posted
(Warning: VERY graphic mental picture ahead)
Here's another analogy I think is at least semi-valid: how would you feel about a billboard or TV commercial that said "Aborting babies is just gross" and depicted images of a woman queefing chunks of dead baby out of her vagina?
That's by far the most graphic imagine I've ever READ on Hatrack. I think you either need to edit, or you need a stronger warning.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the ads. I think they are an effective way to try and discourage smoking. Too often smokers take the attitude that it is there body so they should do what they want with it. The problem is that they are destroying lots of other sets of lungs as well and those people had no choice. If I had my way, smoking would be illegal.
Look, if you want to believe second hand smoke isn't dangerous thats your business. However, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Some people don't believe in man landing on the moon. I don't care what a very fringe minority with a vested interest in their conclusions think. I personally refuse to expose myself to second hand smoke if at all possible. I won't stay at people's homes who smoke, I don't eat or frequent places where smoking is allowed. If someone outside is smoking, I try to move to a new location. Not only is it a fear for my health but it also makes me feel ill to be around smokers. I develop headaches and often a sore throat. I have also noticed that the smell stays with me for days.
I have no problem with ads that depict smokers as harmful. They are harmful. They drive up health care costs and negatively effect everyone else's health. It is irrelevant if other things are also bad for people's health. There is no societal benefit to smoking. There are huge benefits to the automobile. Even with those benefits I still support regulations to reduce the harmful effects. I would certainly not want to be stuck indoors with lots of car fumes!
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, there's a serious amount of Smug in this thread. The anti-smokers are almost as annoyingly authoritarian as the people who drive hybrid cars and brag about it, and condemn you for not following suit.
Just because you don't like smoking, or second hand smoke, or smoke in your hair, I find it laughable that you have the gall to walk into a restaurant and tell all the smokers in there "you're not going to do that around me, because the world revolves around me, and everything and anything I don't like I'm going to use some kind of legislator to outlaw." Give me a break. What next, are you going to stop restaurants from serving cake because America is an obese society? I hate to break out the cliche argument, but it applies: if you don't like breathing in smoke, don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives to those smokey bars.
The accusation of child abuse by means of secondhand smoke is a joke. It demeans the people who have really been abused. Nevertheless, I guess I better phone my dad and berate him for the years of child abuse he inflicted. "Nevermind that I'm perfectly healthy dad, you're a monster!"
Smokers must feel like lepers these days. Hell, pretty soon I expect to see people running up to smokers and shouting "Unclean!!! Unclean!!!."
I'm not a smoker, but I find the way they're treated to be appalling. Just because you find the act of smoking disgusting, doesn't mean you should have the audacity to climb onto your high horse and pass judgements. You certainly have the right to protest, but you should expect reprisals as adamant as the ones you dish out.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it laughable that you have the gall to walk into a restaurant and tell all the smokers in there "you're not going to do that around me, because the world revolves around me, and everything and anything I don't like I'm going to use some kind of legislator to outlaw."
So Fitz, did you miss my post about how anti-smoking laws in workplaces are a workplace safety issue to protect employees?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are harmful. They drive up health care costs and negatively effect everyone else's health. It is irrelevant if other things are also bad for people's health.
It's not about whether there are other legal substances or products that are bad for people's health, rather, it is the perceived double standard taken toward the users themselves. I wouldn't be surprised to see an ad showing the negative impact of eating at McDonald's every day or driving an SUV. However, I would NOT expect to see an ad that attacks me personally if I were to do either of those perfectly legal things. Although, if an ad wants to address the effects that smoking has on others, fine, but they really shouldn't attack the entire group of smokers.
quote:I don't eat or frequent places where smoking is allowed.
I think this is an important comment. I too would prefer to be in a place that is smoke free, however, I'm not sure that the government should get too involved. In other words, if a restaurant or bar wants to permit smoking and all of the customers are there to smoke, shouldn't the restuarant be allowed to decide for themselves? After all, it's a business decision. They fully recognize that they may lose sales from people that don't want to be surrounded by smoke, and if they are willing to accept those losses, they should be able to make that decision. People still have the choice as to whether they go there or not.
