Smoking bans for private businesses

[CLite]

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 therefore have to pass laws to enforce and regulate human stupidity in the hopes it doesn't spread. Over time, Darwin's theories evidence themselves 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 places 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.

Employees and 85% of the patrons are forced to breath carcinogenic gas as a by-product of activity not related to the core business. States are starting to pass legislature that outlaws this kind of working environment unless it is directly tied to the businesses profit model (ala cigar bar). This isn't some shit about Darwin's theory or regulating human stupidity. It is a law that is passed to alleviate gaps in working condition safety.

Progressions of laws (shortened)
1) Hrm that person killed another person that doesn't seem right. OK outlaw murder
2) Hrm that person forced that other person to have sex that doesn't seem right. OK outlaw rape.
etc.
etc.
3) Hrm this factory is pursuing a manufacturing method that kills 20 employees a month. OK well lets outlaw that dangerous method.
4) Hrm Asbestos has been shown to be killing people en-mass many years after they worked with it. Ok we are going to outlaw that.

This isn't nanny-state, this is laws being implemented as we discover that shit is bad. Just because there are laws outside of murder=illegal doesn't make us some pussy nation that is going to devolve because of Darwin's laws. Talk about a strawman.

 

[CLite]

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

Not difficult to grasp.

The company is forcing people to work in an environment with carcinogenic smoke.

Not difficult to grasp.

*edit* by force I mean as a condition of continued employment. If you want to expand this argument to employers never force people to work then I guess we can dismantle OSHA and let employers do whatever the fuck they want in their private industry. In which case I direct you towards Conga.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

Thankfully, you're in no position of power.

 

[CLite]

Thankfully, you're in no position of power.

Do you advocate the elimination of all laws outside of murder/theft/rape?

How do we define manslaughter? If an employer pursues a process that he knows will kill say 100 people a year versus 0.001 people a year is he guilty of manslaughter or is it his right as an employer?

This is not a slippery slope because carcinogenic working environments is not some laughing matter.

 

[Scotteq]

The company is forcing people to work in an environment with carcinogenic smoke.

Not difficult to grasp.

*edit* by force I mean as a condition of continued employment. If you want to expand this argument to employers never force people to work then I guess we can dismantle OSHA and let employers do whatever the fuck they want in their private industry. In which case I direct you towards Conga.

Wow - Hyperbole much? The company doesn't "Force" anyone, since we already have rules that say "Go Outside".

 

[zsdersw]

The company is forcing people to work in an environment with carcinogenic smoke.

Not difficult to grasp.

*edit* by force I mean as a condition of continued employment. If you want to expand this argument to employers never force people to work then I guess we can dismantle OSHA and let employers do whatever the fuck they want in their private industry. In which case I direct you towards Conga.

Running down the slippery slope again, I see. You can't resist, can you?

No one here is talking about dismantling OSHA and letting "employers do whatever the fuck they want in their private industry".

 

[xj0hnx]

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.

I support allowing business to allow smoking because it is their business, and smoking is legal. You, nor anyone else should not have any say in what legal activity a private business should be able to allow. I don't give a shit if you think it stinks, or if it's unhealthy, that doesn't matter, it's a private business and a legal activity.

 

[matt0611]

The company is forcing people to work in an environment with carcinogenic smoke.

Not difficult to grasp.

*edit* by force I mean as a condition of continued employment. If you want to expand this argument to employers never force people to work then I guess we can dismantle OSHA and let employers do whatever the fuck they want in their private industry. In which case I direct you towards Conga.

Well I wouldn't exactly say the word "force" but yeah its a condition of employment.

I'm fine with states setting up safety recommendations and certifications that are optional for employers to get.

I also think employees need to be upfront with the safety conditions of the workplace, I mean, you can't lie or hide things from your employees.

When things get too complicated for the average person to understand I think thats where special certifications for industries and perhaps even governments to step in, but I think smoking is a pretty straightforward thing for people to understand.

 

[Scotteq]

Employees and 85% of the patrons are forced to breath carcinogenic gas as a by-product of activity not related to the core business. States are starting to pass legislature that outlaws this kind of working environment unless it is directly tied to the businesses profit model (ala cigar bar). This isn't some shit about Darwin's theory or regulating human stupidity. It is a law that is passed to alleviate gaps in working condition safety.

Progressions of laws (shortened)
1) Hrm that person killed another person that doesn't seem right. OK outlaw murder
2) Hrm that person forced that other person to have sex that doesn't seem right. OK outlaw rape.
etc.
etc.
3) Hrm this factory is pursuing a manufacturing method that kills 20 employees a month. OK well lets outlaw that dangerous method.
4) Hrm Asbestos has been shown to be killing people en-mass many years after they worked with it. Ok we are going to outlaw that.

This isn't nanny-state, this is laws being implemented as we discover that shit is bad. Just because there are laws outside of murder=illegal doesn't make us some pussy nation that is going to devolve because of Darwin's laws. Talk about a strawman.

