Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ani, I love you and I usually agree with you. However, me being fat and eating unhealthy foods doesn't make Chik-fil-A or Harris Teeter anymore unsafe to work at....
I love you, too, hooligan!!!
I agree with you. Workplace safety is a big issue and I fully support OSHA. In fact, I worked hard in the 70s to see that the furniture industry in NC cleaned up their act.
But that is not what this ban is about. If OSHA wants to put in a reg on cigarette smoking and workers . . . that is w/in OSHA's authority. This ban may be supported by workers as well as consumers, but it is not being put in place for workplace safety. The ban is a response to a social issue, b/c a portion of the public doesn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, so they have made it into an issue. Government buildings, hospitals, etc. already ban smoking. These are public areas, not privately owned small businesses, such as restaurants and bars/pubs/taverns.
My contention is . . . you have a choice whether to patronize any restaurant or bar. There is no reason to put a ban in place b/c the onus is on the consumer to choose. As I said before, DINING OUT IS NOT A MANDATE OR NECESSITY IN LIFE. It is a choice.
As for workers, they can choose where to work as many restaurants are already smoke-free. This is not like a furniture factory or textile mill worker's situation. Every mill and every factory has certain materials wh/ are either bronchial irritants, for example. So if one works in those industries, one WILL be exposed to certain toxins/irritants, so safety masks, better ventilation, etc. needed to be standardized. Restaurants are NOT all alike and therefore, workers can CHOOSE what environment they wish to be in.
As for the outcry about smoking as a health issue . . . people have been beaten on the head about health issues, but the thing is - this is a POPULAR subject to demonize and the public won't believe the facts any longer b/c the evils have been so widely published. The facts are: around 10-15% of smokers develop lung cancer. But you won't see that fact published b/c it is not to the advantage of insurance companies to publish it. The lung cancer rate for smokers is about the same as for non-smokers. Now, I am sure y'all are gonna argue about that but it doesn't matter to me . . . I just do research and I am not responsible for the agenda of all those organizations out there who beat the drum about smoking and lung cancer.
The facts are . . . many non-smokers get aggravated around smokers. You add to that the hysteria that has been created by very biased reports re: second hand smoke. Yes, it can set off asthma. For sure! But so can all sorts of other environmental particulates. You don't see people in the streets screaming about TIRES and the particulates they send into the atmosphere on hot days, do you? Yet, those particulates can be as irritating (or MORE irritating) to someone with bronchial problems. Why don't you see this? Cause, we all drive cars and even public transportation (buses) have tires. America moves on tires.
I am not an apologist for smoking! But I am firmly of the belief that people have been deliberately led to believing that cancer will disappear and no more asthma, etc. if smoking disappeared. It is a totally faulty assumption! Even w/o smokers . . . there are so many pollutants in the atmosphere - people w/ bronchial problems will continue having them. So that is one issue that just makes me shake my head.
The other issue is that a business owner establishes a business to make MONEY. If government regs keep affecting how a person can create a business model . . . where is the incentive to even have a business? For most restaurants, there is the recognition that smokers have been demonized, so they are going smoke-free on their one volition. But rest assured - the stats really do show that in a bar, patrons who smoke order more drinks. FACT.
All the non-smokers will doubtless win this round, at least - eventually. For me, it is just one more time that a "ban" on something that is essentially a social issue has taken away a business owner's freedom to decide what clientele he/she wishes to serve in order to MAKE A LIVING.
For those of you who think somehow as a consumer you have the right to DEMAND how a business owner decides to run his/her business . . . that is a ludicrous demand and totally illogical. Just cause you want to buy lingerie and you go into a store that doesn't sell petite sizes . . . are you gonna work to get a reg in place that all lingerie shops are required to carry petite sizes b/c you are petite and you DEMAND that you be catered to? You have a choice - you can go shop somewhere else. Same for restaurants. You don't want to be around smokers? Either find a restaurant that is non-smoking or stay home. OH OH - I am taking your right away to DINE OUT? Well, I believe some of you said that the smokers' rights are exactly that - stay home and smoke. So I don't get where people think somehow one groups "rights" are more important than the others - after all - it is a matter of CHOICES.
But I know y'all will go back to discussing how second hand smoke is going to kill you and your children, even tho once again . . . I will state . . . DO NOT GO TO RESTAURANTS THAT ALLOW SMOKING. This is easy. But I know I am in the minority in my thinking.
And I certainly do not mean to offend anyone b/c my view on this subject does not match theirs. We all come to form our opinions based on many factors - not just personal experience. I respect that. I just think we have become a nation of people who want to regulate everything instead of putting the onus on individuals to make choices - instead of demanding that everyone COMPLY w/ our opinions.