Edit to add: However, I am in full agreement for laws that regulate smoking in businesses or public areas where smoking is not one of the main objectives for the group.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Fitz, did you miss my post about how anti-smoking laws in workplaces are a workplace safety issue to protect employees?
Did I disagree with you about work places? This is a situation where people are, for the most part, forced to be in a closed area. I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed here. With a restaurant, you have a choice to be there.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for employees of a bar or restaurant, well, they certainly do have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue their employment there. Don't tell me someone applies at a facility that allows smoking, and doesn't know what they're in for.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did I disagree with you about work places? This is a situation where people are, for the most part, forced to be in a closed area. I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed here. With a restaurant, you have a choice to be there.
Fitz, restaurants and bars ARE workplaces. You realize that don't you?
quote:In other words, if a restaurant or bar wants to permit smoking and all of the customers are there to smoke, shouldn't the restuarant be allowed to decide for themselves? After all, it's a business decision. They fully recognize that they may lose sales from people that don't want to be surrounded by smoke, and if they are willing to accept those losses, they should be able to make that decision. People still have the choice as to whether they go there or not.
Its not to protect customers, its to protect the employees.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say that.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Fitz, did you miss my post about how anti-smoking laws in workplaces are a workplace safety issue to protect employees?
Did I disagree with you about work places? This is a situation where people are, for the most part, forced to be in a closed area. I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed here. With a restaurant, you have a choice to be there.
Unless you work in a restaurant or bar.
BTW, I have significant health problems related to my mother smoking when I was young. This was before the effects of second-hand smoke were widely known, so not really her fault. And to her credit, once she did know, she quit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for employees of a bar or restaurant, well, they certainly do have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue their employment there. Don't tell me someone applies at a facility that allows smoking, and doesn't know what they're in for.
Okay, since you appear to have made the realization.
Why should software engineers have the right to a safe workplace and bartenders do not?
Should we repeal all workplace safety laws and simply force employers to tell their applicants what the dangers are?
"We have exposed asbestos here, and if you want to work here, you'll have to deal with it. That exposed electrical wire over there? Try and avoid that. Oh and our water here is poisoned, hope you don't mind. You could just go work someplace else, right?"
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I put a gun to a bartender's head and force him to work in a restaurant that allows smoking, your arugment might have some merit. When you apply for employment at a place that allows smoking, you know what you're in for. The food service industry is large enough that there are options.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, since you appear to have made the realization.
Why should software engineers have the right to a safe workplace and bartenders do not?
Should we repeal all workplace safety laws and simply force employers to tell their applicants what the dangers are?
"We have exposed asbestos here, and if you want to work here, you'll have to deal with it. That exposed electrical wire over there? Try and avoid that. Oh and our water here is poisoned, hope you don't mind. You could just go work someplace else, right?"
What about lumberjacks, miners, policemen, fire fighters, taxi drivers, etc.? Where do you draw the line?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fitz: Wow, there's a serious amount of Smug in this thread. The anti-smokers are almost as annoyingly authoritarian as the people who drive hybrid cars and brag about it, and condemn you for not following suit.
Just because you don't like smoking, or second hand smoke, or smoke in your hair, I find it laughable that you have the gall to walk into a restaurant and tell all the smokers in there "you're not going to do that around me, because the world revolves around me, and everything and anything I don't like I'm going to use some kind of legislator to outlaw." Give me a break. What next, are you going to stop restaurants from serving cake because America is an obese society? I hate to break out the cliche argument, but it applies: if you don't like breathing in smoke, don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives to those smokey bars.
The accusation of child abuse by means of secondhand smoke is a joke. It demeans the people who have really been abused. Nevertheless, I guess I better phone my dad and berate him for the years of child abuse he inflicted. "Nevermind that I'm perfectly healthy dad, you're a monster!"
Smokers must feel like lepers these days. Hell, pretty soon I expect to see people running up to smokers and shouting "Unclean!!! Unclean!!!."
I'm not a smoker, but I find the way they're treated to be appalling. Just because you find the act of smoking disgusting, doesn't mean you should have the audacity to climb onto your high horse and pass judgements. You certainly have the right to protest, but you should expect reprisals as adamant as the ones you dish out.
