If you're taking "unnecessary risks", your insurance company is probably going to use that to avoid paying.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I smoke, and I prefer going places that do not allow it, especially restaurants. I also work in the service industry, and I am happy my work place is non-smoking. I don't feel any urge to annoy others with my habit, nor do I feel like being annoyed by others while I work and eat. Going outside and standing away from the door isn't fascist, it's courteous.
If you're taking "unnecessary risks", your insurance company is probably going to use that to avoid paying.
*slaps forehead*
Point taken. Ours covered a guy who fell ten feet and broke his arm and collar bone. He wasn't wearing a harness, but there must have been some other factor I'm unaware of.
|
I smoke, and I prefer going places that do not allow it, especially restaurants. I also work in the service industry, and I am happy my work place is non-smoking. I don't feel any urge to annoy others with my habit, nor do I feel like being annoyed by others while I work and eat. Going outside and standing away from the door isn't fascist, it's courteous.
That is fine but it should be a choice
|
|
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.
Your concern for freedom and ability to choose is coming through. soon if we have enough of you we can all be free to do nothing, for our safety. Your false concern for the poor while taking jobs is sad and funny at the same time. OMG how dare i want them to be subject to smoke when they choose to work in a bar, the horror. they have a choice.
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.
Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?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.
You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.
If you're taking "unnecessary risks", your insurance company is probably going to use that to avoid paying.*slaps forehead*
Point taken. Ours covered a guy who fell ten feet and broke his arm and collar bone. He wasn't wearing a harness, but there must have been some other factor I'm unaware of.
If you're in the US, workers comp covers people. It assumes that its the employers fault for not insuring that the worker had the harness on. This is for a few reasons.
1) it prevents the employer from firing the people that don't have the harness on and then telling falling workers they should have had the harness on.
2) You're kind of undermining your previous statements about people that won't fall off when you tell us about people that fall off.
You might be lucky enough to work for an employer that doesn't think that evil, but even if your boss isn't conniving enough of his competitors would be to drive him out of business. Seriously, who would contract people out to him if he either
1) took 4 times longer to finish the job (and thus cost 4x as much)
or
2) cost twice as much because he's covering liability insurance for his workers and his employer isn't.
Its not idle speculation. We've had the laisez faire market before and it SUCKED for the worker.
If you think people have more consideration for the worker now.. they don't. I had the workers comp. people try to tell me that the log fell on my foot, so they didn't have to cover the surgery to my toe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?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.
As state workers in my state have learned, "bright and reflective" doesn't mean "traffic will notice you easier." And when they do notice you, it sometimes means "they were too distracted by the bright and reflective to avoid hitting you."
And, I have. Look on some of the military forums complaining about the belts. You'll see the occasional complaint about wearing them on night patrol. And the occasional defense of that. Now, I admit this might be individual commanders going outside of policy; I don't know. And I don't know if it is an old policy that quickly got dropped or a current policy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.
This....infact in garrison (not in a combat zone) you only wear them when you are in your PT (physical training) uniform and a few other special circumstances. You dont wear them when on patrol...or even out side the wire.
1) it prevents the employer from firing the people that (delete) have the harness on and then telling falling workers they should have had the harness on.
I think I fixed that for you.
2) You're kind of undermining your previous statements about people that won't fall off when you tell us about people that fall off.
Worked in same place as him, doesn't mean we were doing the same job or working in the same conditions. Maybe I was a mechanic, and he was some guy in the night shift who fell off the loading dock.
You might be lucky enough to work for an employer that doesn't think that evil, but even if your boss isn't conniving enough of his competitors would be to drive him out of business.
And yet, despite the fact that I've personally seen these guys throw away $40,000 of equipment in a pissing match, they're still in business and are even expanding. And our competitors aren't that much better.
Seriously, who would contract people out to him if he either
1) took 4 times longer to finish the job (and thus cost 4x as much)
or2) cost twice as much because he's covering liability insurance for his workers and his employer isn't.
Sigh.
