What "should" be illegal?

[SFHoya99]

You obviously don't remember bars/restaurants before bans. It's not one person enjoying a single after dinner smoke.

There's a haze of second hand smoke, which causes cancer, which servers and other staff are subjected to 40 hours a week.

[hifigator]

No argument that some pubs "featured" a visible cloud. Others have a more efficient ventilation system, but you still ignore the point. IF there are sufficient patrons who demand a smoke free environment, then there will be business owners which cater to those patrons. Similarly, workers who desire such a work place will have a selection of them as well. THE ONLY option that isn't fair to everyone is when government steps in with some arbitrary restriction. You continue to insist on ignoring that point.

[SFHoya99]

Aug 21, 2008 13:45:07 GMT -5 hifigator said:

No argument that some pubs "featured" a visible cloud. Others have a more efficient ventilation system, but you still ignore the point. IF there are sufficient patrons who demand a smoke free environment, then there will be business owners which cater to those patrons. Similarly, workers who desire such a work place will have a selection of them as well. THE ONLY option that isn't fair to everyone is when government steps in with some arbitrary restriction. You continue to insist on ignoring that point.

But that doesn't happen, or at least quickly, in real life. And the people of this democracy have decided that health concerns in jobs isn't something that people should have to endure just to keep a job.

The sweatshops of the early 1900s are the easy example. Small children were having arms chopped off by machinery -- should people be subjected to that just because it is the best job they can get?

Furthermore, market forces often take a long time to play out -- and people get cancer in the interim.

The electorate says no. I'm all for freedoms, but here I see a mild restriction on smokers versus a large health risk for employees.

[hifigator]

OK, enough already. On this one, we agree to disagree. I will admit that at least the law was enacted the right way in the cases that I have heard, that being a majority vote of the population, rather than an adopted policy-law by some board of elected busy bodies. In that much, I can't argue. But I still think it is a bad law, and once again, as someone who doesn't smoke and doesn't enjoy it, I think I can be totally objective on the issue.

[EasyEd]

The first Surgeon General's report on the link between cigarettes and cancer was released in 1964. For those who can't figure it out, that's 44 years ago. If smoking is so bad why doesn't Congress or the President propose to ban cigarettes completely? One reason is they want the taxes. Another is they don't have the political nerve to do it.

[hifigator]

Aug 21, 2008 14:29:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The first Surgeon General's report on the link between cigarettes and cancer was released in 1964. For those who can't figure it out, that's 44 years ago. If smoking is so bad why doesn't Congress or the President propose to ban cigarettes completely? One reason is they want the taxes. Another is they don't have the political nerve to do it.

I think it is somewhat intuitive that inhaling smoke intentionally isn't a healthy activity. Although I make certain exceptions for certain ... oh, nevermind.

Seriously though, there was a stand up routine by Bob Newhart from his early days called "Tobacco." It was hilarious for anyone who hasn't seen it. I can't remember if I posted a link to it here or not, but anyone who's interested, go to YouTube and search for Bob Newhart and you will find it pretty easily.

The point is that part of the routine features Sir Walter Raleigh explaining the "merits" of tobacco to someone from the West Indies Trading company. Again, much of it is intuitive, but that is what made it so funny. And we can all laugh now ...

[Boz]

Aug 21, 2008 14:06:45 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Aug 21, 2008 13:45:07 GMT -5 hifigator said:

No argument that some pubs "featured" a visible cloud. Others have a more efficient ventilation system, but you still ignore the point. IF there are sufficient patrons who demand a smoke free environment, then there will be business owners which cater to those patrons. Similarly, workers who desire such a work place will have a selection of them as well. THE ONLY option that isn't fair to everyone is when government steps in with some arbitrary restriction. You continue to insist on ignoring that point.

But that doesn't happen, or at least quickly, in real life. And the people of this democracy have decided that health concerns in jobs isn't something that people should have to endure just to keep a job.

The sweatshops of the early 1900s are the easy example. Small children were having arms chopped off by machinery -- should people be subjected to that just because it is the best job they can get?

Furthermore, market forces often take a long time to play out -- and people get cancer in the interim.

The electorate says no. I'm all for freedoms, but here I see a mild restriction on smokers versus a large health risk for employees.

Well, if we're going to ban smoking to protect the health of restaurant workers, it would probably be a good idea to ban cooking in restaurants as well. There are a number of carcinogens to which you get exposed on a daily basis working in a restaurant kitchen.