NICE!!! Make the strawman argument, and then deride the other as a strawman!!


To continue your point with further ridiculousness:


Carbon Monoxide is bad. Outlaw cars.

Trans Fats are bad. Outlaw a wide variety of food and food ingredients.

Sugar is bad. That should outlaw most of the rest of our food.

Certain enzymes in Meat are bad. Outlaw that too, especially since the animals that meat is made up of eat the few vegetables we are still allowed by law to consume.



Where does it stop?

Employees and 85% of the patrons are forced to breath carcinogenic gas as a by-product of activity not related to the core business.

IT IS THE LAW ALREADY THAT SMOKING IS PROHIBITED ANYWHERE THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO.

The exception (which you yourself pointed out) is if that business has somethign to do with smoking.

So your entire example fails.

 

[xj0hnx]

Do you advocate the elimination of all laws outside of murder/theft/rape?

How do we define manslaughter? If an employer pursues a process that he knows will kill say 100 people a year versus 0.001 people a year is he guilty of manslaughter or is it his right as an employer?

This is not a slippery slope because carcinogenic working environments is not some laughing matter.

That's just stupid. Murder/theft/rape are illegal and smoking is not.

 

[CLite]

Running down the slippery slope again, I see. You can't resist, can you?

No one here is talking about dismantling OSHA and letting "employers do whatever the fuck they want in their private industry".

You are claiming that a new law that enforces working condition safety is a nanny-state law.

Was banning Asbestos nanny-state considering the workers were entitled to just stop working at refineries, there were PLENTY of other places for them to work shouldn't the employers be able to determine what kind of insulation they use? Answer this question for me please.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Employees and 85% of the patrons are forced to breath carcinogenic gas as a by-product of activity not related to the core business. States are starting to pass legislature that outlaws this kind of working environment unless it is directly tied to the businesses profit model (ala cigar bar). This isn't some shit about Darwin's theory or regulating human stupidity. It is a law that is passed to alleviate gaps in working condition safety.

Progressions of laws (shortened)
1) Hrm that person killed another person that doesn't seem right. OK outlaw murder
2) Hrm that person forced that other person to have sex that doesn't seem right. OK outlaw rape.
etc.
etc.
3) Hrm this factory is pursuing a manufacturing method that kills 20 employees a month. OK well lets outlaw that dangerous method.
4) Hrm Asbestos has been shown to be killing people en-mass many years after they worked with it. Ok we are going to outlaw that.

This isn't nanny-state, this is laws being implemented as we discover that shit is bad. Just because there are laws outside of murder=illegal doesn't make us some pussy nation that is going to devolve because of Darwin's laws. Talk about a strawman.

Yes, and using your logic let's outlaw tobacco. Banning it from private business is not the way to go from this logic. It must be a banned product outright. As long as it's a legal product, private business should make the decision to allow it themselves.

This is fun!

 

[zsdersw]

Do you advocate the elimination of all laws outside of murder/theft/rape?

No.

How do we define manslaughter? If an employer pursues a process that he knows will kill say 100 people a year versus 0.001 people a year is he guilty of manslaughter or is it his right as an employer?

This is not a slippery slope because carcinogenic working environments is not some laughing matter.

'Carcinogenic working environment'? 'Manslaughter'? You're framing the issue as though second-hand smoke is as toxic as benzene... it is not.

 

[CLite]

Carbon Monoxide is bad. Outlaw cars.

You are so fucking retarded it blows my mind.

Employers can't force their employees to work in a room filled with Carbon Monoxide.

Employers now can't force their employees to work in a room filled with second hand smoke.

I'm glad we are in agreement.

 

[CLite]

Yes, and using your logic let's outlaw tobacco. Banning it from private business is not the way to go from this logic. It must be a banned product outright. As long as it's a legal product, private business should make the decision to allow it themselves.

This is fun!

STOP WITH THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

Banning working environments filled with second hand smoke does not equal banning smoking.

Banning working environments filled with carbon monoxide does not mean we will ban cars.

How are you people so blinded by idiocy?

 

[xj0hnx]

STOP WITH THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

Banning working environments filled with second hand smoke does not equal banning smoking.

Banning working environments filled with carbon monoxide does not mean we will ban cars.

How are you people so blinded by idiocy?

Lol, you act as is a business simply allowing smoking is going to create some sealed room where people walk into to slowly die, this is a lie. Fans, ventilation, separation of areas are all ways to eliminate, minimize second hand smoke. These coupled with employees/patron free choice to not work in/patronize establishments makes your argument just another self righteous agenda.

How are you so blinded by idiocy?

 

[Scotteq]

You are so fucking retarded it blows my mind.

Employers can't force their employees to work in a room filled with Carbon Monoxide.

Employers now can't force their employees to work in a room filled with second hand smoke.

I'm glad we are in agreement.