-As I said before, the harnesses don't make everything take four times longer to complete. Just the quick jobs.-Maybe people contract out to us because what I'm doing doesn't determine how fast we can ship out product. Let's assume that I worked for a food processing plant somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. The company earns profit by taking food in, blanching it, boxing it, and shipping it out to be packaged.
My job was to repair machinery during downtime or in the off season. As long as the job was done, our employer was happy.
-We get paid less than some other food plants around here, but our benefits are better. If we count the benefits as part of our salary, we're about equal in wages.
You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?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.As state workers in my state have learned, "bright and reflective" doesn't mean "traffic will notice you easier." And when they do notice you, it sometimes means "they were too distracted by the bright and reflective to avoid hitting you."
And, I have. Look on some of the military forums complaining about the belts. You'll see the occasional complaint about wearing them on night patrol. And the occasional defense of that. Now, I admit this might be individual commanders going outside of policy; I don't know. And I don't know if it is an old policy that quickly got dropped or a current policy.
It's why I don't wear highly reflective stuff on the bike anymore in favor of lights on my stem.
You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?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.As state workers in my state have learned, "bright and reflective" doesn't mean "traffic will notice you easier." And when they do notice you, it sometimes means "they were too distracted by the bright and reflective to avoid hitting you."
And, I have. Look on some of the military forums complaining about the belts. You'll see the occasional complaint about wearing them on night patrol. And the occasional defense of that. Now, I admit this might be individual commanders going outside of policy; I don't know. And I don't know if it is an old policy that quickly got dropped or a current policy.
You should be careful about your sources. For example, Duffel blog is a parody site and also several of the top hits if you google things like "reflective belt combat".
You should be careful about your sources. For example, Duffel blog is a parody site and also several of the top hits if you google things like "reflective belt combat".You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?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.As state workers in my state have learned, "bright and reflective" doesn't mean "traffic will notice you easier." And when they do notice you, it sometimes means "they were too distracted by the bright and reflective to avoid hitting you."
And, I have. Look on some of the military forums complaining about the belts. You'll see the occasional complaint about wearing them on night patrol. And the occasional defense of that. Now, I admit this might be individual commanders going outside of policy; I don't know. And I don't know if it is an old policy that quickly got dropped or a current policy.
Love that site!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Health reasons be damned. I favor smoking bans for purely selfish personal reasons.
Smoking STINKS.
If I'm out for a nice restaurant meal I don't want it ruined by the stench of noxious smoke from some other person's filthy habit. Whatever your sucking on, leave it at home or outside.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I agree with you Calex, I don't think personal dislike is enough reason to ban something using the law as a bludgeon.
I don't personally approve of the ingestion of most drugs for nonmedicinal purposes, but I think it's ridiculous to have laws banning them. If people want to ruin their own bodies with this or that intoxicant, that's their business. (It's even more ridiculous to have laws banning some, but not banning others like alcohol and tobacco. Make up your mind, people.)
Laws banning the ingesting of certain drugs while doing something dangerous (driving, operating heavy machinery, etc.) however is a completely different thing. If you're going to take the drugs, take them in the safety of your own home, or get a taxi. Don't endanger other people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Health reasons be damned. I favor smoking bans for purely selfish personal reasons.
Smoking STINKS.
If I'm out for a nice restaurant meal I don't want it ruined by the stench of noxious smoke from some other person's filthy habit. Whatever your sucking on, leave it at home or outside.
you have the option of going to non-smoking places don't you?
Can we get a ban on strong perfumes/ those ruin meals for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you see many restaurants advertise as non-smoking establishments, Andrew?
Depends on what you're doing.
Pre-smoking ban, there were literally zero places to go see live music, other than classical, that didn't allow smoking here in the Twin Cities. So no, there were no options in that regards.
|
|
As much as I agree with you Calex, I don't think personal dislike is enough reason to ban something using the law as a bludgeon.
I don't personally approve of the ingestion of most drugs for nonmedicinal purposes, but I think it's ridiculous to have laws banning them. If people want to ruin their own bodies with this or that intoxicant, that's their business. (It's even more ridiculous to have laws banning some, but not banning others like alcohol and tobacco. Make up your mind, people.)