As to BMI . . . my point is . . . and I stick by this prediction . . . the next group in this country to have the finger pointed at them will be anyone who is overweight. And b/c people can't seem to make their own choices w/o some group deriding those decisions (what food to eat) . . . you watch! The trans-fat issue is just the start! Discrimination against overweight people is just beginning. And the government is gonna step in and regulate what products are out there and who can consume them - cause we have become a Nanny state and Uncle Sam has decided the populace wants the gubment to mandate "what is best for us."
Location: Some got six month some got one solid. But me and my buddies all got lifetime here
4,555 posts, read 10,401,557 times
Reputation: 2162
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
The difference there is that drunk driving *is* illegal, Brian. Alcohol isn't the problem, drinking and driving is. No one is saying that cigarettes should be made illegal...
You missed my point. It's still something that kills people. It could take years of going to or working in smoke filled bars and restaurants for someone to suffer the effects of second hand smoke, yet it could take a single bar visit to end the lives of however many occupants inside of a vehicle, people who could have been miles away from that particular establishment.
When you say alcohol isn't the problem, drinking and driving is...you can't drink and drive without the alcohol. Your body doesn't manufacture it's own BAC, it needs a little help.
And you're right...drunk driving is illegal. To the best of my knowledge there's nothing illegal about blowing smoke into somebody's face. Essentially alcohol should be banned first because the potential devastating effects are far more immediate than someone inhaling second hand smoke.
I'm not sure if anyone has died from a single intake of second hand smoke, but thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of someone else's lone bar visit.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,152,651 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
<sigh>
I think you're being intentionally thick on this. At least I hope you are, for your sake.
The point is that second-hand smoke increases the health risks for employees. Your argument is that those people can go work somewhere else. Well, you can say the same for any workplace.
So, I should be able to open a textile plant (that hits home here in NC, right?) and ignore worker safety issues. After all, implementing those safety measures will cost money, thus reducing my profit - which is your argument, that non-smoking restaurants and bars will lose business and become less profitable. Nevermind that my fictional textile workers are losing fingers/limbs in unsafe machinery and breathing in unhealthy chemicals that are linked to cancer and other respiratory illness. Afterall, my employees could just quit and go work someplace where it's safer.
Is that what you're saying? Honestly?
Just clarify for you, I'm not being thick-headed. I'm being facetious, by design.
Reason being, that your analogy of "The Fishing Boat and Fisherman " is at best a weak one and has more holes than a 5 lbs slab of swiss cheese.
You're trying to speak in complete absolutes........Black or White absolutes.
And I think you know that. You're trying to force a rather vulnerable, flimsy analogy into being your prime example. And I think you know that. If you don't, then, you are truely the one being thick-headed.
Did you know that in a large majority of corporate/commercial buildings the consumption of alcohol is prohibited?
But yet, in Breweries and Wineries employees and visitors are permited to 'taste" and consume .......beer and wine? With a rational and reasonable limit on quantity of consumption. Did you know that there are people who's jobs at these Breweries and Wineries is to "taste" and consume" the product, for the purpose of maintaining consistency of the product?
Did you know that in some very high end Wine retail shops, customers are permitted to sample/taste and consume an assortment of wines?
Did you know that while smoking and alcohol consuption is prohibited in many corporate buildings/offices; many CEO's/Ownership often have alcohol on hand for big meetings with respresentitives of other business (when trying to cut/gain a big contract)? That they often smoke cigars or cigerettes and offer a drink? This in corporate buildings/offices were smoking/alcohol consuption is prohibited.
But how could that be in hooligan's Black or White World?
Your fictional textile workers are exactly that. A fictional spin-job you conjured up, in a desperate attempt to support your flimsy argument.
You trying to draw a parallel of safety regulations between workers losing hand digits ...limbs....and being exposed to highly toxic or highly caustic... immediate damaging chemicals and workers working a smoking section; is either intellectually misleading or dishonest. Especially when you consider the ventilation sytems a lot of the smoking sections these places already have in place.....for their smoking sections and the fact employees often have a choice to work in non-smoking or smoking. Of course there are circumstances and variables that may force an employee.
There are plenty of food establishments people go to, who don't serve alcohol. Yet, some food establishments offer alcohol
Load and behold, customers make a conscience choice as to what establishment (serving alcohol/not serving alcohol) they will patronize?
Oh my, how does that occur in hooligan's Black or White World?
Did you know that despite the FDA's " Safety Regulations and Codes, every year more people either die or suffer serious long term biological/health damage as a result of legal FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs? More so than the amount of people who either die or suffer serious long term biological/health damage as a result from the usage of illegal drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine, Meth and ......you know Marijuana.
