Smoking ... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

RogueGypsy · 06-25-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrklixx

Hmmm. I've never had to go home and wash my clothes 3x to get the crying baby sound off of them.

Smoking is selfish. The only reason people do it is for their own enjoyment/pleasure/addiction/need. So my reasons for not wanting anyone smoking within a mile of me are also selfish. I couldn't care less what you do to yourself. If people could/would mainline or snort all the crap that is in cigarettes 20 or 30 times a day, I say more power to ya. Then there would be no excuses to take extra breaks every couple of hours.

LOL yeah, I don't like the smell either and as stated I don't smoke around non-smokers, I think it's rude. But have you ever tried to have a mice meal out while a smelling the shit filled diaper of the rug rat seated behind you? Have you ever tried to enjoy a movie or carry on a conversation in a public place while a child is screaming and throw a tantrum? Have you every been on a 12hr flight with a child kicking the back of your seat because he's bored, then smelling the puke for the next 6 hours because he got air sick from turbulence??? I'm just sayin' rude behavior comes in many forms, not nearly limited to some smokers. And I gotta say baby shit and puke, you can't wash that smell off either. Also as stated before there has been NO CREDIBLE research linking 2nd hand smoke to Cancer. It is quoted everywhere as stated, but the research does not exist.

Brock

filtherton · 06-25-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordEden

They aren't being "forced" to work in a unsafe environment, they chose this job for the extra cash flow. If they are worried about the exposure to extra risks, then go right down the street the chain of restaurants that DON'T allow smoking and get a job.

Arguably, very few people are being forced to work anywhere. Whether a job is "at will" or not doesn't seem to generally hold much sway over whether the people who work in that job can be legally exposed to toxic chemicals on a regular basis. I like it this way.

Quote:

Outright banning smoking is different from regulating the areas that smoking is allowed. By saying "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state" is not giving rights to smokers. If you changed that to "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state unless a state issued permit allows that establishment to have smoking", then I am all for it. That way, out of the 30+ restaurants in my town alone, I will have at least ONE that I can smoke in. If you don't want to be around smoke, go to the other 29 restaurants out there. I'm not forcing you to go the one WITH smoking, then don't force my favorite restaurants to go NON-smoking.

But that restaurant would essentially be getting a permit to slowly poison its employees. I mean, I appreciate how nice it is to smoke inside, but I don't think doing so is necessarily consistent with the way the issue of employee exposure to toxic chemicals is generally handled. Maybe if employees were issued gas masks?

FoolThemAll · 06-25-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Yeah, the non-smoking workplace is a big deal for employees. It goes along with other regulations on issues of health and safety.

It's not a big deal for employees who are able to discern where they want to be and where they don't want to be and act accordingly. There's no getting past that. Secondhand smoke is a choice of the inhaler.

LordEden · 06-26-2009, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Arguably, very few people are being forced to work anywhere. Whether a job is "at will" or not doesn't seem to generally hold much sway over whether the people who work in that job can be legally exposed to toxic chemicals on a regular basis. I like it this way.

Technically, by listing that this restaurant allows smoking (By putting up signs that THIS is the smoking area), then they have done their legal right to show that there will be a chance that you may breathe in smoke if you eat/drink here. No law yet has smoke from cigarettes listed on a Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) as a toxic checmial, so there is no legal aspect to "warning" customers or employees about the dangers of smoking. Hell, I don't think you could walk down the street of any town and find someone who DOESN'T know smoking is bad for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

But that restaurant would essentially be getting a permit to slowly poison its employees. I mean, I appreciate how nice it is to smoke inside, but I don't think doing so is necessarily consistent with the way the issue of employee exposure to toxic chemicals is generally handled. Maybe if employees were issued gas masks?

Have you seen some of the chemicals that you have to use in a restaurant to clean up to OSHA and US health inspection standards? Give me 10 years of smoke as long as I don't get the heavy duty degreaser on my arms, it will eat the skin right off of you. In some places they MAKE you wear masks to use that, now THAT is poison.

Slowly poisoning their employees? Man, that must be a great training session at that restaurant, I can see it now. Watch this video on proper food handling practices, after that is a video on corporate rules, then you will get your apron, shirt, tie. This is Tina, you will be shadowing her for the next 3 days and oh yeah, here is a cyanide pill you must take every time that you come into work. If you don't get a pill at the first of your shift, ask the MOD and you will get one from the 1st aid cabinet. If you work a double you only have to take one.

