 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
First... ALL the studies you are refering to are from California... not your typical state by a long shot 
Talking to bar owners here, where a ban also could happen, they are livid and think they will lose money. Restaurant owners are also fighting against the ban.
If they were "convinced" of all the studies, you would think they would be fighting for it |
OK, you already know you're wrong about all the studies being from California. I've lived in New York, Ohio, Michigan, and now California, and I can tell you that the states are not so different as you must think. California bar and restaurant owners struggled desperately to prevent us from banning smoking in workplaces; they were livid and thought they would lose money. All the evidence shows they didn't. As I said, it was reasonable to guess they might lose money -- but they didn't. The same is true in NYC. The same will be true in most places.
So, if you won't accept the evidence of the studies, what will you accept? Find me some studies that have shown a negative impact on bar and restaurant profits, and then you'll have begun to make a case -- until then, don't make yourself look foolish.
quote:
We are talking about places where the STATE licenses them to sell booze... A far more serious health problem them second hand smoke... You can say a person doesn't have to drink... but they also don't have to work or enter a place that allows smoking... It's a CHOICE... not something dictated by the state. |
You're deliberately ignoring the obvious. Choosing to drink alcohol, you endanger yourself. Choosing to smoke around other people who have no choice in your action, you endanger others.
Why do some people insist that no one, anywhere, ever, for any reason, has any right to limit their choices? Do you think you have a right to take a dump on my lawn? Do you think you have a right to spray E. coli on my salad? Do you think you have a right to shoot guns in a crowd? What makes smoking different from those actions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Hmmmm... I will have to find a link to a study that shows that NYC bars and clubs lost about 30 to 50% of their business.
Restaurants were unaffected. |
Happy hunting.
But until you can find reputable studies supporting your point, you might want to acknowledge the validity of the whole collection of reputable studies that show you to be wrong. Remember, your friends are reading this, wondering whether you're a bullheaded idiot determined to ignore the evidence.
quote:
But you are ignoring the fact that people have the choice to NOT go into a room full of smoke... If there were seperate smoking and non smoking bars like some cities have, then you have a fair choice. |
The laws are based on worker protection. It is long established that employers have greater power than workers and that workers must therefore be protected against them. If people were blowing asbestos around the room instead of smoke, would you still say "It's the owner's right?" Remember, your friends are watching what you say here.
quote:
And you are also ignoring the fact that second hand smoke is no worse than car polution in major cities... In LA, you do more damage to your lungs walking the streets than being in a bar... yet the city hasn't outlawed cars yet... and you don't have a choice to avoid it unless you move out of the city |
Car pollution in major cities is a major health hazard. On days with high pollution, deaths increase detectably. And every toxic insult that you add to the mix adds to the hazard. Don't dismiss one because there's another one that we haven't yet been able to control. Ambient air pollution makes it MORE important not to have other harmful exposures.
quote:
Smoking and non Smoking bars would solve the problem and not discriminate against anybody. |
Again, it's about the workers. There are good reasons why you can't put workers into the position of saying "OK, I'll work in the dangerous smoky bar."
No one is discriminated against by broad smoking bans. Only the activity, inside the place of employment, is prohibited.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
We're a society. That means that our lives do impact on those of others. It could be smelling their fag smoke, or it could be inhaling their diesel fumes. That happens. |
Yeah. People shoot each other. People break into your house and steal all your stuff. People steal your identity and make it impossible for you to get credit or pay off all the bills they charged against you. That happens. No reason we should interfere with their choices to do those things.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
RAH, I think you present a much more reasonable case than most. I can imagine working out a situation with a few smoking bars. The California law provides a list of places that are exempt from the law, including tobacco shops (duh!), stage plays where smoking is integral to the story, modest portions of hotel facilities, and so on. one exemption is for private truck cabs where only smokers are present. Driving alone or with a smoker? Fire up! Driving with a non-smoker? Respect his health and keep your pack in your pocket.
It's harder to include bars in the exempted group, because you're usually talking about several exposed workers rather than just one as in a truck cab.
California law also allowed for installation of ventilation systems, if they could be demonstrated to be effective enough. No one bothered to do that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
But until you can find reputable studies supporting your point, you might want to acknowledge the validity of the whole collection of reputable studies that show you to be wrong. Remember, your friends are reading this, wondering whether you're a bullheaded idiot determined to ignore the evidence.
|
Unless you have seen the technical appendixes of the studies you are quoting from, how do you know if the are reputable
And why ther personal attack at the end... I'm discussing the issues, and you seem to want to make personal insults... not allowed at this site
quote:
The laws are based on worker protection. It is long established that employers have greater power than workers and that workers must therefore be protected against them. If people were blowing asbestos around the room instead of smoke, would you still say "It's the owner's right?" Remember, your friends are watching what you say here.
|
No need to watch what I say... your comparison isn't a good one. Blowing asbestos around the room would be illegal. Smoking is a legal product.
quote:
Car pollution in major cities is a major health hazard. On days with high pollution, deaths increase detectably. And every toxic insult that you add to the mix adds to the hazard. Don't dismiss one because there's another one that we haven't yet been able to control.