Did you know that despite the FDA's " Safety Regulations and Codes, that unless you're eating true organic vegetables, grains and fruits; you are exposing yourself and your family to highly dangerous pesticides.... with meal.
How could there be different standards for your standard vegetables, grains and fruits and true organic vegetables, grains and fruits.
But how could that be in hooligan's Black or White World?
Sorry, but we don't live in a world of black or white absolutes.
Even in the Fishing industry there are variables, different regulations and standards; based on size of boat, size of crew and what they're fishing for.
One of my dad's good friends in Cape May, NJ is a professional fisherman.
And still, they smoke on their boats. Which makes your analogy rather silly, because your attempting to use Safety Regulations and Codes on Fishing boats as an argument against business owners rights of having the choice to be smoking or non-smoking.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,152,651 times
Reputation: 1082
Superb post, Ani!!!
That was something I wanted to touch on, but I didn't have the statistics.
Cigerettes have been getting the "Reefer Madness" treatment for a long time, now.
Now, that doesn't mean I think cigerettes are not harmful. I know they pose a potential danger.
And you can ask Brian and he'll tell you......I never smoke any where with my kids. Always outside. Never in the car....Never in their presence.
I started smoking outside when we first learned she was pregnant with our first child.
And I do try to be considerate of my non-smoker friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
I love you, too, hooligan!!!
I agree with you. Workplace safety is a big issue and I fully support OSHA. In fact, I worked hard in the 70s to see that the furniture industry in NC cleaned up their act.
But that is not what this ban is about. If OSHA wants to put in a reg on cigarette smoking and workers . . . that is w/in OSHA's authority. This ban may be supported by workers as well as consumers, but it is not being put in place for workplace safety. The ban is a response to a social issue, b/c a portion of the public doesn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, so they have made it into an issue. Government buildings, hospitals, etc. already ban smoking. These are public areas, not privately owned small businesses, such as restaurants and bars/pubs/taverns.
My contention is . . . you have a choice whether to patronize any restaurant or bar. There is no reason to put a ban in place b/c the onus is on the consumer to choose. As I said before, DINING OUT IS NOT A MANDATE OR NECESSITY IN LIFE. It is a choice.
As for workers, they can choose where to work as many restaurants are already smoke-free. This is not like a furniture factory or textile mill worker's situation. Every mill and every factory has certain materials wh/ are either bronchial irritants, for example. So if one works in those industries, one WILL be exposed to certain toxins/irritants, so safety masks, better ventilation, etc. needed to be standardized. Restaurants are NOT all alike and therefore, workers can CHOOSE what environment they wish to be in.
As for the outcry about smoking as a health issue . . . people have been beaten on the head about health issues, but the thing is - this is a POPULAR subject to demonize and the public won't believe the facts any longer b/c the evils have been so widely published. The facts are: around 10-15% of smokers develop lung cancer. But you won't see that fact published b/c it is not to the advantage of insurance companies to publish it. The lung cancer rate for smokers is about the same as for non-smokers. Now, I am sure y'all are gonna argue about that but it doesn't matter to me . . . I just do research and I am not responsible for the agenda of all those organizations out there who beat the drum about smoking and lung cancer.
The facts are . . . many non-smokers get aggravated around smokers. You add to that the hysteria that has been created by very biased reports re: second hand smoke. Yes, it can set off asthma. For sure! But so can all sorts of other environmental particulates. You don't see people in the streets screaming about TIRES and the particulates they send into the atmosphere on hot days, do you? Yet, those particulates can be as irritating (or MORE irritating) to someone with bronchial problems. Why don't you see this? Cause, we all drive cars and even public transportation (buses) have tires. America moves on tires.
I am not an apologist for smoking! But I am firmly of the belief that people have been deliberately led to believing that cancer will disappear and no more asthma, etc. if smoking disappeared. It is a totally faulty assumption! Even w/o smokers . . . there are so many pollutants in the atmosphere - people w/ bronchial problems will continue having them. So that is one issue that just makes me shake my head.
The other issue is that a business owner establishes a business to make MONEY. If government regs keep affecting how a person can create a business model . . . where is the incentive to even have a business? For most restaurants, there is the recognition that smokers have been demonized, so they are going smoke-free on their one volition. But rest assured - the stats really do show that in a bar, patrons who smoke order more drinks. FACT.
All the non-smokers will doubtless win this round, at least - eventually. For me, it is just one more time that a "ban" on something that is essentially a social issue has taken away a business owner's freedom to decide what clientele he/she wishes to serve in order to MAKE A LIVING.