Employees and 85% of the patrons are forced to breath carcinogenic gas as a by-product of activity not related to the core business. .

IT IS THE LAW ALREADY THAT SMOKING IS PROHIBITED ANYWHERE THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO.

The exception (which you yourself pointed out) is if that business has somethign to do with smoking.

So your entire example fails.

 

[zsdersw]

You are claiming that a new law that enforces working condition safety is a nanny-state law.

You'd have to have some very convincing data to conclude that a smoking ban for bars "enforces working condition safety", especially considering the demographic data on who most often works in bars. Here's a hint: they're generally smokers themselves.

Was banning Asbestos nanny-state considering the workers were entitled to just stop working at refineries, there were PLENTY of other places for them to work shouldn't the employers be able to determine what kind of insulation they use? Answer this question for me please.

The banning of asbestos (and litigation for exposure to it) is understandable because few, if any, of the people working with asbestos knew how dangerous it was. I don't know of anyone who isn't aware of the dangers of smoking.

 

[CLite]

IT IS THE LAW ALREADY THAT SMOKING IS PROHIBITED ANYWHERE THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO.

The exception (which you yourself pointed out) is if that business has somethign to do with smoking.

So your entire example fails.

What? This entire thread is about the law banning it from bars/restaurants that don't depend on revenue from cigarettes/cigars. I believe only 33 states or so have implemented it.

 

[zsdersw]

STOP WITH THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

Then perhaps you should stop using them yourself.

 

[CLite]

You'd have to have some very convincing data to conclude that a smoking ban for bars "enforces working condition safety", especially considering the demographic data on who most often works in bars. Here's a hint: they're generally smokers themselves.

The banning of asbestos (and litigation for exposure to it) is understandable because few, if any, of the people working with asbestos knew how dangerous it was. I don't know of anyone who isn't aware of the dangers of smoking.

So now that people are aware of asbestos should employers be allowed to use the material if they properly inform employees. Asbestos is actually very similar to smoking (or second hand smoking but honestly I am not versed on all the studies regarding SHS).

Asbestos does not represent an immediate threat, and it manifests after 15-30 years. The rate of long-term deaths directly correlated to it is around 0.5%, is this high/low? that is entirely subjective to who you are asking. The point is that it was a straight forward risk that was deemed unacceptable.

Replacing Asbestos cost a lot of money and it also reduced the overall resistance to fire of insulation in refineries. However because we live in a civilized society with rules regarding the workplace we did not want a 0.5% death rate due to insulation.

Now I don't know the direct % death rate from SHS, but if there is some demonstratable number then it is entirely analogous to the banning of asbestos.

*edit* a bit more detail on death-rate, general population is 0.25% occurrence for those cancers that Asbestos exacerbates, Asbestos workers experienced 0.5% occurrence.

 

[Scotteq]

What? This entire thread is about the law banning it from bars/restaurants that don't depend on revenue from cigarettes/cigars. I believe only 33 states or so have implemented it.

Actually: The thread is (WAS, rather) about whether or not the government has the right/responsibility do that in the first place. Not this completely fictitious and asinine assertion that allowing smokers to work somehow equates to businesses forcing their employees to die from second hand smoke.

But thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of the "Cult of Non~Smokers"




(And for the record: I don't smoke)

 

[xj0hnx]

Now I don't know the direct % death rate from SHS, but if there is some demonstratable number then it is entirely analogous to the banning of asbestos.

Then you should work on getting tobacco illegal.

 

[zsdersw]

So now that people are aware of asbestos should employers be allowed to use the material if they properly inform employees. Asbestos is actually very similar to smoking (or second hand smoking but honestly I am not versed on all the studies regarding SHS).

Asbestos does not represent an immediate threat, and it manifests after 15-30 years. The rate of long-term deaths directly correlated it is around 0.5%, is this high/low? that is entirely subjective to who you are asking. The point is that it was a straight forward risk that was deemed unacceptable.

Replacing Asbestos cost a lot of money and it also reduced the overall resistance to fire of insulation in refineries. However because we live in a civilized society with rules regarding the workplace we did not want a 0.5% death rate due to insulation.

Now I don't know the direct % death rate from SHS, but if there is some demonstratable number then it is entirely analogous to the banning of asbestos.

I personally don't favor banning the use of materials containing asbestos in building construction. Exposure to it can be eliminated for those working with it, and exposure for those occupying the building in which it exists only occurs if the asbestos-containing material is somehow damaged or severely disturbed; an unlikely thing to happen.

 

[CLite]

Actually: The thread is (WAS, rather) about whether or not the government has the right/responsibility do that in the first place. Not this completely fictitious and asinine assertion that allowing smokers to work somehow equates to businesses forcing their employees to die from second hand smoke.

But thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of the "Cult of Non~Smokers"

(And for the record: I don't smoke)

Does the government have the right to restrict the amount of secondhand smoke that employees breath is the point of this thread. It has nothing to do with allowing smokers to work.

thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy"