Andrew R,
You can talk about why you think low income workers should be forced to work in smoke filled environments for your amusement here.
I am definitely missing something, and I am not certain I want to know what it is.
I am definitely missing something, and I am not certain I want to know what it is.
They are apparently discussing smoke-free establishment laws.
Should owners be allowed to choose what is allowed in their restaurants and bars, and should workers be allowed to choose whether they work in a smoking establishment or elsewhere?
Or should workers and owners have that choice taken away from them, since tobacco smoke is unhealthy for you?
Ah. Smoking debate.
I don't know it can be honestly discussed. At one point, it was about the truth and about unnecessary public health risks. These days, it's about cancer and banning for the public good.
Considering that cigarettes are not even in the top 100 list of dangerous carcinogens that people come into contact with on a daily basis, most of which are necessary for modern life to even exist, I'm kinda questioning if the anti-smoking campaign is even rooted in reality anymore.
Given the fact I've repeatedly caught The Truth campaign misrepresenting information or outright lying, I'm finding their name coupled with their inability to tell the truth intensely ironic. It doesn't help that The Truth, as well as a lot of the anti-smoking campaign today, likes to misrepresent pictures of diseased organs as being related to smoking. I've seen what the lungs of a smoker who smoked for 70 years look like; the picture they usually use is from a coal miner.
Then you find out the antismoking campaign is funded by the cigarette companies. You know, the same people who spent years lying to the public about how harmful their product is, lying about study results, and even outright falsifying scientific data. It kinda comes as no shock that any campaign they fund will pull the same tactics.
So, we have a scenario where both sides are liars and frauds. I don't see how an honest discussion of the issues is possible.
As annoying as osha can be sometimes, we have those rules for a good reason. Life without them sucked. The "you can work somewhere thats smoke free"/isn't a babydeathtrap/doesn't emit enough radiation to cook a hotdog at 20 paces doesn't help you if EVERY employer races to the bottom and has those hazards at their workplace.
Just go into business for yourself isn't a realistic possibility for most people.
|
Not sure I buy the argument that low income earners have no choice but to work at these places. Before the ban even went into effect here locally most places had already out right banned smoking. The only places that allowed it were bars and clubs that basically didnt even sell food. Well those few bars and casinos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligent people under 50 still smoke? Seriously?
Yep. Not as common as it once was, due to how expensive cigarettes are. If anything, cigarettes are increasingly becoming a luxury of the upper middle class and wealthy.
One of the great failures of the anti-smoking campaign is they don't understand human psychology. If something is expensive, it tends to come across as being more something for those with money, which in turn makes it more attractive to those without... which, in turn, makes it more likely to sell for those who want to live as though they actually have some money. That's one of the reasons why people talk about buying Ferraris.
Add to that the idea of human contrariness, specifically that some people will do something just because they have people telling them not to do it.
So instead of doing away with cigarette smoking, they've probably managed to firmly entrench it as an unending part of society.
|
|
Im not buying it magusjanus. My well off friends quit smoking because they are more susceptible to peer pressure and health initatives. My freinds who are lower income still smoke despite the rise in cost and im not sure they will ever quit. These folks could care less about image and far more self destructive in general.
Pan, you're not supposed to. That's because that section of what I posted is bull$#!^.
Unfortunately, it's bull$#!^ some people actually believe, due in part to the number of movies on the market that show the upper class as smoking.
I'm upper lower-class. Give you three guesses how many times I've heard people trying cigarettes just because they see wealthy people do it in movies, with the desperate hope that emulating the wealthy will lead to them becoming wealthy.
Which, in turn, is more bull$#!^.
I don't know it can be honestly discussed. At one point, it was about the truth and about unnecessary public health risks. These days, it's about cancer and banning for the public good.
Don't forget the money. It's almost always about the money.
As annoying as osha can be sometimes, we have those rules for a good reason. Life without them sucked.
I assure you, I am quite familiar with how useful and how annoying OSHA can be. But not everything they do is helpful.
