Smoking bans for private businesses

[zsdersw]

You are arguing with one of the most self righteous "cults" in the country ...non smokers.

Cults? Eww.. no thanks. I'm a non-smoker too, but I don't join cults.

 

[CLite]

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's not an example of nanny-state regulation.

So private industries should be able to use lead pipes for their drinking water? The employees don't have to work in that private job right? There is no reason to have any laws at all, market forces fix everything!

Anyways, if you want to live in such a utopia move to Congo or something, in the USA we are actually an advanced industrialized nation despite the fact that some would like to change that.

*edit* and someone mentioned their household, I don't believe there are any laws that prevent people from using lead for their drinking water (although, if you have children you might be breaking a law). People must realize that private businesses don't have the same rights as individuals, because their actions and decisions can demonstratively harm their employees. Enforcing laws that prevent private businesses from exploiting and harming their employees is not nanny-state laws, and if anyone thinks that they are morons.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Years ago I worked at a shop doing maintenance. We had to go up on the roof to change out the filters for the air exchangers for the shop, this was after they banned smoking in the work area (only could smoke in designated areas outside at break.) We pulled the filters out of these air exchangers, which were about 60ft up on the ceiling, and the filters were literally dripping with oils etc from all the machinery that's running in the place.

 

[BeauJangles]

So private industries should be able to use lead pipes for their drinking water? The employees don't have to work in that private job right? There is no reason to have any laws at all, market forces fix everything!

Anyways, if you want to live in such a utopia move to Congo or something, in the USA we are actually an advanced industrialized nation despite the fact that some would like to change that.

*edit* and someone mentioned their household, I don't believe there are any laws that prevent people from using lead for their drinking water (although, if you have children you might be breaking a law). People must realize that private businesses don't have the same rights as individuals, because their actions and decisions can demonstratively harm their employees. Enforcing laws that prevent private businesses from exploiting and harming their employees is not nanny-state laws, and if anyone thinks that they are morons.

If you deliberately had lead-lined pipes installed, you would be arrested for child abuse. No doubt about it.

 

[matt0611]

So private industries should be able to use lead pipes for their drinking water? The employees don't have to work in that private job right? There is no reason to have any laws at all, market forces fix everything!

Anyways, if you want to live in such a utopia move to Congo or something, in the USA we are actually an advanced industrialized nation despite the fact that some would like to change that.

*edit* and someone mentioned their household, I don't believe there are any laws that prevent people from using lead for their drinking water (although, if you have children you might be breaking a law). People must realize that private businesses don't have the same rights as individuals, because their actions and decisions can demonstratively harm their employees. Enforcing laws that prevent private businesses from exploiting and harming their employees is not nanny-state laws, and if anyone thinks that they are morons.

And the employee is still making a decision to work in your smoking bar. He wants to do that, if he didn't, he'd go somewhere else. What the hell is so hard to understand about this?

 

[xj0hnx]

And the employee is still making a decision to work in your smoking bar. He wants to do that, if he didn't, he'd go somewhere else. What the hell is so hard to understand about this?

When people hate something it often blinds them to common sense, and reason.

 

[xj0hnx]

Funny thing is, I don't smoke, I can't stand the stuff, but I recognize peoples freedom to smoke if they wish.

Yea I know, I wasn't implying that all non-smokers are "cult" like, just the zealots that think that because they don't smoke no one should, or the ones that try pushing what they think is best on other people.

 

[Scotteq]

So private industries should be able to use lead pipes for their drinking water? The employees don't have to work in that private job right? There is no reason to have any laws at all, market forces fix everything!

Anyways, if you want to live in such a utopia move to Congo or something, in the USA we are actually an advanced industrialized nation despite the fact that some would like to change that.

*edit* and someone mentioned their household, I don't believe there are any laws that prevent people from using lead for their drinking water (although, if you have children you might be breaking a law). People must realize that private businesses don't have the same rights as individuals, because their actions and decisions can demonstratively harm their employees. Enforcing laws that prevent private businesses from exploiting and harming their employees is not nanny-state laws, and if anyone thinks that they are morons.

Private employers cannot use Lead Pipes* in their buildings because existing building codes already prevent that. New buildings use PVC pipes, which have also been implicated with various health risks.





*Interesting plumbing fact: Even after lead pipes were banned, Lead was still used as a common sealant. If you have a house built in the 50's, you may well have pipes which were joined using nearly pure lead. Also, there was no rule until the (80's?) saying you had to use lead free solder to join copper piping in a home or business. The common mix was 50/50 tin and lead.

