how is that any different then choosing to work in a smoke filled environment?
4-8 hours of continuous exposure to above-average and ubiquitous smoke multipe times per week is far worse than smoking in and of itself. If I recall correctly, air quality measurements in many NYC bars before the ban already exceeded safety requirements for workplaces, and there were statistical coorelations between bar/restaurant employment and coronary heart disease.
Ok, so you're saying you have the right to smoke, but not work in a smoke environment?Yes. The differences are clear.
Work environments are regulated by OSHA and safe labour laws. Consent CANNOT be given for violations.
Employment is considerd a special case, since it is semi-compulsory and employers have certain economic power over employees.
Work environments lend themselves to chronic and extensive exposure.
I think Starfox is splitting hairs, no offence meant but you know what I'm talking about. There is a huge difference between slavery and smoking in public. Perhaps I should have gone into more depth to cover every argument put forward (just to cover myself) I resent the fact that because of the way I wrote my post, that I would agree with slavery. But you know what I mean. But I agree with what you said about pubs being private establishments. Which is my point exactly, if a private landlord wants to allow smoking in his place, then it should be allowed. Its up to others if they want to frequent there. Good points though.
I'm not really sure what hairs you think I'm splitting here. I didn't imply you support slavery, I was using it as an example of why arguing something should/shouldn't be continuedsolely on the basis of its longevityis fallacious. The example wasextreme, it was intended to be.
Our_Time, you completely missed the point of Apreche's post. It was talking about the employees who can't avoid it. Other patrons can. And if you're going to be insulting, fix your grammar. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
That's Mr. Period's job. Why would I do that? lol!
Well, I'm sure they are there for good reason, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.People, by and large, need employment to live. It is a requirement of our economic system. If there is contention for jobs, and employers are allowed to force employees to waive their right to a safe workplace in order to be hired, then jobs will go more often to people who are willing to risk their personal well-being for the sake of employment. You're now forcing people to choose between their rights as citizens and their need for food/shelter/clothing.
People, by and large, need employment to live. It is a requirement of our economic system. If there is contention for jobs, and employers are allowed to force employees to waive their right to a safe workplace in order to be hired, then jobs will go more often to people who are willing to risk their personal well-being for the sake of employment. You're now forcing people to choose between their rights as citizens and their need for food/shelter/clothing.
Makes sense, I have changed my mind. ZOMG BAN TEH SMOKEZ!!1
Your being a radical... A stupid radical. If your in a restaurant and the person next you has such a strong smelling perfume that you need to be moved because you can't enjoy your meal, that's allowed... And the fact that in restaurants that their is a specific special section is the reason for all of this. And with the walking down the street, what if a guy is eating a peanut butter sandwich and he happens to pass a random girl. Now this girl is deathly allergic to peanut butter and because you stopped to take a look at the necklace she was looking at and she inhales the peanut butter which closes up her throat and you've have killed her... But hey, they can't make it illegal to eat a peanut butter sandwich while walking down the street now can they? See radical situations are stupid so stop using them...
The difference is that not everyone has a peanut allergy. If everyone in the entire world were allergic to peanuts, then yes. Heck, if a simple majority, or even a mere preponderance, of people were allergic to peanuts, then yes it should be restricted the same way as smoking. The thing is that people with peanut allergies know they have them. They know what peanuts look like. They know peanuts can be anywhere at any time. They know restaurants might use peanut oil. It's up to them to watch out for peanuts.
The same goes for the perfume. If someone is wearing something that smells nice to most people, and a few people don't like it, oh well. If someone decides to wear eau de pew, they can't do that. They've turned themselves into a stinking cloud, and I think they should be charged with creating a public disturbance or something similar.
Smoke on the other hand, hurts everybody. Every single person, if they know it or not, is hurt by second-hand smoke. If you burn tobacco in the presence of other human beings, you know you are hurting them, period. There is a 0% chance you are not hurting them. It should not be legal to hurt people.
I don't want anyone to think I'm somehow anti-freedom here, but as we often say "The right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face." Releasing poison gas in the presence of other human beings without employing some safety mechanism to prevent them from being harmed by that gas is no different than slapping them in the face. What's worse, is you are not just slapping one person, but everyone who comes near you. If somehow we could cast a spell to make most people immune to all effects of smoke, that would change the story, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Honestly, the risk of someone developing lung cancer due to second hand smoke is minimal.
Lung cancer isn't what they're worried about: it's heart disease.
The consensus was that working more than x hours in a smoking establishment per week contributed significantly to the occurance of heart disease. Coronary heart disease also happens to be a heavy burden on the New York State healthcare system. The choice, for the majority of New Yorkers, was clear.
On a more personal tack, I find smoking to be fairly annoying, and I will admit openly that I lose a huge amount of respect for anyone under the age of fifty or so who choses to smoke. It's a nuisance much like loud music, a nuisance for which the majority of New Yorkers have little tolerance for. A lot of people here are pushing to ban it from the streets as well, and I can't say that I don't support them.