Laws banning the ingesting of certain drugs while doing something dangerous (driving, operating heavy machinery, etc.) however is a completely different thing. If you're going to take the drugs, take them in the safety of your own home, or get a taxi. Don't endanger other people.
Grugs can make people disturbing or dangerous, worse than second hand smoke but i do agree with the idea of not encouraging government tyranny via b&@!~y people.
There's a difference between banning something in public and making it illegal. I don't care what a person does in private. Just don't make me suffer from the bad habits of others. It's the same as banning public drunkenness. If a person is going to do it, at least have the courtesy to not be nuisance. And since it seems most smokers lack the self-control to be this polite, a little judicial encouragement doesn't seem to be a bad thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between banning something in public and making it illegal. I don't care what a person does in private. Just don't make me suffer from the bad habits of others. It's the same as banning public drunkenness. If a person is going to do it, at least have the courtesy to not be nuisance. And since it seems most smokers lack the self-control to be this polite, a little judicial encouragement doesn't seem to be a bad thing.
Call to ban cologne/perfumes loud talking and children and we have a deal. That courtesy to not be a pain in the ass is just as bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between banning something in public and making it illegal. I don't care what a person does in private. Just don't make me suffer from the bad habits of others. It's the same as banning public drunkenness. If a person is going to do it, at least have the courtesy to not be nuisance. And since it seems most smokers lack the self-control to be this polite, a little judicial encouragement doesn't seem to be a bad thing.
I personally disagree.
If you have a problem with it, you can take it up with the manager of the establishment; if they decide they want the smoker(s)'(s) business more than yours, you've the right to take your money elsewhere.
I very much do not think "a little judicial encouragement" should be the response to such a situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you see many restaurants advertise as non-smoking establishments, Andrew?Before the BS local laws YES. we have a few local restaurants and bars that were very clear and used it as a selling point. The horror we had choice.
I've never gone to bars or many concerts so I can't speak up there, but growing up in the 90s I recall quite a few restaurants my parents took us to with distinct no-smoking sections and just as many that had no-smoking signs on their doors or shortly past the entrances. Granted being a kid at the time probably tilted my experience significantly, but it wouldn't change much of my experiences nowadays since I still tend not to frequent the places like bars and such where in my youth smoking would have been more prevalent prior to the bans.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on what you're doing.
Pre-smoking ban, there were literally zero places to go see live music, other than classical, that didn't allow smoking here in the Twin Cities. So no, there were no options in that regards.
I believe Target center and Xcel were supposed to be smoke free but people ignored that. Its been a long time since I have gone to a show in either of those venues though. When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.
When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.
This is my stance as well. Or start up their own business, if they can.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, kids are annoying but they don't give the waitress cancer.
|
|
When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.This is my stance as well. Or start up their own business, if they can.
Yep like crying that we must outlaw italian food because a person is allergic to tomatoes. go elsewhere or start your own.
Yep like crying that we must outlaw italian food because a person is allergic to tomatoes. go elsewhere or start your own.When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.This is my stance as well. Or start up their own business, if they can.
Shouldn't you just go open Andrew R's Smoke-A-Torium in that case?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't you just go open Andrew R's Smoke-A-Torium in that case?Yep like crying that we must outlaw italian food because a person is allergic to tomatoes. go elsewhere or start your own.When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.This is my stance as well. Or start up their own business, if they can.
If the state allowed us to have smoking bars we WOULD. i have a close family freind that did everything she could to get smoking allowed in her bar. the other side wants us to have no choice, we were all for the business being able to exclude smoking.
|
|
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.
Here in the UK, taxation pays for health care. If everyone quit smoking then there would be a short kick as the money ran out but the sick people kept coming but, in the long run, it would save more money than is made from cigarette taxes.
|
|
Here in the UK, taxation pays for health care. If everyone quit smoking then there would be a short kick as the money ran out but the sick people kept coming but, in the long run, it would save more money than is made from cigarette taxes.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.
