filtherton

Since there apparently isn't a consensus among the scientific community we can't be sure either way. Though it seems like commonsense to me that minimizing my exposure to chemicals known to cause myriad diseases and conditions would be a worthwhile effort to pursue.

raveneye

There is in fact a consensus among the scientific community, from dozens of large, very thorough, and unquestioned studies.

The fact that a few studies funded by tobacco companies failed to find links is not at all surprising, and does nothing to contradict that consensus.

Further down in the linked article:

IC3

The staff doesn't have a choice? They had as much choice as a customer wanting to attend a smoking or non smoking environment, As did the staff on where they wanted to work before the smoking bans took place in restaurants & bars.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

drakers

Public Health is so much more important than what businesses think should be done. My wife has asthma, but it only comes up when she goes out. The next morning she will be coughing and not feeling good at all. It doesn't happen all the time, but still it is a nusiance and smoking is just a public hazard that everyone who doesn't smoke has to deal with. At the extreme maybe we should just make smoking and non-smoking clubs, but I think that would go a little far.

__________________
Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

RangerDick

That's the point, one study says one thing, another one says another thing. I don't think that banning everything that could be dangerous is the right way to solve anything.

But to take the "ban cigs for the employee's health!" argument, OSHA has established PEL's (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all measurable chemicals, Including 40 carcinogens in second hand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
--Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

That's for an 8 hour workday! By OSHA's standard, I don't think that hanging out in a bar for a couple hours once a week would measurably increase your risk of any long term health effects from second hand smoke (even if you're crammed in between smokers).

raveneye

My point was about the consensus. Again:

Yakk

And that smokestack is heavily regulated.

They should pay for the air they contaminate, and that cost should be passed on to the consumers of that power. The payments should be distributed to those that breathe air.

Allowing people to generate profit by trashing the commons is wrong.

Negative (and Positive!) externalities exist, and unless unaccounted for distort and harm a market economy.

Should there be employment safety laws that restrict what risk a buisiness can expose it's employees to?

Take a smoke filled bar. If a city had that sort of air quality, what sort of death rates would be expected?

If second hand smoke turns out to be basically completely harmless, my the moral arguement I've pushed for these laws would have it's foundation removed. I should look into this further.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

RangerDick

My mother has pretty bad asthma also, so I can relate. I've actually been in public with here twice when we had to call 911 because she had such a severe attack. Once was because she got a faceful of cigar smoke from a guy walking in front her. The other was because she caught a wiff of some rosemary that was garnishing a leg of lamb she ordered in restaurant. Ban rosemary? I've also seen her have asthma attacks when someone wearing a lot of cologne walks by. Ban cologne? The point is that a lot of things are "hazards". Banning everything doesn't solve any problems.

retsuki03

Bullshit. They can find another job.

astrahl

Fact is, that smoking isn't just a matter of personal choice. Your smoke affects other people. Your habit is none of my business, but when you spew that stuff into the air which I, and everybody else, must breathe, you are infringing on our rights.
Smoke at home. Have at it.
I also have a problem with smokers who toss their butt garbage anywhere. Look over at the end of an offramp one of these days...it is truly disgusting. I say we remove those stupid filters. They clog our environment and smokers are going to die anyways.

raveneye

The tobacco industry funded many studies that showed that smoking caused no harm. Does this mean there's no consensus that smoking causes harm? No.

The tobacco industry funded many studies that showed that second-hand smoke caused no harm. Does this mean there's no consensus that second hand smoke causes harm? No.

The scientific consensus is that second-hand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Just like first hand smoke.

filtherton

Because jobs are so easy to come by? I think it would probably be much simpler for all smokers to have to step outside than it would be for all employees bothered by smoke to get new jobs.

retsuki03

I think it would be easier for prospective employees seeking jobs to exercise a little common sense. If you are going to go into a coughing fit everytime you walk by the smoking section, perhaps you shouldn't be a server.

Surely this would be easier/more reasonable than trying to ban smoking.

Fourtyrulz

Surely you don't really believe that employees of a restaraunt should be at the mercy of their customers who smoke.

On the issue of tobacco companies releasing a "study" showing that second smoke does not cause harmful effects: The tobacco corporations have billions of dollars invested in their crop, of course they will defend their livelyhood. On the other hand, what do scientists have in it for them to declare that smoking is in fact bad for you? Nothing. It would be a better move for them to just agree with the corporations rather than say otherwise, they could probably get a few million out of it. The bottom line comes down to who are you going to believe regarding negative effects of smoking, the multi billion dollar companies themselves or scientists probably on a small government or private grant.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

host

There is an all too consistant stance by those who want to limit government interference in the areas of progressive tax policy on iindividuals and business, environmental regulation, workplace health and safety, minimum wages, gun control, intrusion of religious influence by the majority, and for
managment of health care that avoids making hospital emergency rooms the physicians of last resort for medical treatment of mild complaints of those without health insurance, to:

Favoring government enactment and aggressive enforcement of a prohibition on most abortion, "dildo control" (sex toys are illegal to sell in Alabama and in Georgia) specific, constitutional prohibition of marriage for same sex couples,
a new government policy that includes default on special bond class issued to SSI on borrowing from private contributions paid into the fund by emplyees and employers to this "independent entity" (SSI status was changed from a government agency to an independent entity in the mid 90's) , in exchange for a legislated program that includes massive new fed. gov. borrowing to create "personal investment accounts" that no one expects will improve SSI overall projected future funding shortfall, and a tendency to unquestioningly support government funding of scientifically questionable projects, like "starwars" and "missle defense shields", while dismissing scientific consensus
on issues like "global warming" and the risks of inhaling "second hand" smoke,
by citing industry sponsered studies that attempt to refute universally accepted conclusions of independent studies. Also included is a predictable pattern of nearly unquestionable support of a president and an executive branch with at best, a dubious track record of competency and transparency
when it comes to key foreign, defense, energy, and environmental policy, and
for the acountability to the people for it's policy and decsion making.

I don't see any way to debate these "less government" except....... view holders, because I can't see much consistancy in their opinions, for the most part.

IC3

Non-Smokers who open thier own bars wouldn't survive, The bars are smoke free right now and struggling.

And your gonna live forever..Right?

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

filtherton

Have you ever needed a job? Have you ever worked a job that you hated because you effectively had no choice? If so, than you should see how silly your argument is. "Let them eat cake" has never been a good answer to anything.

retsuki03

Yes. Then I went out and got one.No. If I hated my job, I would find another one. In fact, I did not like working at a place, so I decided to work somewhere else, and guess what- it worked. Do you live in some weird world where people are not able to change jobs? Do you hate your job?

What if smoking is outlawed and people still hate their jobs? Will they still be stuck there? Your arguement seems silly to me.I don't think my arguement is silly at all. I do, however, think the "ban everything filtherton thinks is bad" is not much of an answer (see:SUV's).

I am 21 and have been working the the restaurant industry since I was 17. It is not at all hard to change the place you work. However, that is not the point. Like I said before, the issue comes down to individual liberty for me. That is where we fundamentally disagree.

You think you have the right to have to have smoke-free air wherever you go. I say you have the right to not go places where there is smoke.

filtherton

Well, there is this thing called unemployment that sometimes makes it difficult to find a job. I don't know where you live, but if there is an abundance of livable wage paying jobs there, chances are it isn't in america.

I bet you think "everything that retsuki03 doesn't mind is a civil right" is a great answer.

Its not just me, in fact, i would imagine that there are a great many more people who think smoking is bad and favor the ban than think smoking is great and support pseudolibertarianism.

I'm all for individual liberty that doesn't expose me to carcinogens.

We'll see whose "rights" are upheld in the lawbooks.

james t kirk

You're right, I don't give a shit about smoker's having to pay 50 bucks a deck. Make it an even hundred.

One thing, it will stop a lot of kids from smoking.


No problem on my part there either.

Tax the crap out of alcohol too as far as I am concerned.

I totally agree with you. In fact, I might even take it one step further and slap a million dollar tax on an ignorant P.O.S. like a hummer, and a $500,000 tax on all Lincoln Aviators and Cadalac whatevers

Totally ignorant vehicles. No-one needs to drive things like that.



Very simple.

Second hand smoke is dangerous to my health. You do not have the right to make me sick with your filthy nasty disgusting stinking habit.

Plus I don't recall smokers rights being protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

james t kirk

I know.

It's just a bitch is all, even after almost a year.

You can not imagine how many times as a kid I used to ask, cajole, threaten, logic to get my dad to quit. He didn't listen. Even as an 8 year old kid, I knew he was doing something really stupid.

I just remember when he was in the hospital and the different health professionals would make the rounds and invariably the question would arise - "Do you smoke"

Answer, "No"

Question, "Did you used to smoke?"

Answer, "Yes, but I quit 12 years ago"

Followed by the look of understanding, i.e. Now I understand why you have lung cancer.

Truth be told, I understood that reaction.

My father's oncologist told me point blank that 50% of smokers will die of one cancer or another, despite what anyone tells you or thinks.

flstf

For the most part I don't agree with your analogy and besides these issues should be evaluated one at a time. I'm one of those who believes the government should almost always err on the side of less control. It doesn't matter to me which party Democrats or Republicans is doing the advocating.

To take just two items from your analogy I don't think for instance that taking the position that the government should allow us to own guns and also that the government should allow us to invest our FICA taxes in personal accounts is inconsistant.

I am for less government interference in most of the things you mentioned but am undecided on health care, missile defense, and global warming. I am leaning toward more control of health care because the system seems to be out of control and don't know enough about the others to have an opinion one way or the other yet.

I may eventually favor additional missile defense (more government) and less global warming legislation (less government). I don't see what is so wrong about being inconsistant on some of these matters that should discourage you from wanting to discuss them in these forums. Not everyone who is generally for less government sees everything as "Republican or conservative good" and Democrat or liberal bad".

pan6467

I totally agree, and the government doesn't dictate where or when you may drive (unless you are totally nuts and want to go the wrong way on a 1 way street...lol).

This is just the beginning and people don't understand because it is easy to hate the effects of smoking. But let's look at it from this aspect.

Ok, we all agree the taxes from smoking are necessary to the respective local, state and federal governments. Now, without those taxes coming in, where do they get that money? Coffee? Fast food? Raise the gas taxes even more? Tax condoms? Tax soda? Tax whatever the government now deems to be "the killer" in society. What new "sin" will be taxed?

I don't drink coffee so tax the hell out of that. Besides I've seen reports where caffeine and coffee can cause cancers and health problems.

Fast food tax the hell out of that because we all know it just makes people obese, causes severe health problems and has no nutritional value.

Raise gas taxes... people need to drive to work and the public transportation systems offer crime, nasty seating conditions and in most cities take much longer to get where you want to go. Plus, it will cut down on all those nasty SUV's being driven about.

Where is the lost tax money from cigarettes going to come from? Hmmmmm....

Ok now let's look at the social aspect. If government can dictate where and when you may smoke, they then can dictate where and when you may drink coffee, eat fast food, drive your car, tell you what cars to drive and what cars not to drive, etc. and they can claim it is all for the common good and they have set precendence because they destroyed smokers rights.

When is enough government enough????? How can supposed conservatives who preach for less government truly support these issues?

Where will the money come from and what will be the next item targeted to be gotten rid of?

And yes, statistically the poor smoke more so they pay more tax. So whatever is next has to be something to hit the poor and lower class. Hmmmmmm fast food...... go bye bye.

Call me paranoid but this is where the government sees how they can control people and make people do what they believe to be right..... not what the individual believes.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

KMA-628

I don't support this at all.

"Sin" taxes make my blood boil.

This is just a silly excuse to generate more money for more gov't programs.

It gets passed because enough people don't smoke and vote for it--thinking the gov't will actually use the money wisely.