Take the place I used to work at. We had to wear safety harnesses if we were working above 8 feet. But those safety harnesses were cumbersome to work in, and would turn a five minute job into a twenty minute job. We had guys who did this sort of construction for twenty years before the harnesses were mandated. They were skilled and confident enough to do the work without falling to their deaths. If they fall, it's because of their own mistake, not the employer's negligence.
But hey, if we didn't wear those harnesses, the company could get slapped with a fine that could pay my rent for a year.
The "you can work somewhere thats smoke free"/isn't a babydeathtrap/doesn't emit enough radiation to cook a hotdog at 20 paces doesn't help you if EVERY employer races to the bottom and has those hazards at their workplace.
I don't see how "a race to the bottom" means that every restaurant will allow smoking. There's plenty of people who will pay for a place that doesn't smell of stale cigarette smoke.
Not sure I buy the argument that low income earners have no choice but to work at these places. Before the ban even went into effect here locally most places had already out right banned smoking. The only places that allowed it were bars and clubs that basically didnt even sell food. Well those few bars and casinos.
And were the places that had the ban hiring still or were they full?
|
|
Not sure I buy the argument that low income earners have no choice but to work at these places. Before the ban even went into effect here locally most places had already out right banned smoking. The only places that allowed it were bars and clubs that basically didnt even sell food. Well those few bars and casinos.And were the places that had the ban hiring still or were they full?
Not sure but I do know that the places that banned smoking outnumbered those that didnt by a wide margin. Its not 1950's anymore when the dentist lights a lucky while working on your teeth.
Take the place I used to work at. We had to wear safety harnesses if we were working above 8 feet. But those safety harnesses were cumbersome to work in, and would turn a five minute job into a twenty minute job. We had guys who did this sort of construction for twenty years before the harnesses were mandated. They were skilled and confident enough to do the work without falling to their deaths.
Until they get electrocuted, slip on a spill someone else left, get hit in the head with a branch/goose , or have a heart attack. (it was an interesting week...)
I can do you better. Lifeguards are required to have those big floaty foam thingies at all times.. even while watching the kiddie section. Not only is it fairly useless when the lifegurd is only knee deep in water, but it makes it MORE dangerous because the lifeguard can't run through the crowd.
If they fall, it's because of their own mistake, not the employer's negligence.
So people have to literally risk life and limb to stay employed? Because no employer is going to stand for it taking 4 times as long.
Jobs only for the suicidal!But hey, if we didn't wear those harnesses, the company could get slapped with a fine that could pay my rent for a year.
Good.
I don't see how "a race to the bottom" means that every restaurant will allow smoking. There's plenty of people who will pay for a place that doesn't smell of stale cigarette smoke.
Not nearly enough, and most places will just have a smoking/non smoking section. Going in and out of a smoking area isn't all that much better for you than staying in one.
Honestly, I would ban smoking. Everywhere. Forever. Unfortunately, It's not up to me...
They're planning to, but first they need to erode the popularity of smoking enough.
The last time a blanket ban of similar harm and popularity was tried, it was Prohibition. The United States is still trying to clean up the fallout from that, and likely will be fighting the results of that ban for the next century and a half.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Hama, it's because of people like you (a bad way to start a sentence- this isn't going to be negative) that I think that smoking should not be banned in a capitalist nation. Let me explain. If there is a profitable demand for non-smoking establishments, entrepreneurs will (should, at least) recognize that and open their non-smoking businesses, be they clubs, bars, diners, or whatever.
The problem is that there isn't enough demand for a lot of establishments, especially ones that thrive on the sale of alcohol, to make the switch. If there were more people like you, even if those people were not the proprietors, we would see clubs and bars becoming non-smoking establishments without any government mandate. It already happened for many restaurants because there was a demand.
Anyway, that's my take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When they illiminate smoking what will they go after next? Doritos and pepsi?
They're already trying. Take a look at New York.
When they illiminate smoking what will they go after next? Doritos and pepsi?They're already trying. Take a look at New York.
You can get a new yorkers soda away when you pry it from their cold fat fingers...
|
Andrew R,
You can talk about why you think low income workers should be forced to work in smoke filled environments for your amusement here.