***and No - I do not blame people for installing reverse osmosis filters in their homes.

 

[zsdersw]

So private industries should be able to use lead pipes for their drinking water? The employees don't have to work in that private job right? There is no reason to have any laws at all, market forces fix everything!

Anyways, if you want to live in such a utopia move to Congo or something, in the USA we are actually an advanced industrialized nation despite the fact that some would like to change that.

Sure, run down the slippery slope if you want.. but no one will be at the bottom with you.

 

[Nebor]

Assuming you're being serious, there's no such thing as "smart authoritarianism".

Sure there is, an oligarchy of the enlightened governing those too enamored with french fries and American Idol to keep from licking lead pipes and sucking down second hand smoke. A strong authoritarian enforcement mechanism allows them to quickly and effectively act to protect the people.

 

[xj0hnx]

Sure there is, an oligarchy of the enlightened governing those too enamored with french fries and American Idol to keep from licking lead pipes and sucking down second hand smoke. A strong authoritarian enforcement mechanism allows them to quickly and effectively act to protect the people.

You are a true to the core Nanny Stater, disgusting.

 

[Craig234]

And the employee is still making a decision to work in your smoking bar. He wants to do that, if he didn't, he'd go somewhere else. What the hell is so hard to understand about this?

There are limits to what workplaces should do to workers, to make them put up with or leave.

You dingbats arguing the idea that it's ok because they can leave are both wrong, and even inconsistent/hypocritical.

When confronted with the implications of your rule, you just saying something bizarre of fallacious and dodge the point. You have nothing but impractical, harmful ideology.

 

[CLite]

And the employee is still making a decision to work in your smoking bar. He wants to do that, if he didn't, he'd go somewhere else. What the hell is so hard to understand about this?

What's so hard to understand that is it illegal to have a dangerous work environment in an advanced nation with civilized laws? There will always be dangerous work environments that are necessary to continue our way of life. A refinery can always leak H2S, explosions can happen, fall-lines for construction workers can fail. Hell the alky units have some crazy dangerous shit like HF. However there are laws that limit the potential for risk and require reasonable engineering to protect against failures.

On the flip-side we have a recreational activity that puts millions of employees in carcinogenic smoke filled environments. As a civilized nation we have realized this is an unacceptable work environment for an entire industry. There are still exemptions for things like cigar bars/etc., but for the industry as a whole it is now deemed unacceptable. These laws will expand to all 50 states because they are the obvious logical step forward.

Labeling a law that protects millions from carcinogenic smoke filled environments as nanny-state is simply retarded. It would be analogous to calling the laws regarding the design of alky units using HF as nanny-state.

 

[Craig234]

Doesnt change that I think a mom and pop store should be able to hire, or not hire anyone they want. White, black, old, young, etc. Its their company, let them hire as they like.

Same with smoking. Its their own business, if they want to allow it, they should be able to. They would lose sales imo, such as mine. As I have never smoked, and hate it. But I think they should be able to do as they wish.

Dont agree? Oh well.

Wrong on both counts. I understand the nice idea, but the immorality of things like racism outweighs this 'liberty'. You may not have much empathy, unfortunately.

 

[matt0611]

What's so hard to understand that is it illegal to have a dangerous work environment in an advanced nation with civilized laws? There will always be dangerous work environments that are necessary to continue our way of life. A refinery can always leak H2S, explosions can happen, fall-lines for construction workers can fail. Hell the alky units have some crazy dangerous shit like HF. However there are laws that limit the potential for risk and require reasonable engineering to protect against failures.

On the flip-side we have a recreational activity that puts millions of employees in carcinogenic smoke filled environments. As a civilized nation we have realized this is an unacceptable work environment for an entire industry. There are still exemptions for things like cigar bars/etc., but for the industry as a whole it is now deemed unacceptable. These laws will expand to all 50 states because they are the obvious logical step forward.

Labeling a law that protects millions from carcinogenic smoke filled environments as nanny-state is simply retarded. It would be analogous to calling the laws regarding the design of alky units using HF as nanny-state.

And again, you miss the point that all patrons and employees are exercising their own free will to be there. A place where people are recreationally smoking a substance that may cause them harm down the road if you're around it for long periods of time.

You're right, they are a logical step forward for the nanny-staters.

 

[CLite]

And again, you miss the point that all patrons and employees are exercising their own free will to be there. A place where people are recreationally smoking a substance that may cause them harm down the road if you're around it for long periods of time.

You're right, they are a logical step forward for the nanny-staters.