So would making alcohol illegal and strict controls on what people are allowed to eat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it peculiar how people are presenting smoking as a choice.
F$~* make you smell bad, look worse, lower your fitness levels and make you feel bad when you don't have them. Oh, and in the longer term they might kill you.
And they're addictive.
Hey, I should be allowed to choose to not make a choice because of my addiction. The mistake I made in my teenage years when I was young and naive and chose to start smoking should be one that I am forced to carry with me forever.
They're addictive, smokers are coerced into smoking by their smoking.
Apparently, that can be conveniently ignored.
"I will defend your freedom to be trapped by your past mistakes!"
|
|
So would making alcohol illegal and strict controls on what people are allowed to eat.Here in the UK, taxation pays for health care. If everyone quit smoking then there would be a short kick as the money ran out but the sick people kept coming but, in the long run, it would save more money than is made from cigarette taxes.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's almost as if minimum pricing on alcohol is being brought in, despite big business lobbying their souls away against it.
And schools are having increasingly strict standards set on the food they serve, and food labelling is becoming clearer and better at signalling risk, and the government increasingly restricts the percentages of X that can go in Y, and demands that Z have AA added to make it healthier.
And I never advocated a smoking ban. I just gave an example to illuminate the economic impact of smoking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find it peculiar how people are presenting smoking as a choice.
F~$! make you smell bad, look worse, lower your fitness levels and make you feel bad when you don't have them. Oh, and in the longer term they might kill you.
And they're addictive.
Hey, I should be allowed to choose to not make a choice because of my addiction. The mistake I made in my teenage years when I was young and naive and chose to start smoking should be one that I am forced to carry with me forever.
They're addictive, smokers are coerced into smoking by their smoking.
Apparently, that can be conveniently ignored.
"I will defend your freedom to be trapped by your past mistakes!"
Speaking as an ex-smoker, you've got it exactly right here.
Dude, kids are annoying but they don't give the waitress cancer.Can cause stress, stress causes lots of health problems. Some of us prefer cancer risk to other problems honestly.
I've given up any hope that there's any substance to your arguments. And you should too.
|
|
Dude, kids are annoying but they don't give the waitress cancer.Can cause stress, stress causes lots of health problems. Some of us prefer cancer risk to other problems honestly.I've given up any hope that there's any substance to your arguments. And you should too.
No i do get that there are health risks to smoking, i just don't think they are as bad as people say and for the most part people have a choice to be around it or not
I believe Target center and Xcel were supposed to be smoke free but people ignored that. Its been a long time since I have gone to a show in either of those venues though. When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.Depends on what you're doing.
Pre-smoking ban, there were literally zero places to go see live music, other than classical, that didn't allow smoking here in the Twin Cities. So no, there were no options in that regards.
The free market argument is/was bunk though. The bands I saw weren't big enough for target/xcel. Biggest venue I'd go to was First Ave, but usually I'd stick to the smaller ones, triple rock, big v's, turf club, are more my scene. All of them allowed smoking.
And if I want to go see a band, if that club happens to be smoking allowed, it's not like I can choose a different venue to see the same band. My choices are to see the band or stay home.
Either way, pre-ban, the free market had spoken: Smoking was allowed in all venues that were smaller than an arena.
Also I still don't see why bars should be exempt from the same standards as other work places. If we accept a law as being an acceptable standard for an office/retail store/workshop/etc, why is a bar so special it should be exempt? People still have to work there, and when you're looking at minimum wage (or technically below minimum wage) jobs, I don't see why people should have to sacrifice health for their job, particularly when that sacrifice is not required for that job to exist.
Working on a fishing boat carries a certain amount of inherent risk, because you're on a boat at sea and you can't change that. Working in a coal mine carries certain risks, because your thousands of feet underground and when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong.
Since the bar industry hasn't dried up here since the ban, I think we can safely conclude that while tobacco use can increase bar revenue, it isn't an inherent requirement. If industry profits were our primary concern as a society, we should also remove restrictions on sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors, since those are large and lucrative markets for both industries.
|
|
I believe Target center and Xcel were supposed to be smoke free but people ignored that. Its been a long time since I have gone to a show in either of those venues though. When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.Depends on what you're doing.