They have a choice, much as the person that works in the hot and cold do. it is a legal activity and should remain to the building owners to decide. Who are you to say that people allergic to peanuts must work with them? allergic to dogs must allow service animals?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can really feel your concern for poor people who have to take whatever job they can get. It's palpable.
Until they get electrocuted,
Then it's the fault of the electrician who didn't wire it up right. Or the moron who smashed a forklift into a conduit and didn't tell anybody. Unless you can prove that the company was negligent in hiring an incompetent worker and/or failed to provide adequate supervision.
slip on a spill someone else left,
Again, the fault of the guy who spilled and didn't clean up or warn anybody.
get hit in the head with a branch/goose
I'd need a pair of binoculars to see trees or geese from where I work. :P
or have a heart attack. (it was an interesting week...)
...
So people have to literally risk life and limb to stay employed? Because no employer is going to stand for it taking 4 times as long.
Where did I say that?
The safety equipment is already there, as are the training videos for the harnesses, and just about everything else. If the worker decides that he doesn't need safety equipment for this particular job, he shouldn't be required to use it, and management shouldn't face a penalty for it.But hey, if we didn't wear those harnesses, the company could get slapped with a fine that could pay my rent for a year.Good.
Why is that good? If workers decide to take risks that can only harm themselves, why should management should be penalized for it?
Not nearly enough, and most places will just have a smoking/non smoking section.
Hey, I can remember what it was like before nonsmoking restaurants were mandatory in my state. There were plenty of places that had a total smoking ban.
Because there's no such thing as workers deciding to take risks that only affect themselves.
I'm sorry, but in my experience, that's patently untrue.
You said it would take 4 times as long to do the job with the harness on. Who's gonna get fired, the much slower guy how uses the harness? Or the one who takes the risk and works faster. Who gets the raises?
It's not as simple as that.
I was a welder/fabricator. I built machinery and scaffolding, so the minority of my time was spent up in the air with a harness.A five-minute job could take twenty minutes, a sixty-minute job could take seventy. How much time the harness adds depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes, the added time just wasn't noticeable.
Also, I wasn't a lineman or anything. The company's bottom line was largely unaffected by how fast we worked. Hell, you wouldn't believe how much time my co-workers could waste just goldbricking around. My frustration with the regulations basically states that, no, you cannot judge for yourself what safety equipment you need.
Finally, we were a semi-skilled shop. Management was reluctant to fire anybody because they'd have to spend time training new hires.
If it's the worker's choice, but the company can punish or reward based on the consequences of that choice, then it's no choice at all. The company's pressuring the workers to take the risk.
When that happens, go ahead and build a case with Labor and Industries.
I'm not saying that I worked at a dream job with the perfect management. Far from it.
When they illiminate smoking what will they go after next? Doritos and pepsi?They're already trying. Take a look at New York.
You can get a new yorkers soda away when you pry it from their cold fat fingers...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there's no such thing as workers deciding to take risks that only affect themselves.I'm sorry, but in my experience, that's patently untrue.
You said it would take 4 times as long to do the job with the harness on. Who's gonna get fired, the much slower guy how uses the harness? Or the one who takes the risk and works faster. Who gets the raises?It's not as simple as that.
I was a welder/fabricator. I built machinery and scaffolding, so the minority of my time was spent up in the air with a harness.
A five-minute job could take twenty minutes, a sixty-minute job could take seventy. How much time the harness adds depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes, the added time just wasn't noticeable.Also, I wasn't a lineman or anything. The company's bottom line was largely unaffected by how fast we worked. Hell, you wouldn't believe how much time my co-workers could waste just goldbricking around. My frustration with the regulations basically states that, no, you cannot judge for yourself what safety equipment you need.
Finally, we were a semi-skilled shop. Management was reluctant to fire anybody because they'd have to spend time training new hires.
If it's the worker's choice, but the company can punish or reward based on the consequences of that choice, then it's no choice at all. The company's pressuring the workers to take the risk.When that happens, go ahead and build a case with Labor and Industries.