My point again is: CHOICE. You choose to kill your lungs with smoke. You choose to work in a job that allows smoking. You choose to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking. Your choice is to not be around smoke and not to smoke. I respect your choice and I only ask you to respect my choice to smoke when I want too (in the proper places, when no one around cares, yahda yahda yahda).

filtherton · 06-26-2009, 04:43 AM

Can anyone imagine how much of a step back it would be from a public health perspective if workplace safety regulations were all replaced with a poster bearing the phrase "You don't have to work here"?

Inhaling coal dust is the choice of the inhaler.

LordEden · 06-26-2009, 06:25 AM

Until federal law proves that inhaling smoke for a few hours a day is as the same risk as being 300 feet below the ground inhaling coal dust for 10 hours a day, I think my bartender will be ok without the warning signs in the restaurant. I'll go to the bar tonight and watch the bartender closely, just to be sure that he's not getting "the black lung" from my cigar smoke. I care like that.

filtherton · 06-26-2009, 06:37 AM

The risks associated with long term exposure to secondhand smoke relative to long term exposure to coal dust aren't necessarily relevant. What is definitely relevant is the fact that there is a whole litany of adverse health effects associated with both.

LordEden · 06-26-2009, 07:22 AM

I never said that second hand smoke does or doesn't kill, I'm a not a researcher, scientist, or doctor. All I can do is rehash information that I get from news and the internet that can be tailor-cut to fit my argument on the matter. All I care about is having ONE place, just ONE bar that lets me smoke. You, as fighting for the rights of non-smokers, will win. Congress, our 1-once a day president, and the house will pass laws saying that you can't smoke anywhere considered public. It's all just a matter of time.

I don't want to hurt anyone and I respect everyone's right to breathe clean air, but it's my body and my choice to smoke or not. I know people who are highly allergic to smoke, I don't smoke anywhere near them and try not to smoke anything before I see them if I can. I do my best to make sure I don't do my disgusting habit around people who don't want it around them.

I don't care if 99.9% of all public areas are non-smoking. Just let me have my basement bar that is down a trash filled dark alley, with Christmas lights that provide the only light in the place, with great rock on the jukebox and a bartender who could give a fuck if I'm there or not. As she pours me a shot of whiskey, while she chain-smokes pall malls full flavor, and tells me in that scratchy I've-smoked-for-thirty-years voice that I have to pay my tab before I get my whiskey, I'll be happy. I'll feel at home there more than I do anywhere else.

To smoke or not to smoke is your choice, just don't tell me I can't do it if I go out of my way to make sure I don't bother you.

filtherton · 06-26-2009, 01:51 PM

I sympathize with your desire to pay someone to serve you booze while you smoke indoors. Really, I do. However, it isn't me who is telling you you can't do it even if you go out of the way to not bother me, it is the elected representatives of local and state governments. They are generally doing so with the overwhelming blessing of the general populace. Perhaps there will be some more discriminating legislation that comes along which will allow for exceptions to absolute workplace smoking bans and you'll get your opportunity to pay someone to pour you drinks while you smoke cigars.

As it stands now, it sucks to be have your privelidges fall on the wrong side of public opinion.

View Poll Results: Smoke ...?
I smoke, I will die if don't.	8	16.00%
Just keep it where I can't breath/smell it.	25	50.00%
Dont smoke, don't care.	17	34.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

06-26-2009, 04:43 AM	#45 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Can anyone imagine how much of a step back it would be from a public health perspective if workplace safety regulations were all replaced with a poster bearing the phrase "You don't have to work here"? Inhaling coal dust is the choice of the inhaler.

06-26-2009, 06:37 AM	#47 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The risks associated with long term exposure to secondhand smoke relative to long term exposure to coal dust aren't necessarily relevant. What is definitely relevant is the fact that there is a whole litany of adverse health effects associated with both.

06-26-2009, 01:51 PM	#49 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I sympathize with your desire to pay someone to serve you booze while you smoke indoors. Really, I do. However, it isn't me who is telling you you can't do it even if you go out of the way to not bother me, it is the elected representatives of local and state governments. They are generally doing so with the overwhelming blessing of the general populace. Perhaps there will be some more discriminating legislation that comes along which will allow for exceptions to absolute workplace smoking bans and you'll get your opportunity to pay someone to pour you drinks while you smoke cigars. As it stands now, it sucks to be have your privelidges fall on the wrong side of public opinion.