|
I'm not dismissing one... just point out the inconsistency in the laws. Using your logic, cars should be outlawed by the government because of the health hazzard.
quote:
Again, it's about the workers. There are good reasons why you can't put workers into the position of saying "OK, I'll work in the dangerous smoky bar."
|
Yet the government has no problems letting coal miners make that decision.
quote:
No one is discriminated against by broad smoking bans. Only the activity, inside the place of employment, is prohibited. |
Smokers are being discrimiated against
So again... having smoking and non smoking bars would be a fairer than saying only non smoking bars. And to solve your work place danger point... make it a rule that only smokers could work in them... because second hand smoke isn't going to hurt them anymore than they have already chosen to hurt themselves...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
And why ther personal attack at the end... I'm discussing the issues, and you seem to want to make personal insults... not allowed at this site |
I didn't attack anyone; I just noted that people would learn a lot about you from your responses, so you might want to take a rational sensible approach if you didnt want to look foolish.
quote:
No need to watch what I say... your comparison isn't a good one. Blowing asbestos around the room would be illegal. Smoking is a legal product. |
Oh puh-leeeze. It's a perfectly good comparison. Making it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants is exactly what we're discussing here. It IS illegal in California, in NYC, and now in Ireland. The decision to ban smoking in workplaces puts dangerous smoking properly in the same position as dangerous asbestos. So, try again. How is protecting workers against ETS different from protecting workers from asbestos?
quote:
Using your logic, cars should be outlawed by the government because of the health hazzard. |
Oh puh-leeeze again. Are you suggesting that air pollution from cars is not regulated, specifically with the intent of reducing hazard? If smoking was as integral to our society as cars are, we wouldn't be able to ban smoking in workplaces any more than we've banned cars. But cars have value to society far far greater than tobacco does. Thus, we control the hazards in different ways.
quote:
Yet the government has no problems letting coal miners make that decision. |
Oh, puh-leeeeze yet again! Coal mining is inherently dangerous. We take steps to reduce the danger; in fact, there's an entire federal agency, MSHA, comparable to OSHA, with its own extensive set of regulations for mine safety and health. So, now we're also taking steps to make bar and restaurant workers safe too. You're objecting to that. Is that the position you really want to adopt?
quote:
Smokers are being discrimiated against |
OK, I'll give you some credence on this one. The law applies to everyone, not just to smokers. From that point of view there's no discrimination. But of course it only affects smokers, because they're the ones who want to smoke. From that point of view there's discrimination.
It's exactly parallel to the gay marriage discussion.
By this definition, we also discriminate against people who drink and drive. Call it discrimination if you want to. I for one am not afraid to discriminate on the basis of protecting public health against other people's dangerous personal choices.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
I didn't attack anyone; I just noted that people would learn a lot about you from your responses, so you might want to take a rational sensible approach if you didnt want to look foolish.
|
I am taking a rationale approach... just because it is different than yours doesn't make one more sensible than the other.
And that's my point... I'm sticking to the discussion, you seem to want to be saying somebody (a person) is not being sinsible or or rational
quote:
Oh puh-leeeze. It's a perfectly good comparison. Making it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants is exactly what we're discussing here. It IS illegal in California, in NYC, and now in Ireland.
|
But it is not illegal in most of the world...
quote:
The decision to ban smoking in workplaces puts dangerous smoking properly in the same position as dangerous asbestos. So, try again. How is protecting workers against ETS different from protecting workers from asbestos?
|
There is a big difference to blowing asbestos around the room then second hand smoke. The level of hazard based on the test show it to be marginal at best... and some experts still claim there is no real proof. Where as the dangers of asbestos are well know, documented, and not disputed.
quote:
Oh puh-leeeze again. Are you suggesting that air pollution from cars is not regulated, specifically with the intent of reducing hazard?
|
Did I suggest that? While it might be regulated, the danger still exists... and has been proven to be a far greater danger than second hand smoke even at it's current regulated stage.
quote:
If smoking was as integral to our society as cars are, we wouldn't be able to ban smoking in workplaces any more than we've banned cars. But cars have value to society far far greater than tobacco does. Thus, we control the hazards in different ways.
|
Oh... you make it sound like we have contoled or removed the problem of air polution from cars So your argument would be that if there was a value to society for blowing asbestos across the room, you would have no problem with it
[quote]
Oh, puh-leeeeze yet again! Coal mining is inherently dangerous. We take steps to reduce the danger; in fact, there's an entire federal agency, MSHA, comparable to OSHA, with its own extensive set of regulations for mine safety and health. So, now we're also taking steps to make bar and restaurant workers safe too. You're objecting to that. Is that the position you really want to adopt?
[quote]
Again... I must ask, do the all the regulations make it totally safe to work in a coal mine? Even with the rules, it's still more dangerous to work in a coal mine than work in a smoking bar... yet we allow one and now you want to take the right away from a bar owner to make his own choice? On what basis?
There are many things that people do that are harmful to themselves... smoking, fast food, no exercise, drinking... all legal. If smoking and non smoking bars were established, there would be a real choice, and no discrimination. How is this any different.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-03-2004 22:05
(well yours, actually) I have to organise a stag night and what a good idea!
|