I'm not saying that I worked at a dream job with the perfect management. Far from it.
Lots of rules sound frivolous until you're the one recovering in a hospital bed.
When I was in the military they pounded safety into our head. The problem being you've got a bunch of 19 y/o's who aren't exactly "safety first" types.
Lots of rules sound frivolous until you're the one recovering in a hospital bed.
When I was in the military they pounded safety into our head. The problem being you've got a bunch of 19 y/o's who aren't exactly "safety first" types.
I dunno. The bright, reflective belts required by safety regulations don't seem to be doing as good a job of protecting the soldiers. On the other hand, when some friends and I tested them in a paintball game, we find the shiny, reflective surface made it easier to know where to shoot to disable someone. And that was with paintballs; I imagine bullets striking those areas are much, much worse.
And, well, the increase in fatal accidents for bicyclists in Australia after the helmet law was passed seems to suggest that safety rules don't necessarily always result in a positive change.
Safety rules can also seem sensible... up until they cost you your life. That is why some people question the necessity of them. That is also why it is you have to be diligent about keeping an eye on if they're actually working... something OSHA and a few other agencies are not necessarily known for.
I, like MagusJanus, am skeptical of some of the anti-smoking campaign claims. For example, the '92 EPA study which, as far as I know, is the cornerstone for second-hand smoke studies found a correlation somewhere in the 20% range between second-hand smoke and lung-cancer. Meanwhile, the correlation between first-hand smoke and lung-cancer has been found to be 2000%.
But maybe I just cling to that because I am under 50 and smoke a pack a day. Whether I am intelligent or not, of course, is up for public debate.
"Smoking is the only honorable form of suicide."--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Apparently, he'd never heard of seppuku, but whatevs.
I do remember, however, back in the early nineties when Dunkin Donuts institiuted a smoking ban in their stores and a (smoker) comrade of my quipped: "Come on, who in the hell thinks a coffee and doughnuts is a healthy breakfast except for a smoker?!?"
Also, for those who are indignant about Citizen R. wanting to be able to smoke a cigar and drink scotch in public at the same time, how do you feel about the latest trend in anti-smoking totalitarianism?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People don’t have to be dropping dead for you to regulate something
... I really do not like the implications of this mindset.
Then it's the fault of the electrician who didn't wire it up right. Or the moron who smashed a forklift into a conduit and didn't tell anybody.[or the guy who left the spill]
Until they get electrocuted,
Ok, lets say Bob running the forklift crashes the forklift and knocks me off and paralyzes me. I can sue bob for everything he's worth... the entire 2 grand. Thats not enough to rig my car up to take a wheel chair, much less retrain and relocate.
get hit in the head with a branch/gooseI'd need a pair of binoculars to see trees or geese from where I work. :P
I wouldn't from where I worked. Seriously, weird stuff happens.
So people have to literally risk life and limb to stay employed? Because no employer is going to stand for it taking 4 times as long.Where did I say that?
So if worker A does the job in 5 minutes and worker B does the job in 20 you know damn well they're going to fire worker B.
Why is that good? If workers decide to take risks that can only harm themselves, why should management should be penalized for it?
So worker A, B, C, and D are all in harnesses and management can't selectively fire people that aren't willing to risk life and limb for the job.
Hey, I can remember what it was like before nonsmoking restaurants were mandatory in my state. There were plenty of places that had a total smoking ban.
In new york i hadn't seen one. Every place was smoking/non in sections.
As for occupational safety and hazard,
I told an anecdote about my paternal grandfather, the Fairhope Yankee, in another thread and I was talking to my father over the weekend and he shared another anecdote:
Gramps was a stooge of the plutocracy and a supe in a Pittsburgh steel mill. He had one worker underneath him who refused to wear his safety harness, and after many, many warnings, one day Gramps saw him not wearing the harness and fired him on the spot.