Pre-smoking ban, there were literally zero places to go see live music, other than classical, that didn't allow smoking here in the Twin Cities. So no, there were no options in that regards.
The free market argument is/was bunk though. The bands I saw weren't big enough for target/xcel. Biggest venue I'd go to was First Ave, but usually I'd stick to the smaller ones, triple rock, big v's, turf club, are more my scene. All of them allowed smoking.
And if I want to go see a band, if that club happens to be smoking allowed, it's not like I can choose a different venue to see the same band. My choices are to see the band or stay home.
Either way, pre-ban, the free market had spoken: Smoking was allowed in all venues that were smaller than an arena.
Also I still don't see why bars should be exempt from the same standards as other work places. If we accept a law as being an acceptable standard for an office/retail store/workshop/etc, why is a bar so special it should be exempt? People still have to work there, and when you're looking at minimum wage (or technically below minimum wage) jobs, I don't see why people should have to sacrifice health for their job, particularly when that sacrifice is not required for that job to exist.
Working on a fishing boat carries a certain amount of inherent risk, because you're on a boat at sea and you can't change that. Working in a coal mine carries certain risks, because your thousands of feet underground and when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong.
Since the bar industry hasn't dried up here since the ban, I think we can...
I cant deny you are correct the smaller venues all allowed smoking. You could have appealed to them to host no smoking nights. You also could have asked bands to try and set up shows in non-smoking venues. I believe there is a new precedent in society today with the itnernets that gives consumers more power than they had previously. I wish more people would consider it an option than legislation.
So now that smoking ban is in effect what would you think of allowing certain businesses to get a license to allow them open smoking to their patrons? I mean you can open a strip club, gun range, and casino under the right conditions albeit in a limited way.
|
|
I believe Target center and Xcel were supposed to be smoke free but people ignored that. Its been a long time since I have gone to a show in either of those venues though. When there are seemingly zero options, I would prefer people use social media as a platform for getting a free environment of their choosing as opposed to legislation.Depends on what you're doing.
Pre-smoking ban, there were literally zero places to go see live music, other than classical, that didn't allow smoking here in the Twin Cities. So no, there were no options in that regards.
The free market argument is/was bunk though. The bands I saw weren't big enough for target/xcel. Biggest venue I'd go to was First Ave, but usually I'd stick to the smaller ones, triple rock, big v's, turf club, are more my scene. All of them allowed smoking.
And if I want to go see a band, if that club happens to be smoking allowed, it's not like I can choose a different venue to see the same band. My choices are to see the band or stay home.
Either way, pre-ban, the free market had spoken: Smoking was allowed in all venues that were smaller than an arena.
Also I still don't see why bars should be exempt from the same standards as other work places. If we accept a law as being an acceptable standard for an office/retail store/workshop/etc, why is a bar so special it should be exempt? People still have to work there, and when you're looking at minimum wage (or technically below minimum wage) jobs, I don't see why people should have to sacrifice health for their job, particularly when that sacrifice is not required for that job to exist.
Working on a fishing boat carries a certain amount of inherent risk, because you're on a boat at sea and you can't change that. Working in a coal mine carries certain risks, because your thousands of feet underground and when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong.
Since the bar industry hasn't dried up here since the ban, I think we can...
it should remain an option. just as a topless bar has women choose to be topless instead of working at one that has standard dress the ones choosing to work in a smoking establishment choose it.
You should be careful about your sources. For example, Duffel blog is a parody site and also several of the top hits if you google things like "reflective belt combat".You wear them walking around a FOB because there is traffic. Never heard of anybody wearing them out on patrol or otherwise outside the wire.Then why is the U.S. military requiring them to be worn in a war zone? Or, at times, while out on patrol?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.As state workers in my state have learned, "bright and reflective" doesn't mean "traffic will notice you easier." And when they do notice you, it sometimes means "they were too distracted by the bright and reflective to avoid hitting you."