Ok so we don't need rules for designing alky units using HF because it is the refinery worker's choice to work there? The private business should be able to design alky units however it wants?

 

[matt0611]

Ok so we don't need rules for designing alky units using HF because it is the refinery worker's choice to work there? The private business should be able to design alky units however it wants?

I don't know enough about that stuff to answer the question, would you mind using a simpler analogy?

 

[CLite]

The whole point about the inherent risk of a job is that the bars and restaurants service is food and drink. At least in NJ there is an exemption to the ban for locations that depend on cigarettes/cigars as some % of their revenue (I don't know the exact amount). There is no legitimate reason to maintain a dangerous work environment that is not inherent with the product of the businesses. This law addresses a huge health risk that unneccessarily exposes employees and other patrons. With the implementation of these laws there was no impact on patronage and the inherent business was not adversely effected at all (at least in NJ).

Regarding a simpler example, the one I brought up is that refineries have to use an extremely toxic chemical (hydroflouric acid) in their alkylation units. Anyways I guess a simpler question is should there be laws for the design of equipment in refineries. They are private industry work locations.

 

[Scotteq]

Regarding a simpler example, the one I brought up is that refineries have to use an extremely toxic chemical (hydroflouric acid) in their alkylation units. Anyways I guess a simpler question is should there be laws for the design of equipment in refineries. They are private industry work locations.

OSHA applies, even to private industry.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Wrong on both counts. I understand the nice idea, but the immorality of things like racism outweighs this 'liberty'. You may not have much empathy, unfortunately.

When does immorality not outweigh liberty? Where is the line drawn? It sounds pretty subjective to me. I'm sure you know the answer, so I'll just shut up because you know what's best...

 

[CLite]

OSHA applies, even to private industry.

Thank you Captain O.

I was presenting the question about where do we draw the line of nanny-state. Does OSHA represent a nanny-state organization?

 

[Scotteq]

Thank you Captain O.

I was presenting the question about where do we draw the line of nanny-state. Does OSHA represent a nanny-state organization?

Only to retards who have trouble understanding the difference between a working environment and what people choose to do to/for themselves. In a common sense world, if/when it bothers employees, then the boss can make a rule that the smokers can go outside. But on an anecdotal level we have unfortunately outlawed 'Common Sense' and 'Common Courtesy', and therefore feel the need to pass laws to enforce and regulate human stupidity in the hopes it doesn't spread and contaminate the rest of the gene pool. Sadly, this is a futile effort because over time Darwin's theories make themselves evident though the evolution of bigger and bigger morons, who require more and more instruction on what is and is not acceptable.


Also: The word "private" is already stretched to the point where it doesn't apply to any place the public have access to. i.e., if your customers walk through the door, then your workplace is a "public" environment in the eyes of the law, and the smoking ban applies.

 

[CLite]

When does immorality not outweigh liberty? Where is the line drawn? It sounds pretty subjective to me. I'm sure you know the answer, so I'll just shut up because you know what's best...

You don't have the liberty to detonate a bomb ontop of your employees just like you don't have the liberty to subject your employees to unnecessarily dangerous work environments. How is this so hard to grasp?

 

[matt0611]

You don't have the liberty to detonate a bomb ontop of your employees just like you don't have the liberty to subject your employees to unnecessarily dangerous work environments. How is this so hard to grasp?

Well you don't have the liberty to kill other people. People have the right to life, liberty, etc.
Your freedom ends where you hurt people without their consent.

Employees voluntarily subjecting themselves to a bar or restaurant where theres smoking to me is well within their rights. And its well within your rights to open a private establishment that allows something recreational like smoking that may have adverse effects on people that choose to participate in it or enter your establishment. As long as everyone is aware of this I don't see the problem.

When does immorality not outweigh liberty? Where is the line drawn? It sounds pretty subjective to me. I'm sure you know the answer, so I'll just shut up because you know what's best...

I'm guessing its pretty much wherever they say it ends, if they don't approve of something your doing, they probably have the authority to make you stop it by force.

 

[Scotteq]

You don't have the liberty to detonate a bomb ontop of your employees just like you don't have the liberty to subject your employees to unnecessarily dangerous work environments. How is this so hard to grasp?

The problem here is the Company isn't forcing people to smoke. That is a choice the make themselves.

Not difficult to grasp.

Looking at this from your viewpoint, you would (through Government regulation) make companies/businesses responsible for the choices made by employees they may or may not have. Even moreso than is already the case. If that's your goal: Would you also open the door to employers not hiring smokers? Or charging them even higher rates for health insurance?