Over the weekend, the worker's wife tracked Gramps back to his home and begged him to reinstate her husband. Gramps backed down and cancelled the firing. Two weeks later, the worker fell and was impaled on steel rods. The wife found Gramps again and blamed him for the worker's death.
According to my father, when Gramps related this story decades later, he cried like a baby.
I don't care if people want to smoke. I just think that making that decision for other people (or enticing them with money) is wrong. Someone will always be poor enough that they'll take whatever job they can, even if it's dangerous or harmful to them in the long run.
Then of course, a lot of bars don't provide health coverage for their workers either. So if they do get sick from second hand smoke and go to the emergency room and can't afford to pay for it, we're picking up the tab on that as well.
Sounds like those bar and restaurant workers should fight for $45/hour, the right to form a union without retaliation and a socialist health care system (not Obamacare).
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm generally in favor of people being indignant with Citizen R., but I'm not exactly certain what starting a thread based on one of his more innocuous comments (this is, after all, Citizen R. we're talking about) is supposed to achieve.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like those bar and restaurant workers should fight for $45/hour, the right to form a union without retaliation and a socialist health care system (not Obamacare).
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm generally in favor of people being indignant with Citizen R., but I'm not exactly certain what starting a thread based on one of his more innocuous comments (this is, after all, Citizen R. we're talking about) is supposed to achieve.
Threads are supposed to achieve something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
semi off topic but:
So if I'm not mistaken the taxes they put on tobacco products pays for school programs of some sort or another...
I always wondered where they were going to get their money once enough people quit smoking. Looks like its going to be soda...since there area already bans in place...
Im just going to kick back and giggle since I no longer smoke and have instituted my own household soda ban lol.
semi off topic but:
So if I'm not mistaken the taxes they put on tobacco products pays for school programs of some sort or another...
I always wondered where they were going to get their money once enough people quit smoking. Looks like its going to be soda...since there area already bans in place...
Im just going to kick back and giggle since I no longer smoke and have instituted my own household soda ban lol.
It all goes into the same place and comes out in one undifferentiated mass.
semi off topic but:
So if I'm not mistaken the taxes they put on tobacco products pays for school programs of some sort or another...
I always wondered where they were going to get their money once enough people quit smoking. Looks like its going to be soda...since there area already bans in place...
Im just going to kick back and giggle since I no longer smoke and have instituted my own household soda ban lol.
It all goes into the same place and comes out in one undifferentiated mass.
Not necessarily so. Several state/local "sin" taxes chuck their takings directly at one program or another. Example- here in WV the soda tax that has been in place for decades was all routed to WVU for the purpose of setting up a medical school.
Threads are supposed to achieve something?
Fair enough.
[Lights up]
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I dunno. The bright, reflective belts required by safety regulations don't seem to be doing as good a job of protecting the soldiers. On the other hand, when some friends and I tested them in a paintball game, we find the shiny, reflective surface made it easier to know where to shoot to disable someone. And that was with paintballs; I imagine bullets striking those areas are much, much worse.
You don't wear reflective belts in combat.
I agree that we should ban smoking. While we're at it, let's reinstate Prohibition, since that panned out so well. We should totally legalize marijuana, though, because adults can make their own decisions.
I'd be for that, because people can make their own tobacco cigarettes which wouldn't be nearly as harmful or addicting as what people buy. The processed and chemical laden stuff you get in cigarettes isn't even tobacco anymore.
Not necessarily so. Several state/local "sin" taxes chuck their takings directly at one program or another. Example- here in WV the soda tax that has been in place for decades was all routed to WVU for the purpose of setting up a medical school.
Do you think they wouldn't just be funding that out of the general revenue if they didn't have the sin taxes?
|
|
I agree that we should ban smoking. While we're at it, let's reinstate Prohibition, since that panned out so well. We should totally legalize marijuana, though, because adults can make their own decisions.I'd be for that, because people can make their own tobacco cigarettes which wouldn't be nearly as harmful or addicting as what people buy. The processed and chemical laden stuff you get in cigarettes isn't even tobacco anymore.
