting your time? No..but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

The point being, no matter how safe you make your plant, it is still inherently unsafe. Your RIR numbers will never fall to 0 permanently. And yes, there are many dangers in yor wife's office. Electrical equipment, fire hazards, heavy boxes of files which could lead to permanent back injuries, etc..

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. So a secretary job is dangerous? I didn't ask if there were dangers.

I asked if it was dangerous. I also said ex wife. You were saying something about glasses?

You left out that a meteor could fall on the school! :eyes:

[opiate69]

32. Yes.. being a secretary has it's own unique dangers.

You wanna know why? Because for the thousandth time, there is no such thing as a dangerless workplace. We all choose our jobs based on various factors, including just what level of danger we will be willing to tolerate for the compensation.

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. Again, you are avoiding the answering the question.

Do you think being a grade school secretary is dangerous?

BTW I have been on 100 million dollar+ projects that were completed with zero fatalities, zero lost times, and zero recordables. That is a zero RIR for the project.

What I think you really mean is that if that lil cocktail waitress or barkeep doesn't like the smoke, they can just find another job. Is that about right?

[opiate69]

35. well, yes..

considering that here in Washington State, Non-smoking establishments already outnumber smoking establishments, the idea that people don't have a choice about where to work is absurd. And, yay for you and your zero RIR for the project..can you or any other firm continue that into perpetuity? Hardly.

[opiate69]

36. And, yes..even though I already answered..

being a grade school secretary has the same inherent dangers as any other office job. Is it as dangerous as say, bridge building? Of course not.. but as someone who has seen the debilitating effects of back injuries (sustained by a high-school english teacher, none the less), your condescention is also duly noted.

[LincolnMcGrath]

39. You're a teacher?

[400Years]

46. I guess you've never heard of carpal tunnel syndrome

Maybe you could get a job lying on feather pillows.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. I know plenty about CTDs

Find a new strawman.

[400Years]

51. not a strawman you are implying that some jobs are risk free

and that maybe all jobs could be somehow, by magic I presume.

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. Show me where I said that

[400Years]

53. I said imply

[LincolnMcGrath]

54. Thanks for stopping by.

[400Years]

55. Sorry to burst your bubble

but that was the crux of your weak argument.

[JVS]

25. I hope you don't eat commercial fish. That's dangerous work.

There could be blood on your hands.

[LincolnMcGrath]

31. Thats really too weak to be a quality strawman.

You can do better than that. Nobody here is arguing that they have a right to make commercial fishing more dangerous.

[opiate69]

33. No, it's not weak.. again.. which part of

". ought an employer be allowed to run a dangerous workplace?

I say no."

are you having a problem understanding? The poster is obviously stating that there should be no such thing as a dangerous workplace. A proposition that is as ludicrous as it is impossible.

[shockingelk]

44. dangerpous workplace

<i<The poster is obviously stating that there should be no such thing as a dangerous workplace.</i>

Yup

Do you figure it's OK for a worker to be exposed to a dangerous workplace?

[JVS]

37. By providing demand for the product you put those people in danger

It's kind of like blood diamond, but without the glitz and glamour

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. Your driving a car and the other ways you used steel products did

not equate with you advocating to make my job in the mill LESS safe.

[JVS]

41. With fish you had a choice to buy stuff grown in captivity or wild.

By choosing wild you have made the fish-providers' jobs more dangerous.

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. No actually I provided them with a job.

Your argument just doesn't apply here.

If everyone chose captive grown fish, nobody would have a job in wild commercial fishing.

By choosing 'wild' fish I have not chosen to make their job less safe.

Please explain how I have made their job more dangerous.

[JVS]

43. Working in the captive fishing industry is safer, they would be better...

with that job. Instead they have one of the most dangerous jobs around because people want "wild" fish. Heartless bastards, how can they live with themselves, think of those orphans.

[LincolnMcGrath]

45. Address the points made or reel in your lines!

Are the people who eat 'wild' fish making their jobs (as wild fishermen) more dangerous?

The answer is no.

In fact the industry has been making strides in safety.

[KitchenWitch]

9. I agree with you!

Minnesota was one of the first states to enact smoking sections. It will likely be one of the last states to enact a complete indoor ban...:eyes:

The county I live in has enacted a total ban, and I find it much more pleasureable to go out.

That said, it would be good to have the popcorn ready, since threads like this bring them out of the woodwork.

[Demit]

13. "Them" out of the woodwork? Charming.

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. I read "THEM" as both sides.

:shrug:

[walldude]

16. Oooh Another smoking thread

:eyes:
:popcorn:
:popcorn:
:popcorn:

[tcfrogs]

17. YES!!!

Let me light up and watch this one.:smoke:

[skids]

22. Somehow mine hasn't quite caught fire yet...

Do you think I approached it on too rational a basis?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5329085

[drhilarius]

27. (Choirs of Angels sing) Yessss, finally,a voice of

Reason in the wilderness. I have been suggesting, or rather it was just recently suggested to me, to use tax money from cigarettes to subsidize the use of filtration systems in large/ popular establishments (or bars that make x amount of money annually). This compromise is the most reasonable, but no-one can see beyond the all smoke/ no smoke extreme.

[Gabi Hayes]

30. fire BAD!

[nonconformist]

47. Please. If you would have actually read the original thread

You would note that the vast majority of the outrage was because of the ban on OUTDOOR smoking. Which is some jackbooted, motherfucking Nazi SHIT.

[Touchdown]

49. Oh' god. Not again.

We don't know if white phosphorous killd those people in Falluja or some new secret chemical that leaves clothes intact, but THIS silly issue is what stirs emotions up.:eyes:

As long as the world topples to the ground tobacco free, but marijuana cluttered, some will be happy with that.:puke:

[Avalux]

56. Locking.

This thread is nothing more than a continuation of a flame war from another thread. It's not productive and against DU rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html