For those of you who think somehow as a consumer you have the right to DEMAND how a business owner decides to run his/her business . . . that is a ludicrous demand and totally illogical. Just cause you want to buy lingerie and you go into a store that doesn't sell petite sizes . . . are you gonna work to get a reg in place that all lingerie shops are required to carry petite sizes b/c you are petite and you DEMAND that you be catered to? You have a choice - you can go shop somewhere else. Same for restaurants. You don't want to be around smokers? Either find a restaurant that is non-smoking or stay home. OH OH - I am taking your right away to DINE OUT? Well, I believe some of you said that the smokers' rights are exactly that - stay home and smoke. So I don't get where people think somehow one groups "rights" are more important than the others - after all - it is a matter of CHOICES.
But I know y'all will go back to discussing how second hand smoke is going to kill you and your children, even tho once again . . . I will state . . . DO NOT GO TO RESTAURANTS THAT ALLOW SMOKING. This is easy. But I know I am in the minority in my thinking.
And I certainly do not mean to offend anyone b/c my view on this subject does not match theirs. We all come to form our opinions based on many factors - not just personal experience. I respect that. I just think we have become a nation of people who want to regulate everything instead of putting the onus on individuals to make choices - instead of demanding that everyone COMPLY w/ our opinions.
As to BMI . . . my point is . . . and I stick by this prediction . . . the next group in this country to have the finger pointed at them will be anyone who is overweight. And b/c people can't seem to make their own choices w/o some group deriding those decisions (what food to eat) . . . you watch! The trans-fat issue is just the start! Discrimination against overweight people is just beginning. And the government is gonna step in and regulate what products are out there and who can consume them - cause we have become a Nanny state and Uncle Sam has decided the populace wants the gubment to mandate "what is best for us."
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,152,651 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianH1970
You missed my point. It's still something that kills people. It could take years of going to or working in smoke filled bars and restaurants for someone to suffer the effects of second hand smoke, yet it could take a single bar visit to end the lives of however many occupants inside of a vehicle, people who could have been miles away from that particular establishment.
When you say alcohol isn't the problem, drinking and driving is...you can't drink and drive without the alcohol. Your body doesn't manufacture it's own BAC, it needs a little help.
And you're right...drunk driving is illegal. To the best of my knowledge there's nothing illegal about blowing smoke into somebody's face. Essentially alcohol should be banned first because the potential devastating effects are far more immediate than someone inhaling second hand smoke.
I'm not sure if anyone has died from a single intake of second hand smoke, but thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of someone else's lone bar visit.
My friend Thane from Sussex NJ lost his wife and 10 month old daughter to a drunk driver, who had several prior DWI/DUI. They were killed instanly.
Thane lost his who life in a matter of seconds. It was horrible. He was devestated. As were we.
I was so angry. And to this day drunk drivers have a special place in the contempt file, in my head
The reason i do not agree with smoking in public places is simply for the fact that I don't want my children to be subject to the smoke in a restaurant if it were a bar that would be a different story but even with smoking and non smoking sections the smoke still gets through.
Im not against smoking at all, even though my father passed away last may due to lung and throat cancer, i belive the choice is all yours, but I feel that we should keep the smoking banned at restaruants and places of that nature.
[font=Verdana]It’s obvious you have little knowledge of the legal aspect of chemical handling and exposure in the workplace.
I actually have quite a bit of knowledge on most aspects of the law and this is about personal property rights. It's not a Health issue, if it is then OSHA should get involved, but they aren't.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,152,651 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophialee
I actually have quite a bit of knowledge on most aspects of the law and this is about personal property rights. It's not a Health issue, if it is then OSHA should get involved, but they aren't.
And that's another aspect of amploud's argument which falls right on it's face.
OSHA is in now way involved. OSHA has no regualtions, codes or guidelines...whatsoever.
When OSHA begins testing the concentration of cigerette smoke in a business (parts oer million) and comes up with a standard of regulations; then talk to me about OSHA.
Otherwise, if you bring up OSHA in this discussion; we may as well bring up the NFL and their league regulations. They both have an equal amount of revelence in this topic. None.
Well, as we have seen, this is a very hot topic!!! I think that may be b/c we know people who have gotten lung disease and we don't want to see others have that problem.
I truly do understand both sides . . . I just see it as another gubment regulation that impedes businesses from serving whatever clientele they choose to serve.
That doesn't mean that I don't fully understand why people get upset about cigarette smoke.
My son had asthma problems as a child. I had quit smoking b/f he I became pregnant with him and I decided that he was simply NOT going to be exposed to any irritants that I could control (can't control tire particulates and other people's perfume- but I could choose my restaurants). It was harder to find non-smoking restaurants back in those days, but I found them! If we ate out, it was at a non-smoking restaurant. So I guess that is why I find this a specious argument . . . cause I know if I could find non-smoking restaurants back in 1985, ya'll can find them today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