That's funny. Where you see an anti-smoker as "you aren't smoking around me, I'm the center of the world." I see a smoker as "I'll do what I want, smoke where I want, when I want and you have to deal with it, looks like it's your problem, not mine." Fact of the matter is a smoker can enter a non-smoking bar and still enjoy himself, whereas someone who doesn't want to inhale poison or smell like an ashtray at the end of a night can't do the same in a reverse situation.
I live in a bar town, none of which are smoke free. Well, there are a few clubs in Pontiac that are smoke free, but my God the music there is awful. Anyway, there aren't any real alternatives, let alone "plenty of places."
And no, child abuse by way of second hand smoke is NOT laughable. It's very real, and it kills or debilitates the underdeveloped lungs of children around the world. I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much. Or maybe you just got lucky. But an anecdote of one person doesn't make a scientific study. It'll be nice to hear you reconcile that post with your future self if/when you develop lung or heart complications as a result of damage done in your youth. I've known a few kids who were viciously verbally abused as children and they turned out perfectly normal. Just because the kid rises above doesn't make the crime any less severe.
While I find smoking to be a horrible habit, I have no problem with people doing it, so long as they don't do it near me. It's not that hard, you just DON'T SMOKE when you're around non-smokers. I don't see why selfish smokers should get their way when both sides can comfortably inhabit the same space.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And no, child abuse by way of second hand smoke is NOT laughable. It's very real, and it kills or debilitates the underdeveloped lungs of children around the world. I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much. Or maybe you just got lucky. But an anecdote of one person doesn't make a scientific study. It'll be nice to hear you reconcile that post with your future self if/when you develop lung or heart complications as a result of damage done in your youth. I've known a few kids who were viciously verbally abused as children and they turned out perfectly normal. Just because the kid rises above doesn't make the crime any less severe.
My father smokes like a chimney. In fact, he smoked all over the house until my younger brother was born. Three of his children do not have any severe respiratory ailments. The one child that does is the youngest, who has had the least exposure to my father's cigarette smoke.
And again, do we KNOW that secondhand smoke exposes one to levels of carcinogens that are harmful? There are plenty of substances which CAN cause cancer, and we're exposed to them every day.
quote: While I find smoking to be a horrible habit, I have no problem with people doing it, so long as they don't do it near me. It's not that hard, you just DON'T SMOKE when you're around non-smokers. I don't see why selfish smokers should get their way when both sides can comfortably inhabit the same space.
See, here's the problem as I see it: non-smokers more or less automatically assume that every smoker they encounter is going to be a jerk about it, when in reality many of us are very conscientious about it. Many smokers, if you just ask politely and not with a snide condescending tone, will stand farther away from you or even put their cigarette out if it's bothering you. Many will consciously avoid smoking if they're going to be in an area where keeping their smoke relatively contained isn't possible.
And believe it or not, even the conscientious ones make mistakes from time to time. I was smoking at a bus stop the other day and because it was pouring and there was no one else there, I was standing under the shelter. Another person came up behind me to stand in the shelter and I didn't hear or see them, but they proceeded to verbally berate me until the bus showed up about how I was being a bastard. How much effort would it have taken for him/her to ask me if I could stand outside of the shelter or put the cigarette out? If I had even seen her there, I would have moved automatically.
If you give people a break, they're generally willing to be accomodating. More and more often, the vindictive intolerant jackasses seem to be non-smokers - or maybe it will just always seem this way to me, and it will always seem the reverse to the non-smoker.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about lumberjacks, miners, policemen, fire fighters, taxi drivers, etc.? Where do you draw the line?
I knew someone would say something like this.
There are a lot of jobs out there where there is a signifigant amount of danger. In these professions, its an unavoidable and necessary component of thier jobs.
Inhaling the equivalent two packs of cigarettes in an eight hour shift (here ya go) is NOT a necessary part of being a bartender. You can serve drinks just as well.
Do me a favor, do a google search for "second hand smoke bartenders" and look at some of the facts. Here's one to get you started:
quote:Food service workers are 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than members of the general population.
quote:My father smokes like a chimney. In fact, he smoked all over the house until my younger brother was born. Three of his children do not have any severe respiratory ailments. The one child that does is the youngest, who has had the least exposure to my father's cigarette smoke.