Democracy is about enlightened self-interest. Most people here have a clear interest in preventing smokers from bothering them, so they fight within the democratic system to attain that interest. Smokers can still smoke, just not around other people who don't all 100% consent and not in places of employment. They retain their minority right to smoke while society retains its right to collectively regulate nuisances.
Democracy fails when it allows individuals to vote away the rights of others, and that is what is clearly happening with these smoking bans. If smoke annoys you, vote with you're dollar and eat at a non-smoking establishment. You don't have the right to dictate that no one will ever be allowed to smoke at a restaurant ever again, freedom is about choice and alternatives. When you issue these sweeping universal mandates you're an enemy of freedom.
I notice that you also failed to address my point in the last post. OSHA is concerned with making sure that employer's are not requiring employees to take undue risks upon themselves in the course of their work. I refer again to the lifeguard analogy.
We have an obligation to ensure employee safety, but we have to maintain some sense in doing so. Also the rights of the property owner's should not be disregarded completely in making these determinations.
The lifeguard analogy is flawed because there is a simple way to avoid the problems associated with sun exposure. Sunscreen. There is no feasible way to protect a person from smoke in the air. As was said earlier, if you are willing to outfit all employees with respirators, then it's a different story, but this is not viable on a large scale.
The lifeguard analogy is flawed because there is a simple way to avoid the problems associated with sun exposure. Sunscreen. There is no feasible way to protect a person from smoke in the air. As was said earlier, if you are willing to outfit all employees with respirators, then it's a different story, but this is not viable on a large scale.
Sunscreen is not 100% effective and some risk still remains. I think it's a fairly apt analogy, probably with a comparable level of risk as well.
Sunscreen is not 100% effective and some risk still remains. I think it's a fairly apt analogy, probably with a comparable level of risk as well.
Some risk, yes, but a very small, effectively nil risk. Put sunscreen on one arm and none on the other. The go sit in the sun for 30 minutes. See what happens. Sunscreen works. Umbrellas also work very well. Have you seen a beach lifeguard without an umbrella on their chair? I can't remember even one. The sun is a known risk that everyone has to deal with. We have incredibly effective ways of countering it. Also, if a lifeguard gets hurt during the course of their duties despite following all safety regulations, they can get worker's comp, just like everyone else. If we had respirators for the employees, then a smoking section would be no problem.
Also, this is a case of the sun. You can't arrest the sun. You can't sue a hurricane. Smoking isn't some natural disaster everyone has to deal with equally. It is a choice of another human being to do something harmful to other human beings. Someone is intentionally, knowingly, and willingly creating a danger to others. If we had the ability to make a UV Ray beach and a no UV Ray beach, we would simply make all beaches no UV Ray and outlaw UV Ray beaches. If some people want to get cancer, they can go do it on their own without ruining the beach for everyone else. We're not going to cut out a special section of the beach to be exclusively used by the suicidal among us.
I think we're getting hung up on details and missing the point, so here it is:
-second hand smoke is a very minor health hazard
-when determining what an employee can legitimately consent to we need to weigh the cost to the public welfare of allowing an activity against the cost to individual liberty of banning that activity
-because second hand smoke presents a very small risk, it is acceptable for business owner's to allow smoking on their establishments despite the small risk to those working/dining there
-annoyance is not a legitimate objection as it is private property and non-smoking establishments exist (if there was a bar that had a pet skunk/stink bomb section you would just go elsewhere), and if demand for non-smoking establishments rises currently smoking establishments will convert to non-smoking. Thus there are means of obtaining your goals without violating the rights of others
-eliminating choice from the marketplace is contrary to the ideals of liberty and freedom
I think we're getting hung up on details and missing the point, so here it is: -eliminating choice from the marketplace is contrary to the ideals of liberty and freedom
Ok, lets say I have the habit of slapping people in the face with a large trout. And I do this to anyone around me, without exception.
One idea I heard a while ago that would allow pubs to be considered as no longer a workplace would be to make them self serving. (that was a joke before you start)
Someone run a word count for the word "rights"/"right" and another for "responsibilities"/"responsibilities" The reason there aren't laws detailing every little thing you can and can't do is because you are expected to act like a reasonable human being. And seeing as I skipped to the end of this thread and were talking about fish slapping this is probably not the case.
I think we're getting hung up on details and missing the point, so here it is: -eliminating choice from the marketplace is contrary to the ideals of liberty and freedom
It's so true, I mean they just limit choice so much when it comes to the sale of drugs, guns and explosives in the UK.
This issue clearly demonstrates that some among us simply have no conception of property rights. Bans in public spaces are fine, but it's the private property bans that get my panties in a bunch. If I own a restaurant, pay the rent, purchase the food, supplies, advertising, etc. What right do you have to tell me whatLEGALactivity I can and cannot allow onMYproperty. I think it's pretty absurd.
Quite agree mate, that is my main argument. If you have worked hard all your life to make something a success, then you should be able to do as you please
From the site's customer testimonials: "I wake up twice a night to smoke... ". To which I really have no answer. I would probably just stare in disbelief at anyone who said that to me and carefully walk away.
I'm not so sure about legislating good health. What's next, banning alcohol? Mandatory runs?