They just released their "plan" for the new smoking tax money here in Colorado and I was pissed. The things they were going to spend the money on (from campaign commercials) is nowhere near where they are going to actually spend the money.

We wouldn't need stupid taxes like this if we could actually get politicians to curb their spending.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

retsuki03

I would argue more liberals support smoking bans than conservatives.

As an update, they were talking about this on radio again today. They said that with the ordinance that is currently in place, only 200 of the 600 bars in Austin allow smoking. So to Manx, currently more than half of the bars in Austin already have smoking banned.

Also, they discussed 3 seperate bars/restaurants that have closed down as a result of the ordinance already in place with all of the owners citing the smoking ban as the reason for their inability to stay in business.

Also listed this website: www.keepaustinfree.com

OUR CURRENT SMOKING ORDINANCE MANDATES:

jorgelito

Quote:
Of 46,000 businesses in Austin, over 99% are smoke free.
No smoking is allowed anywhere children under 18 are present.
Over 2000 restaurants are smoke free. Only 6 allow smoking.
Over 400 bars are smoke free. Only 200 allow smoking.
Only 211 businesses and their employees have chosen to allow smoking in Austin.


Ah, see, now that's a win-win: Places to smoke AND places that are smoke free and everyone stays in business and everyone has a choice.

On another note, who says bars are going out of business cause you can't smoke inside? I haven't heard about that.

RangerDick

Well, look at the bright side, at least the former bartenders don't have to worry about second hand smoke. Now all they have to worry about is finding another job! The anti-smoking nazis really are looking out for the good of the little guy, aren't they?

Kadath

An idea I haven't seen discussed anywhere in this argument (perhaps I missed it) is a smoking license. Much like an alcohol license, it serves to answer both sides of the issue. It generates revenue for the government, but the cost to the owner is made up by increased patronage from smokers, and bars that choose not to pay for the license are attractive to the nonsmokers. What's the problem with this theory?

__________________
it's quiet in here

retsuki03

What is listed above is the ordinance already in place, not the one being proposed.They were discussing the places that have already gone out of business on the radio. They said the reason a lot of the places will close is smokers tend to drink more alcohol than nonsmokers, and stay longer than nonsmokers. I imagine the businesses under the ordinance currently in place had a significant amount of their income coming from smokers, but not enough alcohol sales (at least 50% of their total income) to let them allow smoking.They are framing this in Austin as a worker health issue, not a customer health issue.

raveneye

On the economic impacts of smoking bans: there have been several peer-reviewed studies published that have showed that the only impact of bans, if any, has been to increase profits of restaurants and bars in NY, Florida, Texas, and elsewhere. Here's a popular article on the subject:

(no link available)

raveneye

On the question of who supports smoking bans, liberals or conservatives: There have been many polls in the cities that currently have bans, conducted prior to the bans, and in almost every poll the great majority of respondents, regardless of political affiliation, supported the bans. Generally the only demographic group that did no support the bans was smokers.

In Canada, the support for bans (regardless of political party) is much greater than in the U.S.

jorgelito

There could be other factors as to why restaurants and bars are losing business - the most obvious would be the bad economy. People eat out less, go out less because they are losing jobs or need to save more money etc..

I like the Austin Ordinance - it gives the people choice. Kadath's idea for a "smoking license" is interesting too. I bet a combo would be good. Licensed smoking places with non-smoking places available to everyone and the city still makes a little revenue. If people don't like smoke, don't work/patronize there and go to the non-smoking joint.

I'll be at the bar at the smoke-free joint watching the game.

KMA-628

Licensing = regulation + bureaucracy + fees + oversight + more gov't programs + etc.

Bad equation in my book.

Sounds good as an idea, but it would just create more problems.

I say remove gov't from the equation.

Let demand rule. Let the market speak. But the people that don't like smoking actually have to get up off their duff and actually do something for once.

Why does the government have to do everything for you?

If it bothered you so much before these silly bans, why didn't you frequent non-smoking restaurants? Then, you tell the owner of the previous restaurant that you used to frequent, that you took your business elsewhere because he/she allowed smoking.