So 1/4 of his children got a serious respiratory ailment, and that's your evidence that second hand smoke does not hurt children???
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I knew someone would say something like this.
There are a lot of jobs out there where there is a signifigant amount of danger. In these professions, its an unavoidable and necessary component of thier jobs.
If you knew someone would say it, you should have come up with a better answer. Dealing with second hand smoke is as much an unavoidable and necessary component of your job if you work in a restaurant or bar that allows it as dealing with moron customers or touching food is.
quote:Inhaling the equivalent two packs of cigarettes in an eight hour shift (here ya go) is NOT a necessary part of being a bartender. You can serve drinks just as well.
If you work in a bar that allows smoking, then YES, yes it is.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My father smokes like a chimney. In fact, he smoked all over the house until my younger brother was born. Three of his children do not have any severe respiratory ailments. The one child that does is the youngest, who has had the least exposure to my father's cigarette smoke.
So 1/4 of his children got a serious respiratory ailment, and that's your evidence that second hand smoke does not hurt children???
No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
posted
I think it would be good to allow certain bars/restaurants and other businesses to allow for indoor smoking with full disclosure. I think it's silly that someone cannot smoke indoors in a cigar shop or cannot smoke indoors in a bar if it's clearly stated that it is a smoker's bar and all patrons and employees are fully aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke and choose to work there irregardless.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, couldn't they, I don't know, STOP allowing smoking?
Xavier, seriously, your OWN logic makes no sense. Bartenders can choose to work at a bar that doesn't allow smoking. How is this different than, say, joining the Army, where there is an inherent risk of loss of life but the risk is enormously greater as an infantryman than as a webdesigner? When joining the FBI, as a field agent vs a forensic scientist?
I honestly don't see what's so hard to grasp.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fitz: When I put a gun to a bartender's head and force him to work in a restaurant that allows smoking, your arugment might have some merit. When you apply for employment at a place that allows smoking, you know what you're in for. The food service industry is large enough that there are options.
This might be true in an area where there are plenty of jobs available (which is true here in Edmonton). But in areas where the job market is very competitive for even service industry jobs people just can't afford to be picky about where they work.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it is possible, and perhaps even desirable to have restaurants without risking the health of an employee. It is not possible to be a firefighter without that risk. Employers are supposed to eliminate unnecessary and avoidable risks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, while I don't disagree with the argument you're trying to make, I do think there are alternatives.
I may be slightly reversing myself on this specific instance, but I work in a bar/restaurant, and probably 90% of the people who work there are smokers themselves, and the entire barstaff smokes. None of them complain about it. I've yet to see anyone have a problem with it. If they don't like smoke, the managers either put them in the patio or far away in a non smoking section.
pH -
quote:No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Who said that?
Anecdotal evidence on Hatrack isn't a scientific study. REAL scientific studies, like ones I've alluded to on this thread say that ESPECIALLY for children, second hand smoke is dangerous. It is especially dangerous for children because their lungs aren't yet fully formed, and it could cause disease, or leave their lungs damaged and more prone to conditions that will manifest themselves later in life.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xavier, seriously, your OWN logic makes no sense. Bartenders can choose to work at a bar that doesn't allow smoking. How is this different than, say, joining the Army, where there is an inherent risk of loss of life but the risk is enormously greater as an infantryman than as a webdesigner? When joining the FBI, as a field agent vs a forensic scientist?
I honestly don't see what's so hard to grasp.
So now we are back to "they can choose a different bar".
That wasn't the point we were debating. If you'll remember, the point we were debating was "is it a necessary part of a bartenders job to inhale second hand smoke". You said it was, in bars which allow smoking. But since there is nothing which says that a bar must allow smoking, your logic is circular.
Consider a bar which has drinking water with a dangerous percentage of arsenic in it.
Its not a necessary part of being a bartender to have to deal with having only poisonous water to drink. If someone replies: It is a necessary part of being a bartender in a bar which has poisonous water, I am going to question the logic of that. The fact that you can choose NOT to work at a bar with poisonous water is irrelevant.
quote:How is this different than, say, joining the Army, where there is an inherent risk of loss of life but the risk is enormously greater as an infantryman than as a webdesigner? When joining the FBI, as a field agent vs a forensic scientist?
