Why can't they just leave us alone?

[generic mutant]

Hello colonies! If you're trying to say that "nobody is ever forced to work in a bar job they don't want", then you're wrong.

Feel free to start another thread if you like - though I personally think this is on topic.

 

[Robino1]

Because some people already have their minds made up and there is no changing them, like the ANTZ. They are stubborn and unwilling to budge an inch.

Glad I'm not the only one that noticed.

 

[Iffy]

It doesn't feel quite like any point is getting through......not one...

"Damnit, Jim, I'm givin' 'er all she's got!"

 

[Robino1]

"Damnit, Jim, I'm givin' 'er all she's got!"

Star Trek! !

ETA: yup, about the way I feel right now

 

[generic mutant]

Lots of people - often kids - used to be killed or horribly mutilated working in factories and similar places. The argument "Well, they could work somewhere else if they didn't like it" didn't really apply. Economic circumstances often forced them into that type of work - there simply wasn't anything else on offer for people in their position.

Collective bargaining, through government and unions, was the only effective way to enforce reasonable safety standards.

A similar argument applies to at least a subset of bar workers. I'm not going to debate how large that subset is - I haven't a blooming clue, and I doubt you could in any sensible way measure it. But it provides some moral force to the abstract public health / economic arguments for an 'indoor' smoking ban.

That said, I do agree that banning it outdoors is bonkers.

 

[DancingHeretik]

The only point I'm making is that the debate over whether we should stamp out the evil drug users is over. We finally realised we can't, and we have to deal with them as they are. All that's left are questions of implementation.

It was over when we repealed Prohibition.

Or, was it? Apparently not! Now the laws have reached the point of insanity, not even a rational argument is necessary any longer. Just hysteria and mob mentality.

 

[generic mutant]

It was over when we repealed Prohibition.

Or, was it? Apparently not! Now the laws have reached the point of insanity, not even a rational argument is necessary any longer. Just hysteria and mob mentality.

Yes, but we still have convulsions of race riots, or ultra-nationalist political groups appearing. Doesn't mean the debate over racial superiority or purity, or economic isolationism, isn't over for any serious thinkers and commentators. You simply can't publish anything arguing for those positions - you'd end your career.

I'm not arguing that politics won't take a while to catch up... Just that there is a sea change going on in public health and criminal policy in many parts of the world.

 

[Iffy]

I personally think this is on topic.

Thanx for da green light!

Lots of people - often kids - used to be killed or horribly mutilated working in factories and similar places. The argument "Well, they could work somewhere else if they didn't like it" didn't really apply. Economic circumstances often forced them into that type of work - there simply wasn't anything else on offer for people in their position.blooming clue, and I doubt you could in any sensible way measure it. But it provides some moral force to the abstract public health / economic arguments for an 'indoor' smoking ban.

Again, thanx for confirming three of my firm suspicions:

#1 - you employ very selective reading habits
#2 - you have to resort to the past tense in that you do #1
#3 - you traded King George III for "Collective bargaining, through government and unions"

 

[generic mutant]

Most people prefer having a government than the alternative, you know...

I hear holidays to Somalia are pretty cheap right now if you fancy trying it out...

 

[kristin]

The relevant question is: Can you subject someone else to smoke, if it's known to cause significant harm (even if only at the population level)?

A pretty straightforward answer is: If they don't mind you doing that, and know the risks. In other words, if they 'volunteer'.

If people are forced to work somewhere smokey by economic circumstances, they aren't voluntarily working there. You can make a reasonable case that with full employment (for the purposes of argument, let's say that means "everyone who wants a job has one") nobody is forced to work anywhere - anyone could just get another job.

And, yes, the legal / ethical questions about second hand smoke have quite a lot of bearing on vaping. Even if they're only perceived to be similar, it'll act as a model for lawmakers etc.

What a crock. So, if the only job opening in a bad economy is a police officer, the employee has the right to demand a safe working environment despite the known risks of that kind of work? People have a choice to work in a job that has risks or not. Employers have the right to not hire non-smokers to work in a pub where THEY decide to allow smoking, just as they are refusing to hire smokers elsewhere now. People don't have a RIGHT to employment. People who smoked were welcomed by the owner in an establishment and workers knew to expect that work may expose them to cigarette smoke the same way firefighters expect to be exposed to much more toxic fire smoke. Instead of the non-smoking employee choosing to work elsewhere, the business owner is forced to send a large number of his customers out in the cold and loses business, so has to let workers go - even those who don't care about smoke. Who exactly wins here?

 

[generic mutant]

All of those arguments apply to a Victorian mill.

Do you actually want Victorian labour relations back? You've got ten fingers, that's at least a few spare, right..?

 

[kristin]

And you are making the assumption that there are actually any real health risks from second hand smoke in the modern workplace. Did you know that once they banned smoking on airplanes, the air quality actually went DOWN? Or that its been proven that modern air cleaning systems have been found to be perfectly adequate to meet EPA and OSHA standards - the same way stove hoods properly clean the toxic grill smoke in the kitchen air?

 

[Iffy]

Most people prefer having a government than the alternative, you know...

I hear holidays to Somalia are pretty cheap right now if you fancy trying it out...

Sorry, I prefer some semblance to a democratic republic, not socialistic or dictatorial, environment. Ergo, ya have no fear of my return to your neighborhood!

Tis a shame that your schooling didn't include 20th Century history (and open minded reading/comprehension)!!!

 

[generic mutant]

@ Kristin

On a population level, there's measurable harm from passive smoking for bar workers.

Presumably only people who work in them for a long time, and some must be more susceptible than others. But I did say I don't know how many people the hypothetical situation applies to.

But yes, it is harmful - though I concede on an individual level not massively so. I'd be interested to see any stats or analysis you have on that, because I know it's controversial.

 

[generic mutant]

@ Iffy

As fun as this has been, I think you're just unconvincingly trying to insult me now...

 

[kristin]

I gave you the evidence on workplace SHS earlier. If the same increase in risks were found in water quality, it would be considered pretty low risk. Nothing is 100% safe. The same number of people die in car crashes as the estimated deaths from second hand smoke in the US. Mind you, the auto deaths are KNOWN while the SHS "deaths" are hypothetical.

 

[Iffy]

@ Iffy

As fun as this has been, I think you're just unconvincingly trying to insult me now...

Moi?!?! Nawh, you're waaaay beyond that possibility!

Tah, tah... <click>

 

[DancingHeretik]

I deeply admire your patience, Kristin.

 

[generic mutant]

I'll need some time to have a look at figures... But road deaths are quite high on the list I thought, so that's got to be a fairly substantial number.

At the end of the day, it comes down to an acceptable level of risk, which will always be subjective for a given benefit.

I simply don't find it enough of a hassle going outside to have cigarettes to care, given that as a collective action, it saves lots of lives. I have the luxury of being able to smoke outside basically everywhere though, and it sounds like you lot increasingly don't...

(I guess, Iffy, that's my EVIL MARXIST GUBMINT doing me a good turn...)

 

[alisa1970]

I'll need some time to have a look at figures... But road deaths are quite high on the list I thought, so that's got to be a fairly substantial number.

At the end of the day, it comes down to an acceptable level of risk, which will always be subjective for a given benefit.

I simply don't find it enough of a hassle going outside to have cigarettes to care, given that as a collective action, it saves lots of lives. I have the luxury of being able to smoke outside basically everywhere though, and it sounds like you lot increasingly don't...

(I guess, Iffy, that's my EVIL MARXIST GUBMINT doing me a good turn...)

Just jumping in to give my take it or leave it

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.