No one thinks smoking is a good thing, but that doesn't mean government is the proper or best tool to correct the problem. Government is historically a very poor instrument of control over personal vices.
Actually, I was reinforcing your statement. Whats popular isn't always right. Obviously at some point in our history smoking was so popular we used cartoons to sell them. Keep up.
A lot of you are the American Taliban. What about propane fork lifts in a warehouse? Or gas even? When i flown into Ontario to visit my parents I can't even see bill boards from all the shit in the air. Get over yourselves. freedom is dangerous.
No one thinks smoking is a good thing, but that doesn't mean government is the proper or best tool to correct the problem. Government is historically a very poor instrument of control over personal vices.
I will be the first to admit true nanny-state laws exist. However, as I've argued in this thread I don't believe the elimination of carcinogenic particulates from the work environment deserves such a label.
You're in a fantasy world if you believe these bans will result in "all businesses eliminating unnecessary carcinogenic particulates from the work environment". I know of a few bars here in Milwaukee that don't care if patrons smoke, even though WI has one of these bans in place. They take the chance. Bans require enforcement. Milwaukee police have *a lot* of things they should be doing that better serve the public interest than inspecting bars to ensure compliance with a smoking ban.
What should cities/states/communities do to ensure that bars are adhering to these smoking bans?
The best way is to let businesses become smoke-free on their own (something that has already happened for the vast majority) if their clientele and/or employees demand it.
Well, in my "civilized society" we would respect one another's individual freedoms, even those we do not agree with, and even those that *shock* may carry an element of danger to those whom willingly accept such risk. And if someone in my neighborhood wants to open a bar and allow smoking inside that bar, I would do the civilized thing and allow him to do so, regardless of my opinion on the dangers of SHS. I would not lobby for laws to force my neighbor to run his business the way I want him to because I presume to be more intelligent, classy, or "civilized" than he.
... the employer is allowing employees to work in an environment with carcinogenic particulates by allowing smoke in that environment. Is it coming from patrons? from fellow employees? it doesn't really matter, the fact is the environment is polluted by carcinogenic particulates.
@Scotteq, the employer is allowing employees to work in an environment with carcinogenic particulates by allowing smoke in that environment. Is it coming from patrons? from fellow employees? it doesn't really matter, the fact is the environment is polluted by carcinogenic particulates.
Your society is not civilized if you consider it an employers individual freedom to unnecessarily endanger his employees.
Yes there are dangerous jobs by nature. No that doesn't give employers the unlimited freedom to add as much danger as they so choose to the job description. I can't hire people and tell them they have to work on a skyscraper without safety harnesses because it's my company. Now I can't hire people and tell them they have to serve food and drinks in the presence of severely elevated levels of carcinogenic particulates.
For the umpteenth time: Those businesses do NOT force people to smoke. That's an individual behavior. Therefore regulating business is not the proper way to go.
It DOES matter, because that activity is LEGAL and people are (supposedly still) free to choose to smoke. And it *is* a nanny state argument, since you are regulating an otherwise legal activity.
I told you how to go about it: Have nicotine declared a Schedule 1 drug.
It only "doesn't really matter" because you would use/abuse the law to (en)force your opinions on how people should behave.
The problem with your argument is that SMOKING IS NOT A JOB REQUIREMENT.
Your society is not civilized if you consider it an employers individual freedom to unnecessarily endanger his employees.
Yes there are dangerous jobs by nature. No that doesn't give employers the unlimited freedom to add as much danger as they so choose to the job description. I can't hire people and tell them they have to work on a skyscraper without safety harnesses because it's my company. Now I can't hire people and tell them they have to serve food and drinks in the presence of severely elevated levels of carcinogenic particulates.
Who said anything about forcing people to smoke for the umpteenth time.
This is about employees who do not smoke who are forced to breath SHS.
So in the past government had very little to no control over the regulation of cigarettes and they were more popular. Now with more regulation and medical studies funded by the government smoking is less popular.
The truth is the opposite of what you state.
Just because a business owner allows smoking does not automatically mean his employees are in any danger. There are plenty of ways to mitigate SHS, fans, ventilation systems, separating smokers, and workers that don't mind working in smoke. Your solution to use force of government is draconian and stupid without exhausting other options that are available, and let people, and business keep their freedoms.
Oh my god, not this argument.
People still murder each-other that doesn't mean the laws against murder are ineffective and solely depend on personal responsibility. There are laws against bad things because the shit is bad (such as carcinogenic particulates in the work environment). They will never be 100% enforced but in general they serve to eliminate dangers from the work environment. Will people break the law? of course. Will most people follow the law? probably.
Everyone knows smoking is unhealthy, yet nearly 21% of the adult population still smokes regularly. Teenage smoking is roughly the same. Clearly, regulation and knowledge of its dangers aren't solving the problem. Help to quit smoking is readily available, too, for the people who want to quit.
A reasonable regulation would be to have a certain particulate level identified as acceptable. The fact of the matter is that no laws is not the solution, although a complete ban isn't necessarily the only solution. If a business had extremely good ventilation that isolated the smokers then that would be fine in my opinion.
What laws allow for is people who are treated to extremely bad working conditions (say a working environment that is a smog of smoke) to file for grievances and end the practice. You could say they should just find employment elsewhere but then the remaining employees would still suffer. It is possible one or many of these employees would have an extremely hard time finding another job. The bottom line is that it is unacceptable to allow the employer full discretion for determining working environment safety.
Oh your god, not this lame retort..
Murder is not legal.. smoking is. There's a huge difference between laws against murder and smoking bans for private businesses.
What laws allow for is people who are treated to extremely bad working conditions (say a working environment that is a smog of smoke) to file for grievances and end the practice. You could say they should just find employment elsewhere but then the remaining employees would still suffer. It is possible one or many of these employees would have an extremely hard time finding another job.
The bottom line is that it is unacceptable to allow the employer full discretion for determining working environment safety.
Is the Employer providing the smoke?? A simple yes or no will suffice.
A reasonable regulation would be to have a certain particulate level identified as acceptable. The fact of the matter is that no laws is not the solution, although a complete ban isn't necessarily the only solution. If a business had extremely good ventilation that isolated the smokers then that would be fine in my opinion.
Give me a fucking break, letting customers smoke is not "treating people bad". Other customers have the right to not patronize the establishment, and employees that don't want to work where there's smoke can seek employment elsewhere. There are literally hundreds of restaurants that do not allow smoking by patrons, and only allow smoking for employees in designated areas.What laws allow for is people who are treated to extremely bad working conditions (say a working environment that is a smog of smoke) to file for grievances and end the practice.
You could say they should just find employment elsewhere but then the remaining employees would still suffer.
If they choose to than too bad for them, that's their choice. If no one wants to work there, than the business will go out of business.It is possible one or many of these employees would have an extremely hard time finding another job. The bottom line is that it is unacceptable to allow the employer full discretion for determining working environment safety.
The employer allows the practice that provides the smoke.
As an employer I can't allow a select few employees to prance around burning Asbestos. As an employer I can't allow a select few employees to spray chlorine gas around the working environment. Now as an employer I can't allow a select few employees to run around smoking when it subjects other employees to the Second hand smoke.
HOWEVER, these employees can burn asbestos on their private property, they can inhale all the chlorine gas they could ever dream of, and they can smoke to their heart's content on their private propety. They can't do any of these things in a working environment with fellow employees around, is that so difficult to comprehend?
I did not make claim there was no difference.
I stated that whether a law is followed or not should not be the basis for the law being implemented in the first place.
Your society is not civilized if you consider it an employers individual freedom to unnecessarily endanger his employees.