Its different because danger is a NECESSARY part of being an infantryman or an FBI field agent. It is NOT a necessary part of being a bartender.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: See, here's the problem as I see it: non-smokers more or less automatically assume that every smoker they encounter is going to be a jerk about it, when in reality many of us are very conscientious about it. Many smokers, if you just ask politely and not with a snide condescending tone, will stand farther away from you or even put their cigarette out if it's bothering you. Many will consciously avoid smoking if they're going to be in an area where keeping their smoke relatively contained isn't possible.
And believe it or not, even the conscientious ones make mistakes from time to time. I was smoking at a bus stop the other day and because it was pouring and there was no one else there, I was standing under the shelter. Another person came up behind me to stand in the shelter and I didn't hear or see them, but they proceeded to verbally berate me until the bus showed up about how I was being a bastard. How much effort would it have taken for him/her to ask me if I could stand outside of the shelter or put the cigarette out? If I had even seen her there, I would have moved automatically.
If you give people a break, they're generally willing to be accomodating. More and more often, the vindictive intolerant jackasses seem to be non-smokers - or maybe it will just always seem this way to me, and it will always seem the reverse to the non-smoker.
And I have also been, several time verbally abused, and once even threatened, when I have politely asked someone not to smoke when there were "No Smoking" signs. I have even gotten a hard time from smokers when I move away from them when they light up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That wasn't the point we were debating. If you'll remember, the point we were debating was "is it a necessary part of a bartenders job to inhale second hand smoke". You said it was, in bars which allow smoking. But since there is nothing which says that a bar must allow smoking, your logic is circular.
Consider a bar which has drinking water with a dangerous percentage of arsenic in it.
Its not a necessary part of being a bartender to have to deal with having only poisonous water to drink. If someone replies: It is a necessary part of being a bartender in a bar which has poisonous water, I am going to question the logic of that. The fact that you can choose NOT to work at a bar with poisonous water is irrelevant.
The law, in an area where smoking is public enclosed spaces, says a bar MAY choose to allow smoking. Therefore, it MAY be a necessary element of the job of being a bartender to inhale smoke.
The difference between a bar with poisonous water and a bar that allows smoking is that there are universal laws regarding poisonous water in a place of consumption, whereas there are only varying laws regarding smoking in an establishment.
If you believe that bartenders have the right to a smoke free environment regardless of what bar they work in, go work on getting that legislated into the law. Other people have done so successfully. Your argument still goes against common sense.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My whole point is that I don't "know" anything about it. The chances that it's not harmful are not any more slight than the chances that it is.
Because you take all the studies and reasons given to you and choose to ignore them, saying they're not convincing. Convenient that taking that position allows to you continue to smoke around people, guilt-free, for the forseeable future.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The law, in an area where smoking is public enclosed spaces, says a bar MAY choose to allow smoking. Therefore, it MAY be a necessary element of the job of being a bartender to inhale smoke.
Well obviously the whole point of what I am talking about is that it shouldn't be the law that a bar may choose to allow smoking. To use the fact that its currently legal in debating the logic of whether it should be legal is, in my opinion, quite silly.
quote:The difference between a bar with poisonous water and a bar that allows smoking is that there are universal laws regarding poisonous water in a place of consumption, whereas there are only varying laws regarding smoking in an establishment.
And my whole argument is that the laws shouldn't be any different. Bartenders should have the same safety rights as I do.
quote:If you believe that bartenders have the right to a smoke free environment regardless of what bar they work in, go work on getting that legislated into the law. Other people have done so successfully.
New York did this very thing while I was living there, and you better believe I am supporting similar measures in Omaha, where I live now. This law exists in Lincoln, and there was a bill vetoed for Omaha which would have enacted a similar ordinance. It was vetoed because it left a gaping loop-hole for places with Keno, and all the bars were just going to all get Keno. Hopefully we can pass a real law soon, but I'm not holding my breath (except when I walk past smokers ).
quote:Your argument still goes against common sense.
Coming from the person who believes that second hand smoking being dangerous is a myth, I'll take that as a compliment. Using circular logic, and falling back on more circular logic, does not a reasonable argument make.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
eros: You never responded to my 4:01am and 4:11am posts.
pH said: "And again, do we KNOW that secondhand smoke exposes one to levels of carcinogens that are harmful? There are plenty of substances which CAN cause cancer, and we're exposed to them every day."
As has already been stated by someone else, the correlation between second hand smoke and health problems have statistically controlled for exposure to other carcinogens.
Look at it this way, you have two groups of kids: A) those exposed to second hand smoke and B) those who were not. You find out that both groups have around the same number of kids who were exposed to high levels of other carcinogens like car exhaust and asbestos. If second-hand smoke played no role in cancers and other health problems, we would expect both groups to have around the same number of kids with health problems because on average both groups had about the same number of kids with similar exposure to other carcinogens. However, if we have a large enough sample size, and we find that group A has more kids with health problems, we can begin to suspect that it is the second-hand smoke that is to blame.
But, before we jump to any conclusions, let's look at the two groups again. Are there any other differences between the kids in the two groups besides exposure to second-hand smoke? What if we find that group A seems to have a predominance of low income families. Maybe it is poor nutrition or health care that is to blame. So, we statistically control for that difference. We say in effect what if we match kids from each group according to socio-economic status, so that that factor can no longer explain any differences between the groups because it is held constant between the two groups. Does the finding that kids in group A have more cancers still hold? Yes, it does. That gives us more confidence that it is the second-hand smoke that is to blame.
Now, because this is correlational data, we can never say second hand smoke causes cancer. But, we do have a lot of support for that hypothesis and anyone wanting to challenge that needs to come up with some other variable that co-occurs with second-hand smoke exposure that could explain why group A kids have more cancers. I think most all reasonable culprits have been already ruled out.
As I said before, an experiment could prove causation, but the experiment would result in cancers, and there is not enough doubt that second hand smoke causes health conditions to justify making people sick just to prove it to the die hard doubters.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for employees of a bar or restaurant, well, they certainly do have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue their employment there. Don't tell me someone applies at a facility that allows smoking, and doesn't know what they're in for.
You're right! That waitress, who makes minimum wage, who's struggling to make enough money to feed her family, has a choice. She can work at the smoke-filled bar/restaurant or be unemployed.
Hmmmm...possible lung cancer or hungry children?
Having choices is great!!
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because you take all the studies and reasons given to you and choose to ignore them, saying they're not convincing. Convenient that taking that position allows to you continue to smoke around people, guilt-free, for the forseeable future.
You go ahead and think that; I'll take great pleasure in knowing you're wrong, as I'm sure you take great pleasure thinking I'm wrong.
quote:Well obviously the whole point of what I am talking about is that it shouldn't be the law that a bar may choose to allow smoking.
Given the variance of laws in the United States about this issue and the scope of this thread, it was not at all obvious.
quote:Coming from the person who believes that second hand smoking being dangerous is a myth
There's a difference between finding observational studies inconclusive and calling danger from second hand smoke a myth.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right! That waitress, who makes minimum wage, who's struggling to make enough money to feed her family, has a choice. She can work at the smoke-filled bar/restaurant or be unemployed.
Hmmmm...possible lung cancer or hungry children?
Having choices is great!!
Because clearly, those are the only two choices.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't actually get any pleasure out of people who selfishly rationalize their bad habits by couching them in faulty logic while thinking they've done their due diligence.
As Dennis Miller says, anyone who denies that smoking is bad for you is lying through the hole in their throat.
Of course, in real life I'm very tolerant of smokers. A lot of my friends smoke, and it wouldn't occur to me to ask them not to just because I'm sitting there. But looking at the bigger picture I think it's a bad deal when people continue to say they're not convinced that cigarette smoke causes cancer.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are a lot of jobs out there where there is a signifigant amount of danger. In these professions, its an unavoidable and necessary component of thier jobs.
The key here is how you define "necessary component of their jobs." Your reasoning is that since smoking itself is not necessary, it shouldn't be necessary for a worker to have to be around it. But what if the primary reason people go to a certain establishment is to smoke and drink? Is it wrong for a business to cater to that legal desire? You are suggesting that it is wrong and should be illegal for a business to accommodate that desire.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't actually get any pleasure out of people who selfishly rationalize their bad habits by couching them in faulty logic while thinking they've done their due diligence.
You do seem to get pleasure out of attributing motives where there are none and belittling people.
quote:Of course, in real life I'm very tolerant of smokers. A lot of my friends smoke, and it wouldn't occur to me to ask them not to just because I'm sitting there. But looking at the bigger picture I think it's a bad deal when people continue to say they're not convinced that cigarette smoke causes cancer.
I never once denied that cigarette smoke is bad for you - I have denied that there is conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is the primary cause of the diseases that are often attributed to it. Dennis Miller (who, incidentally, is one of my heroes) is obviously speaking of people who smoke, not the effects of second hand smoke.
I'm not sure what your quoting my two statements was designed to accomplish.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started writing this almost an hour ago, so I'm a little hesitant to post it--the conversation has probably moved on to a discussion of the moral implications and practical considerations of genemodding gerbils to survive in arctic environments or something. That said, I'm going to click "Add Reply" anyway.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: I was smoking at a bus stop the other day and because it was pouring and there was no one else there, I was standing under the shelter. Another person came up behind me to stand in the shelter and I didn't hear or see them, but they proceeded to verbally berate me until the bus showed up about how I was being a bastard....
More and more often, the vindictive intolerant jackasses seem to be non-smokers - or maybe it will just always seem this way to me, and it will always seem the reverse to the non-smoker.
And I have also been, several time verbally abused, and once even threatened, when I have politely asked someone not to smoke when there were "No Smoking" signs. I have even gotten a hard time from smokers when I move away from them when they light up.
And the lesson that can be drawn from all of this is that whether or not one smokes is not a good predictor of whether or not that person will act like an ass. There is no shortage of considerate, thoughtful people in either camp. Unfortunately, the pushy jackasses aren't exactly in short supply either.
I, as a non-smoker, am convinced by the evidence that second hand smoke, at least in enclosed spaces, is a health threat. I think that kmboots hit the nail on the head when she made the distinction between necessary and unnecessary risk in the workplace, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for smoking in bars being necessary.
I know that in cities where an indoor smoking ban is being considered for businesses, it isn't uncommon for the owners of bars and restaurants to argue that barring smoking will cause their profits to dwindle significantly, as patrons won't be interested in frequenting places where they can't smoke along with whatever else they're doing. I'm skeptical of this claim. If only some of the businesses in a metropolitan area were forced to ban smoking, I could see it--smoking customers would go to those places where smoking was still allowed. If it's banned in the entire metropolitan area, though, I'm not sure why profits would go down. I'd be willing to bet that few patrons will actually make a habit of driving to another city for their bar hopping, and I'd guess that almost none of them would just stop going to bars, period, if they weren't allowed to smoke at them.
On a tangentally related note, I've always been really proud of my father for stopping smoking when my older brother was born. He went cold turkey, and while he says that he still experiences occasional cravings 37 years later, he's never given in to them. His willingness to do something as difficult as breaking a smoking habit for the sake of his family has always been inspiring to me. I realized last Thanksgiving that I'd never told him that, and did so. He just laughed and said that he'd quit because with the new baby in the house he decided he couldn't afford to buy cigarettes.
quote:I know that in cities where an indoor smoking ban is being considered for businesses, it isn't uncommon for the owners of bars and restaurants to argue that barring smoking will cause their profits to dwindle significantly, as patrons won't be interested in frequenting places where they can't smoke along with whatever else they're doing. I'm skeptical of this claim. If only some of the businesses in a metropolitan area were forced to ban smoking, I could see it--smoking customers would go to those places where smoking was still allowed. If it's banned in the entire metropolitan area, though, I'm not sure why profits would go down. I'd be willing to bet that few patrons will actually make a habit of driving to another city for their bar hopping, and I'd guess that almost none of them would just stop going to bars, period, if they weren't allowed to smoke at them.