If enough people got off of their collective lazy asses and did this, their would be no need for a ban. Restaurants/bars that lost business because of smoking, would change their rules. Restaurants/bars that didn't lose business would stay the same.

Nobody loses.

Where did this mindset of the gov't doing everything for us come from?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

filtherton

How is this an example of the gov't doing everything for us? How is this an example of anything besides the government doing the will of the people? I'm pretty sure that this is the result of people getting off of their collective lazy asses an engaging in political organization.

KMA-628

Well, I answered this is my post.

In this case, you are having gov't do the work.

In my case, that I listed in my post, you do the work.

My way = you do it on your own and our gov't doesn't have to waste time/money with it.

Also my way = everybody gets what they want.

My way, again = doesn't cost a penny

The gov't way = costs more money and only the people in the "pro" column are happy.

Plus, you (collective) did for yourselves, rather than have gov't do the work for you.

The government didn't have to be involved in this.


Edit: I don't want government to engage in every "will of the people". If you want our gov't more socialistic, than obviously you would disagree with me. I think our government is big enough, we have enough laws and intrusion (too much, if you ask me), we don't need to expand its powers even more. At some point, people need to realize that they can accomplish many things on their own, without involving the government.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

filtherton

I'm not the one advocating the organization of the masses to force their will upon the capitalist, thereby altering the natural course of the market- don't shovel the socialist label off onto me.

I guess i just disagree with the notion that the government shouldn't be used to spread the will of the people. I disagree with the notion that it is somehow lazy for people to use the legislative branch as a means of improving their lives. The phrase "by the people for the people" comes to mind. What's the point of having a government if the people can't use it to make their lives better?

I disagree with the notion that smokers would be more pleased if bar owners willingly prohibited smoking rather than having it imposed on them by the countrymen and women. The smoker demographic is for the most part, one giant wet blanket. You claim that everybody gets what they want if they go your way, but i don't think that's the case. I think most smokers only pretend to care about the business owner's right to self determination because they can't think up any better argument against smoking bans. Many smokers could only get what they really want if they were allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted, everyone else be damned.

KMA-628

Um, that is how the natural course of the market works, why bring the government into it, unless you want more and more government in our lives.

This is a sin tax, pure and simple, plus the gov't is lying about how they are going to use the money.

There are a lot of sins in this world, without going the "reduce to ridiculous" route, which of your sins are you ok with being taxed or taxed even more?

My points stays the same, and I have been very consistent: this could have been accomplished without involving the government. We don't need more government, we need less. We are never going to have a truly balanced budget or decreasing deficits until we stop the growth of gov't. Yet, every election cycle, we vote to make the government bigger, not smaller.

I just don't get it.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Charlatan

That's funny because in Canada we've had 8 years of balanced budgets and have greatly reduced our enormous debt... and we would be considered largely socialist...

Imagine that...

The free market is good for somethings but the one thing it is definately not good at is looking after poeple. If the item being sold is cheaper to make and sell, even if it is harmful to the environment and people in general, it will win out... The priorities are wrong.

Just look at the history of leaded fuels for a prime example of this...

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

jorgelito

Or seat belts, air bags...etc..

filtherton

Many things can be accomplished without involving the government. Why bring government into anything? Anything is theoretically possible without a government. Why even have a government?

I believe that the government exists for whatever purpose the people see fit to use it for within the bounds of the constitution. "Big Government" is a boogeyman. Everyone hates big government until big government can help them.

How can you claim that we'll never have a "truly balanced budget or decreasing deficits until we stop the growth of gov't"? That assertion is more faith based than anything. See charlatan's post about canada.

Sin taxes do what they're supposed to do. They provide an incentive for people to stop doing certain things. It's the same principal as giving people and corporations tax breaks for doing certain things. It's rewarding people/corporations based on their good behavior, "good" being defined by the people making the laws. I don't see how you can support one without the other seeing as how they're two peas of the same pod. These things exist because the market is often completely inadequate when it comes to self regulation.