Not cool England, do not want. Thankfully the US doesn't look like it Federally wants to do anything like this and Virginia isn't banning smoking anytime soon.
Comments
4-8 hours of continuous exposure to above-average and ubiquitous smoke multipe times per week is far worse than smoking in and of itself. If I recall correctly, air quality measurements in many NYC bars before the ban already exceeded safety requirements for workplaces, and there were statistical coorelations between bar/restaurant employment and coronary heart disease.
Work environments are regulated by OSHA and safe labour laws. Consent CANNOT be given for violations.
Employment is considerd a special case, since it is semi-compulsory and employers have certain economic power over employees.
Work environments lend themselves to chronic and extensive exposure.
The same goes for the perfume. If someone is wearing something that smells nice to most people, and a few people don't like it, oh well. If someone decides to wear eau de pew, they can't do that. They've turned themselves into a stinking cloud, and I think they should be charged with creating a public disturbance or something similar.
Smoke on the other hand, hurts everybody. Every single person, if they know it or not, is hurt by second-hand smoke. If you burn tobacco in the presence of other human beings, you know you are hurting them, period. There is a 0% chance you are not hurting them. It should not be legal to hurt people.
I don't want anyone to think I'm somehow anti-freedom here, but as we often say "The right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face." Releasing poison gas in the presence of other human beings without employing some safety mechanism to prevent them from being harmed by that gas is no different than slapping them in the face. What's worse, is you are not just slapping one person, but everyone who comes near you. If somehow we could cast a spell to make most people immune to all effects of smoke, that would change the story, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
The consensus was that working more than x hours in a smoking establishment per week contributed significantly to the occurance of heart disease. Coronary heart disease also happens to be a heavy burden on the New York State healthcare system. The choice, for the majority of New Yorkers, was clear.
On a more personal tack, I find smoking to be fairly annoying, and I will admit openly that I lose a huge amount of respect for anyone under the age of fifty or so who choses to smoke. It's a nuisance much like loud music, a nuisance for which the majority of New Yorkers have little tolerance for. A lot of people here are pushing to ban it from the streets as well, and I can't say that I don't support them.
Democracy is about enlightened self-interest. Most people here have a clear interest in preventing smokers from bothering them, so they fight within the democratic system to attain that interest. Smokers can still smoke, just not around other people who don't all 100% consent and not in places of employment. They retain their minority right to smoke while society retains its right to collectively regulate nuisances.
Democracy fails when it allows individuals to vote away the rights of others, and that is what is clearly happening with these smoking bans. If smoke annoys you, vote with you're dollar and eat at a non-smoking establishment. You don't have the right to dictate that no one will ever be allowed to smoke at a restaurant ever again, freedom is about choice and alternatives. When you issue these sweeping universal mandates you're an enemy of freedom.I notice that you also failed to address my point in the last post. OSHA is concerned with making sure that employer's are not requiring employees to take undue risks upon themselves in the course of their work. I refer again to the lifeguard analogy.
We have an obligation to ensure employee safety, but we have to maintain some sense in doing so. Also the rights of the property owner's should not be disregarded completely in making these determinations.
Also, this is a case of the sun. You can't arrest the sun. You can't sue a hurricane. Smoking isn't some natural disaster everyone has to deal with equally. It is a choice of another human being to do something harmful to other human beings. Someone is intentionally, knowingly, and willingly creating a danger to others. If we had the ability to make a UV Ray beach and a no UV Ray beach, we would simply make all beaches no UV Ray and outlaw UV Ray beaches. If some people want to get cancer, they can go do it on their own without ruining the beach for everyone else. We're not going to cut out a special section of the beach to be exclusively used by the suicidal among us.
-second hand smoke is a very minor health hazard
-when determining what an employee can legitimately consent to we need to weigh the cost to the public welfare of allowing an activity against the cost to individual liberty of banning that activity
-because second hand smoke presents a very small risk, it is acceptable for business owner's to allow smoking on their establishments despite the small risk to those working/dining there
-annoyance is not a legitimate objection as it is private property and non-smoking establishments exist (if there was a bar that had a pet skunk/stink bomb section you would just go elsewhere), and if demand for non-smoking establishments rises currently smoking establishments will convert to non-smoking. Thus there are means of obtaining your goals without violating the rights of others
-eliminating choice from the marketplace is contrary to the ideals of liberty and freedom
Do I have the "right" to do that?
Someone run a word count for the word "rights"/"right" and another for "responsibilities"/"responsibilities"
The reason there aren't laws detailing every little thing you can and can't do is because you are expected to act like a reasonable human being. And seeing as I skipped to the end of this thread and were talking about fish slapping this is probably not the case. It's so true, I mean they just limit choice so much when it comes to the sale of drugs, guns and explosives in the UK.
Quite agree mate, that is my main argument. If you have worked hard all your life to make something a success, then you should be able to do as you please
Who can guess where this is from?
I smoke a pipe. It's too difficult to smoke in public, so I just smoke in the basement.
Cheap bastard:
[Fag is Albionic for cigarettes.]
Not cool England, do not want. Thankfully the US doesn't look like it Federally wants to do anything like this and Virginia isn't banning smoking anytime soon.