The government seems to like the idea of taxing smokers, so I suggest they impose some fairly heavy taxes on restaurants/bars that want to allow smoking. If a significant amount of their business comes from smokers, then they would be willing to pay the tax, or license fee. Other establishments that don't feel their sales would be affected can just ban smoking. The owners will be happy because they at least have a choice. Customers and employees will still have the choice as to where they want to go also.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The key here is how you define "necessary component of their jobs." Your reasoning is that since smoking itself is not necessary, it shouldn't be necessary for a worker to have to be around it. But what if the primary reason people go to a certain establishment is to smoke and drink? Is it wrong for a business to cater to that legal desire? You are suggesting that it is wrong and should be illegal for a business to accommodate that desire.
That's actually a very good point.
Businesses absolutely have the legal right to do what they are doing under the current laws in most places. I think its immoral for them to do so, but in most cases, its good business sense, so its not like I blame them too harshly. Many businesses around here are moving to be smoke free under by choice, partly because public sentiment is moving toward smoke free establishments, but most will conintue to allow smoking for this reason.
From a legal standpoint, its a matter of passing a law which requires businesses to provide a level of safety for their employees which they currently do not have to allow.
Noeman is right, by the way, about the economic impact of smoking bans. When New York passed the ban, most bars in my town either increased in business, or stayed the same. For every smoker who will stop going to bars if every bar in the state goes smoke free, there's someone like me who rarely goes to bars because of the smoke.
Edit: In case this last paragraph sounds like a contradiction to the first one, the reason why its bad for a bar to go smoke-free now is because nearly every smoker will avoid that bar. But when every bar is smoke free, they still go to the bars the went to before, they just smoke outside.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read about bans here in Canada, in cases where smoking is completely banned in bars and pubs (i.e. no designated smoking rooms), there is an immediate drop in revenue for the month or so after the ban becomes law, but it recovers over time. Having a transition period where designated smoking rooms are allowed (with rules about ventilation and employee exposure) mitigates this.
enochville hit the nail on the head with his 2:24 PM post.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
See, this is something that I thought we were all assuming - and what I'm talking about when I'm talking about common sense. Because honestly, who goes to a bar to be healthy? If you work in a place that dispenses wholesale poison, does it really make sense to complain that there's an increased health risk?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: - posted April 20, 2006 01:58 PM Profile for erosomniac Email erosomniac Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:That's actually a very good point.
See, this is something that I thought we were all assuming - and what I'm talking about when I'm talking about common sense. Because honestly, who goes to a bar to be healthy? If you work in a place that dispenses wholesale poison, does it really make sense to complain that there's an increased health risk?
For the employees, they have the option of drinking in a bar or not. They do not have the option of stopping breathing. They can dispense alcohol to their hearts content and their health remains the same, but breathing in their patrons' smoke is seriously harming their health.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think that "Smoker's Clubs" should be allowed. Maybe some kind of special ventilation system is required and a difficult licensing system put into place to open up such businesses. Hiring workers would require full disclosure of the environmental effects of smoking.
It just makes sense. Why not?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do seem to get pleasure out of attributing motives where there are none and belittling people.
I just don't have much tolerance for people who delude themselves.
quote:I'm not sure what your quoting my two statements was designed to accomplish.
I'm not sure, either. It just seemed that one didn't jive with the other. No reason why they couldn't, I guess, but I had to reread both carefully.
And of course Miller was talking about smokers and not second-hand smoke, but his point is still valid. It's ludicrous to assume smoke, whether second or firsthand, is harmless. It's freaking smoke! If someone stood next to a campfire and inhaled deeply for a few years and then developed lung cancer, you'd say they had it coming.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the employees, they have the option of drinking in a bar or not. They do not have the option of stopping breathing. They can dispense alcohol to their hearts content and their health remains the same, but breathing in their patrons' smoke is seriously harming their health.
I thought it was common enough knowledge that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand and that bars tend to be smokey that I wouldn't have to demonstrate the step inbetween, but here it is.
quote:It's ludicrous to assume smoke, whether second or firsthand, is harmless. It's freaking smoke!
Ugh, again, I never said second hand smoke is harmless! Not once! Not ever! Saying that there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is the principal cause of the medical conditions often attributed to it is NOT the same as saying that second hand smoke is harmless! This isn't even a question of semantics!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is the principal cause of the medical conditions often attributed to it is NOT the same as saying that second hand smoke is harmless!
Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