Very true, i think most of the health problem associated with smoking are more from that chemical cocktail than from the natural plant leaves
|
|
Sounds like those bar and restaurant workers should fight for $45/hour, the right to form a union without retaliation and a socialist health care system (not Obamacare).
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm generally in favor of people being indignant with Citizen R., but I'm not exactly certain what starting a thread based on one of his more innocuous comments (this is, after all, Citizen R. we're talking about) is supposed to achieve.
Some people just want a reason to be offended.
|
|
I don't care if people want to smoke. I just think that making that decision for other people (or enticing them with money) is wrong. Someone will always be poor enough that they'll take whatever job they can, even if it's dangerous or harmful to them in the long run.
Then of course, a lot of bars don't provide health coverage for their workers either. So if they do get sick from second hand smoke and go to the emergency room and can't afford to pay for it, we're picking up the tab on that as well.
So how many dangerous industries to you want to shut down to save those poor workers from earning a wage? Mining and lumber are dangerous, factories, fast food is risky and involves inhaling vapors from fryers and the like. Better just let them all not have jobs for their safety. And while you are at it you can end all freedom for our safety too. unsafe hobbies and vehicles gotta go. unhealthy food and booze are straight out. for the greater good.
So how many dangerous industries to you want to shut down to save those poor workers from earning a wage? Mining and lumber are dangerous, factories, fast food is risky and involves inhaling vapors from fryers and the like. Better just let them all not have jobs for their safety.
We find a reasonable level of safety, and if that involves unemployed people then we help them.
Thats already happened/happening in the logging industry as it moves from a guy with a chainsaw to a guy inside a giant robotic rototiller of arbory death.
So how many dangerous industries to you want to shut down to save those poor workers from earning a wage? Mining and lumber are dangerous, factories, fast food is risky and involves inhaling vapors from fryers and the like. Better just let them all not have jobs for their safety. And while you are at it you can end all freedom for our safety too. unsafe hobbies and vehicles gotta go. unhealthy food and booze are straight out. for the greater good.I don't care if people want to smoke. I just think that making that decision for other people (or enticing them with money) is wrong. Someone will always be poor enough that they'll take whatever job they can, even if it's dangerous or harmful to them in the long run.
Then of course, a lot of bars don't provide health coverage for their workers either. So if they do get sick from second hand smoke and go to the emergency room and can't afford to pay for it, we're picking up the tab on that as well.
Ah yes, the slippery slope argument. If we're nice to one person, we'll have to be nice to all of them!
Edit: to add, your concern for the poor is continuing to show through in these posts. Keep it up!
Edit 2: you should make a point about how families could better support themselves if they could send their kids to work sooner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, like MagusJanus, am skeptical of some of the anti-smoking campaign claims. For example, the '92 EPA study which, as far as I know, is the cornerstone for second-hand smoke studies found a correlation somewhere in the 20% range between second-hand smoke and lung-cancer. Meanwhile, the correlation between first-hand smoke and lung-cancer has been found to be 2000%.
Ooh! Don't forget third-hand smoke!
Lots of rules sound frivolous until you're the one recovering in a hospital bed.
Then it's my own fault for what happened.
When I was in the military they pounded safety into our head. The problem being you've got a bunch of 19 y/o's who aren't exactly "safety first" types.
Difference between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about is that if I fall from scaffolding, it's my fault and I'm the only one being injured. If someone's negligence starts a fire on a carrier, that puts everyone in jeopardy.
People don’t have to be dropping dead for you to regulate something... I really do not like the implications of this mindset.
You shouldn't.
I'd be for that, because people can make their own tobacco cigarettes which wouldn't be nearly as harmful or addicting as what people buy. The processed and chemical laden stuff you get in cigarettes isn't even tobacco anymore.
Source, please?
Ok, lets say Bob running the forklift crashes the forklift and knocks me off and paralyzes me. I can sue bob for everything he's worth... the entire 2 grand. Thats not enough to rig my car up to take a wheel chair, much less retrain and relocate.
That's what accident insurance is for. If I was going to take unnecessary risks on the job, I was going to make sure that I was covered in case things went wrong.