And, I have. Look on some of the military forums complaining about the belts. You'll see the occasional complaint about wearing them on night patrol. And the occasional defense of that. Now, I admit this might be individual commanders going outside of policy; I don't know. And I don't know if it is an old policy that quickly got dropped or a current policy.
I don't use those search terms. I used "military reflective belt" instead the first time, and rely on those terms due to the reliability of results I tend to get. Mainly because I thought the entire reflective belt thing was a hoax or joke being pulled by bored soldiers. Like the idea of trying to stealth an airplane by painting it rainbow colors and relying on the human weirdness censor.
That reminds me... I need to email some seamen about pranking people by claiming the flying aircraft carrier from the Avengers actually exists. As long as they don't look too closely at the photoshops...
Furthermore, if qualified candidates for positions as bartenders, servers, dancers, or whatever other job in a smoke-filled environment are concerned enough about their health to stop applying for those jobs, employers would be forced to either provide greater compensation to their employees or consider changing their policies regarding the allowance of dangerous conditions. In the end, restaurant, bar, and club owners would have to weigh the impact in profit for both situations and adjust accordingly.
If bartenders got paid as much as (relatively) low-skill, *high-risk workers, would you consider them adequately compensated? I ask because I made considerably more than my managers in a much shorter time while I was a bartender. Even when I was a server. Truth is, it was much easier money than any kind of "real job," and I considered the risk to health well worth it. I've outgrown the lifestyle (what with the kids), otherwise I'd still be at it and trying to find a private club that allowed smoking to hire me.
*think "Deadliest Catch" or "Ice Road Truckers."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No i do get that there are health risks to smoking, i just don't think they are as bad as people sayDude, kids are annoying but they don't give the waitress cancer.Can cause stress, stress causes lots of health problems. Some of us prefer cancer risk to other problems honestly.I've given up any hope that there's any substance to your arguments. And you should too.
I'm sorry, but reality is not contingent on your exalted opinion. People are getting sick, diseased, and dead while you play epistemic nihlist to avoid a reality that challenges your fox news preconceptions that complete freedom of choice leads to a land of rainbows, unicorns and leprechauns with pots of gold for everyone.
If you're going to tout total freedom as the only thing at least cop to the downsides of it.
and for the most part people have a choice to be around it or not
When workers can choose to be around chemicals, dangerous equipment and life threatening situations then employers only choose the workers who will risk life and limb and then leave the rest unemployed. You then want to scorn these people and tell them to "get a job". So the effective choices you want to give people are die quickly or die slowly.
We HAVE lived like that before. There is no, nadda, zero, zilch reason to ever return to it. The laisez faire mantra is a complete canard. All it is, all it ever has been, and all it ever WILL be is a one sided excuse for business to take advantage of the people and their government. Thats it. It will not help workers, it will not help the economy, it will not help the country. All it does is help the obscenely rich get obscenely richer.
And you want people to die for that.
I cant deny you are correct the smaller venues all allowed smoking. You could have appealed to them to host no smoking nights. You also could have asked bands to try and set up shows in non-smoking venues. I believe there is a new precedent in society today with the itnernets that gives consumers more power than they had previously. I wish more people would consider it an option than legislation.
So now that smoking ban is in effect what would you think of allowing certain businesses to get a license to allow them open smoking to their patrons? I mean you can open a strip club, gun range, and casino under the right conditions albeit in a limited way.
They didn't exist.
Any suggestion that they did is pure fantasy. This is not hyperbole. If you made two columns of music venues split into smoking and non-smoking venues, one column would be empty.
There is one business in Minnesota where you can smoke: Smoke shops. Places that specialize in tobacco can allow smoking. Technically it's for the purposes of 'tasting', but you can pretty much just smoke. I've even seen a smoke shop with a liquor license down in Mendota Heights.
But don't tell me I had "choices" pre-ban, because it wasn't true. Any claims to the contrary are false, being either disingenuous, ignorant or outright fabrications.
I can't stress this enough: there were ZERO non-smoking venues. I will go on and on about this, repeatedly. It really used to piss me off.