I cannot find poll data on this, but my experience in this industry leads me to believe that while the majority of the electorate may favor smoking bans, the majority of restaurant workers do not, since they are smokers. Sure, there will be very vocal supporters, but I would bet my life savings that they are the minority. We can say that we are banning smoking in restaurants to protect the people who work ther, but we are really doing it because we don't like it.

Fine. Just don't complain to me when you can't get a steak grilled over an open flame, or smoked brisket, or anything cooked in oil because of the hazards those cooking methods pose to the people in the kitchen.

BTW, that was one of Bob Newhart's most classic bits.

[SFHoya99]

Boz,

You can mitigate the risks of an open flame. Not sure of a way to mitigate cigarette smoke in an indoor place, but maybe there is.

Personally, I think there's a happy compromise, which is actually what California actually had initially. Which was basically it was a law but up to the bars/restaurants to enforce it. The original result was a decent number of "smoking" bars and the such. However, they've mostly disappeared, probably because no one wants to just go to a "smoker" bar. No non-smokers go there, and most smokers I know would rather go outside (which is fine in CA) than not go to the same place as their non-smoker friends. The result is basically very few places that can stay open allowing smoke.

The issue I have with Hifi is his logic. One, he kept ignoring employees, which, hypocritical or paternalistic or whatever you want to call it, was the legal justification. You have to address it. And while many servers are smoking 20-somethings, a lot of the impetus for the law was lawsuits and massive uninsured medical bills when they became forty something and got cancer.

My bigger issue with Hifi is this delusional belief that the real world works like an economics textbook. It's the same moronic philosophy that fueled the idea that somehow a magical capitalistic Utopia would arise in Iraq.

In California, the vast amount of people prefer non-smoking bars. Yet somehow the market didn't correct for that. It's because those massive assumptions you make in economics class simply do not hold in real life. The idea of instanteous perfect information, perfect labor mobility, etc., is just ludicrous.

So I can respect the freedom argument to a certain extent -- you simply have to acknowledge that especially in a public place, that your freedom can be my annoyance/health risk.

What is a silly argument to me is when people use the "Market cures everything" argument. There is no such thing as a perfectly efficient market, so let's stop kidding ourselves.

[hifigator]

Boz, I'm glad to see we agree on something else anyway.

As for the workers, I hadn't really thought about that, but at least here in a college town, I think you are probably close to right. I don't know if it's actually a full majority, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the percentage of smokers working at pubs in Gainesville is higher than smokers in the general population.

I noticed no one really took the bait. A page or two back, I said that if the goal was really to protect the workers, then where is the giant movement to ban smoking in casinos? If there is a section of the public where the majority smokes, I would think gamblers would have to be on the very short list. And forget about walking around serving tables, dealers are stuck for the better part of 8 hours a day sitting or standing at a table with 3 or 4 smokers on average puffing away for virtually the entire shift. IF the health of the employee is really the goal, then I would think starting casinos would be a great place to start.

[SFHoya99]

I do not thinking smoking is legal in California casinos.

[hifigator]

SF, I think you are correct. I remember seeing a World Poker Tour event a couple of years ago, when one guy took a break. I remember him talking about the guy calling him with a "jack high" and he was acting like the guy was totally off his rocker. I'm not sure if it was California, but I'm pretty sure wherever it was didn't allow smoking inside. He was actually outside of the building talking to random passers-by who seemed somewhat confused by his tale.

[Boz]

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but.....

.....The March of Fascism Continues.

[hifigator]

SF, wrote:

My bigger issue with Hifi is this delusional belief that the real world works like an economics textbook. It's the same moronic philosophy that fueled the idea that somehow a magical capitalistic Utopia would arise in Iraq.


I'm glad Boz just added something, because I missed that comment earlier. I agree with you in so much as to say that the market isn't instantaneously perfect. But that is irrelevant. Governmental interference certainly isn't instantaneously perfect either. But by and large, the market works much better than the government. Even the areas that we agree with concerning government, we would probably also agree that the government doesn't handle the task most efficiently. As for the Iraq comment, where did anyone on the face of the planet even remotely suggest that Iraq would turn into Utopia at all, much less overnight? That is simply a bunch of hogwash and you know it. But on the larger scale, everyday that goes by seems to bring us closer and closer to a truly democratic Iraq. The various Islamic factions are working together diplomatically, even if reluctantly. I'm not really sure what that has to do with this particular topic, but you are the one who brought it up.

Lastly, I can't believe that you would even bring up the argument of real world reality versus classroom teachings. If there is one side of the political aisle that pays far more attention to what really happens in the real world as opposed to what little "good idea, pet project" someone can dream up on paper, I think we both know which side is which. The political left has for 50 years continually tried to tinker with economics to make them work differently. Granted, their tinkering affects the outcomes, but that isn't the point. The very reason that things don't work out in the real world like they should is largely because of governmental tinkering not in spite of it.

[EasyEd]

Sept 16, 2008 12:20:21 GMT -5 Boz said:

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but.....

.....The March of Fascism Continues.

The obesity epidemic demands that pizza and hamburgers are next.

[hifigator]

ed, be careful. Don't give them any ideas. We've already seen legislation prohibiting trans-fats and foie gras.



I think this student said it best:

Psychology professor Marite Rodriguez Haynes, who has worked at Clarion for 20 years, said she sympathized with the protesters, even though she doesn't smoke.

"It's almost close to Prohibition," she said. "I think it's impractical. It's good for me, but I don't know if it will get people to smoke less."

[nodak89]

Sept 16, 2008 13:23:12 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Sept 16, 2008 12:20:21 GMT -5 Boz said:

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but.....

.....The March of Fascism Continues.

The obesity epidemic demands that pizza and hamburgers are next.

You are probably just being cheekily hyperbolic, but there is no acceptable level of smoking/smoke exposure that is safe. If cigarettes are used exactly are intended, they are toxic to the smoker and everyone else in breathing range.

Pizza and burgers are potentially dangerous. From a health-risk standpoint, it is a situation more akin to alcohol than cigarettes.

[hifigator]

Sept 16, 2008 13:36:58 GMT -5 nodak89 said:

Sept 16, 2008 13:23:12 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The obesity epidemic demands that pizza and hamburgers are next.

You are probably just being cheekily hyperbolic, but there is no acceptable level of smoking/smoke exposure that is safe. If cigarettes are used exactly are intended, they are toxic to the smoker and everyone else in breathing range.

Pizza and burgers are potentially dangerous. From a health-risk standpoint, it is a situation more akin to alcohol than cigarettes.

That is not true at all ... at least unless you are talking about starting a fire or something. One cig is not going to kill you, just as one berger isn't going to kill you. The accumulation of the nicotine and tar over time as well as the general strain of your lungs are the problems with cigs. THe accumulation of fats in your arteries as well as just general body fat can lead to physical difficulties. In this regard, the two are more similar than they are different.

[theexorcist]

Sept 16, 2008 13:54:05 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Sept 16, 2008 13:36:58 GMT -5 nodak89 said:

You are probably just being cheekily hyperbolic, but there is no acceptable level of smoking/smoke exposure that is safe. If cigarettes are used exactly are intended, they are toxic to the smoker and everyone else in breathing range.

Pizza and burgers are potentially dangerous. From a health-risk standpoint, it is a situation more akin to alcohol than cigarettes.

That is not true at all ... at least unless you are talking about starting a fire or something. One cig is not going to kill you, just as one berger isn't going to kill you. The accumulation of the nicotine and tar over time as well as the general strain of your lungs are the problems with cigs. THe accumulation of fats in your arteries as well as just general body fat can lead to physical difficulties. In this regard, the two are more similar than they are different.

Even if I eat seven thousand burgers at one sitting, the person sitting next to me will feel no ill effects. If I smoke one cigarette, that person will suffer.

That, to me, has always been the difference between the justification for banning smoking and not for banning trans fats.

[hifigator]

That guy sitting next to you while you are eating them might not, but anyone near you a couple of hours later is definitely going to feel some ill effects too.

[hifigator]

In all seriousness, it looks like there are essentially 3 separate arguments for regulations:

1. The health effects of smoking for the individual

2. The health effects of second hand smoke for other patrons

3. The health effects of second hand smoke for employees.




For no logical reason, "we" have decided that with respect to reason #1, it is ok to smoke tobacco, to chew tobacco, to drink alcohol, to eat cheetos/doritos/chocolate cake/ice cream/fried foods etc... But it is not ok to smoke marijuana or other illegal drugs. That is an entirely different argument, but given that we have what appears to be a clear double standard with respect to these items, it is fairly clear that health effects alone are not sufficient to make something illegal.

With regards to #2, I still don't think that the potential harm of second hand smoke to other patrons warrants the limitation on the freedoms of others. In that regard, it should be up to the owner of the restaurant to decide if he will allow smoking or if he will have separate smoking and non-smoking sections.

That leaves us with #3, which is in my opinion, the only really valid argument which could ... and notice I said could, not should or does ... justify such restrictions. I guess when we get to this point howeve, it is simply a difference of opinion which we will not be able to rectify.