In reply to:

---

On the positive side, nobody I know has died or ended up in a hospital as a result of second hand smoke.

---

I think I said this last time smoking came up, but I'll say it again. Smoking is banned in bars here because of the employees have no choice. You or I can chose not to go into a business, and only spend a few hours doing in our lungs if we so chose. The waitress spends 40 hours a week in that smoky environement. Their lungs will be harmed by the presistent smoke.

Matthew

But the waitresses choose to work there. Yes, I know they have rent to pay, but so do the guys building skyscrapers. They assess the risk, and they choose to do the work. If second hand smoke was really a big problem for employees, then bars would have a tough time finding waitresses and the average salary for working in a smoke environment would go up.

Should we exterminate bears because they put park rangers at risk who have "no choice" but to work there?

I believe a bar owner has every right to not allow smoking in his bar, but the government has no right to tell him he can't smoke in his own building. Nobody is forced to endure a smoky environment (unless they are a child). Whether they're an employee or a customer, they choose to go in and take the risk. However, I would support a law that would require employers to inform their employees of the risks they are taking and things they are breathing, but you would have to be retarded not to realize that you are breathing smoke in a bar.

In reply to:

---

Should we exterminate bears because they put park rangers at risk who have "no choice" but to work there?

---

I think you'll find that any bear attacking humans is relocated or put down. All park rangers cary guns, and know how to deal with usualy harmless bears. In fact, I've never heard of a park ranger being killed by a bear.

What you do in the privacy of your own home, between consenting adults, is compleetly up to you. But if you want to do it in public, it shouldn't harm other people who happen to be around you.

Anyways, I think this topic has been discussed to death. Please insert this thread into the conversation.

Matthew

OK the bear wasn't the best example, but....

"What you do in the privacy of your own home, between consenting adults, is compleetly up to you"

Exactly my point! A bar is not a public place. It is a private place that the owner chooses to open to the public. He doesn't have to let anyone in. That's why I think it is absurd that someone who does not have the right to be there can protest about smoke! If you don't like the smoke then get out!

should smoking be banned in private homes where children reside? do they have a choice? should they not get the same protection as the average barfly?

seems to me this is a slippery-slope argument that is hard to justify. gotta say i agree with d3zzY on this one.

--dan.

I'd like to hear your opinion of this when you grow up and you've been out of work for a year through no fault of your own. Then let's talk about making choices.

Has there been a documented case of second hand smoke killing anyone?

No one directly answered this, and I don't have a reference for you, unfortunately, but there have been studies performed that examined the rate of tobacco-related illnesses in long-term bar waitresses who didn't smoke versus a control group of people who didn't smoke, and there seemed to be higher instances of those illnesses in the waitresses.

I find it somewhat ludicrous and hypocritical that bans on smoking in bars are being introduced as a "Health and Safety at work" measure. This has only happened since a ruling (I can't remember where) that said a town/state couldn't generically ban a legal activity in a private establishment - which is what they were trying to do. It's just so convenient that they can talk about the waitresses' health to achieve the same motive.
Every job has risks - chemists work with dangerous chemicals, biologists with organisms, builders with heights and machinery, radiologists, dentists and their staff with radiation, electronic engineers with leaded solder, interior decorators with paint fumes/old leaded paint etc, software engineers with management-induced stress, etc.

Maybe we should ban cars from the road since they pose a risk to the traffic cop at roadworks? And houses since they pose a risk to firefighters when they catch alight? Electricity since it poses a risk to the electrician fixing your wiring? Cooking equipment because it poses a risk of burns to cooks?

Maybe once we're done, we can all sit around in a (smoke-free) bar bemoaning the fact that none of us can afford a beer, and that we are all either hungry or suffering from salmonella. ( Although without chemists there won't be any beer, and we're going to have trouble that bar, considering that no-one could build it, decorate it, wire it etc. )

Maybe we should just sit in a field instead. That would be progress.

There comes a time in life where you choose a vocation. It is unfortunate that this time is usually in your early teens, and that whilst the advisor tells you about the rewards, benefits and challenges of that vocation, they rarely tell you about the risks. But whatever, once that vocation has been chosen, it is up to you to research the risks involved and decide whether it is worth pursuing further. And it's unfortunate that sometimes the risks just are not known yet. Whatever.
My point is that it is *impossible* to remove every risk from every workplace, only to reduce it where it is possible to do so without making that business a non-viable one. We'll stop using leaded solder in electronics when safer viable options exist, just as we stopped painting our houses with lead paint. We'll stop using foam that emits toxic chemicals when burned, just as we stopped using 'wire and spool' as an electrical standard. And so on. Making the workplace a safer place.
But do you see these towns and states introducing legislation to mandate effect air filtrage in bars? That would be an effective manner of increasing the air quality - and could also reduce other airborne pathogens such as pollen and viruses (virui?, virii? Where's Bitt?). Do you see them introducing legislation to mandate better communication of risks to employees? Or to mandate employer health insurance to cover periodical checkups?
No, they just want to generically ban smoking in bars, and can't do it any other way.

This to me is just sneaky, backhanded and an abuse of power. It's right up there with federal lawmakers tacking on a controversial piece of legislation as an amendment to an unrelated and popular bill, just because they know they couldn't pass it any other way.

BTW, the 'sin tax' idea unfortunately becomes a tax on the poor. A higher percentage of the lower classes smoke. And the argument of using tobacco tax to "pay for the additional health costs due to smoking" is not a good one either - the UK currently earns 3 times more in tobacco tax than it costs to run the NHS. So you could say that smokers pay for the health of everyone...and then some. And in the US, smokers already pay a premium hike for health insurance - I'd love to see the underlying figures to justify the amount.

it kills people who don't intentionally use it

Sources Please?

The whole debate of second hand smoke (ETS) was started by an EPA "study" in 1992. That study claimed that 3000 people would die each year from second hand smoke and classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen. The study was challenged in court and was found by Judge Osteen in 1998 to be deeply flawed and was written to do nothing more than support their predetermined results. There are numerous analyses of the report on the web and in print. Take your pick.

For the record, I am a non-smoker.

As a restaurant type person myself, I have gone through a few of these changes in smoking policies in different places. The one thing that remains the same, is that when smoking is banned in a restaurant or bar, sales go down.

Every server and bartender that has ever worked for me when one of these smoking bans was either instituted or lifted, agrees that the money they make with the smoking is more important than the detriment to their health. I think that servers and bartenders don't really care too much about the heath hazards of second hand smoke because most of them view their jobs as pretty much temporary work. Athough a good many of them end up working in the industry for many years. Most of them want to work where there is smoking because of the seemingly direct corrolation between smoking, drinking and high tipping.

They all also agree that they have a choice to not work in that environment. In fact, one waitress that worked for me had asthma, so she never worked around the bar or smoking sections. Of course she did not have the opportunity to make as much money as the other servers sometimes, but that was her choice.

Tobacco is amazing -- truly it must be the only product legally sold in America (other than handguns) that, when used as intended, kills the user

I don't know what kind of gun you are using but any gun I've ever used as intended a) did not kill me (the user) and b) did not kill anything else that was living.

Its when you don't use a gun as intended that sadly gets people hurt or killed.

Its when you don't use a gun as intended that sadly gets people hurt or killed.

ok then. What exactly is the intention of a gun?

I think a gun works as intended when the trigger is pulled and a bullet comes out the other end at the designed speed with the desired rate of rotation and it doesn't blow up in the hands of the user or jam. Any definition of 'works as intended' beyond that implies the intention of the user and not the tool. The gun does not decide where it's pointed and when it's fired.

-Zeke

ok, here is a more direct question for those of us who need help...

When the gun was invented, what was it's intended purpose?

Has that intended purpose changed over time? or is it the same?

I would say to kill other people. In this light the gun was simply the continuation in lineage of the bow & arrow, club, sharp stick, knife. Any of these things can also be used for constructive, non-murderous purposes. The point I'm making is that an item does not have murderous intents. That the gun is a very effective tool for carrying out murderous intents is not the same thing. It's an important distinction.

-Zeke

When the gun was invented, what was it's intended purpose?
Hunting, protection, and battle.

The intended purpose has expanded - and yes, some things guns are used for are wrong and evil.

I take gun ownership and marksmanship to be a hobby and simply that. Same as someone would pick up a bow & arrow or a crossbow and shoot at targets. I don't use guns as a weapon to protect myself with, or to promote violence.

What really pisses me off is how crap American washing machines / houses / hurricaines are compared with their British / European / Iraqi counterparts. You guys drive on the wrong side of the road, you proceed on red lights and your TV looks wierd. There's only one true spotted dick and Maggie Thatcher is George Bush Snr's love child.

Guns are bad. Smoke spliffs.

Rob

What the hell was that in response to?

And speaking of spliffs, I understand that there was some British legislation to ignore people carrying personal-use marijuana. You might be interested to note that there's a proposition in Nevada to make possession of 3 oz. or less for personal use totally legal.

Same legislation as in Canada.

I wanted to hurry the thread along a bit.

Rob

we should not drive cars, for several reasons, they crash into things when not driven properly, they expel WAAAAAAY more noxious smoke than my cigarette does, they produce carbon monoxide, they add to noise pollution, air pollution, and water pollution, they drain the natural resources of our earth, ad nauseum. But there are very few people complaining about driving cars.

That's because there are measurable, quantifiable, and quite significant advantages to driving cars that are far more important than the disadvantages.

Can you say the same thing about tobacco usage?

tanstaafl.

That's because there are measurable, quantifiable, and quite significant advantages to driving cars that are far more important than the disadvantages.

Can you say the same thing about tobacco usage?


Some of us actually enjoy smoking.

How else would I get that wonderful light-headed feeling. Actually, I'm much more pleasant to be around if I've had a smoke.

That's because there are measurable, quantifiable, and quite significant advantages to driving cars that are far more important than the disadvantages.


Really?
Wind back the clock 100 years and look at what small communities had - local industry, local shops, and a local community spirit.
The 'advantages' that cars have brought include those such as large out of town malls that non-driving pensioners can't get too, that have helped create inner- city/town declines, large centralised employers vs. smaller distributed employers, and an ever-increasing pace of life where society *accepts* sitting in traffic for 12% of a 16 hour day as normal.

Don't get me wrong - I love to drive. Winding roads over hilly terrain, and no traffic in sight. But apart from that, the car is a means to an end. It's a means of getting to and from work that is moving further away, and a means of picking up grocerys from stores that are also moving away.

It's very difficult to survive without a car now - and that can't be a good thing. Sure, there are some advantages too*, but I wouldn't neccessarily state that they are "far more important" than those aspects of life that we have given up.

*Just where would you install an empeg on a horse?

It's very difficult to survive without a car now - and that can't be a good thing. Sure, there are some advantages too*, but I wouldn't neccessarily state that they are "far more important" than those aspects of life that we have given up.

As I watch traffic around here get worse and watch mass trasit initiatives spin their wheels, I am more and more away of the mixed blessing of the automobile. It seems like an implementation issue, though. There are small towns where the elderly can walk to the store or take a bus there. They just don't seem to be in the car and freeway-fixated country I live in. I've fallen into the trap. Moving out west from Boston years ago, I can no longer walk down the block to the local pizza shop. More things require a drive.

To balance this out, though, I'm going to guess that most of the ranchers in Two Dot, Montana -- a very small town -- are *real* glad that the automobile (and pickup truck) were invented.

Yes, where would I put my Empeg on that horse? Oh, and if we absolutely had to wind the clok back to 1902, some of those elderly folks wouldn't be walking to the store. they'd be pushing up daisies after succumbing to pneumonia in a pre-antibiotic world (another mixed blessing).

Some of us actually enjoy smoking.

That goes without saying. I used to enjoy it, sort of.

A few questions, though, if I may be so bold:

How many years has it been? Could you quit tomorrow on a big bet? If I was Jim the Magic Fairy and offered you a wave of my magic wand to let you quit tomorrow, for good, with no struggle and no pain involved, would your answer be "yes" or "no"?

If I was Jim the Magic Fairy...


You mean you're not?

oh yeah, nice logos...

I will answer your questions truthfully since you asked so nicely.

How many years has it been?

33 years. I have quit twice for 2 years each time and started back up again.

quit tomorrow, for good, with no struggle and no pain involved, would your answer be "yes" or "no"?

A part of me would say yes and a part of me would say no. I would be happiest to cut way back but without a wave of a magic wand I know even that is very difficult to do.

My neigbour was killed when a smoker dropped his cigarette and lost control of the car trying to get it off the floor. So yes, someone was killed by someone driving under the influence of a cigarette.