News: The hard part: Making it stick

Well here we go again.

Commercial fishing and farming are two of the most dangerous occupations in America. People choose those occupations while knowing the risks. Logically, if you ban one dangerous activity that workers willfully and voluntarily engage in (working in a smoky location), you need to consistently apply it to all work environments. Therefore, we should ban commercial fishing and farming.

No one is banning the occupation of working in a restaraunt/bar. This law makes those occupations safer. Your argument here is flawed; this issue bans an activity that takes places IN the work environment to make it more dangerous. So, a correct argument on your part would be not to suggest banning the occupations, but freeing the business owners from having to implement all those silly little laws and regulations that make their work environments safer. No more helmets for construction workers...etc.

Let me give you an example.

My Grandfather passed away 10 years ago of emphysema. While he smoked sporadically throughout his life, the doctors also noted that he farmed his whole life before tractors were ordered to have closed cabins (BY THE EVIL GOVERNMENT!). This cost him money, and cost the tractor companies money, but they were ordered to do it. Now, farmers are safer because of this. Do many older farmers still scoff at this? Yes...but they have to do it.

"Then we should ban comm. fishing"

What? This makes no sense...you can still bartend....you can still be a waitress....we just made your environment safer.

There should be nothing dangerous about being a bartender.

The argument regarding the safety of the employees seems, to me at least, fundamentally flawed.

Being a heavy equipment operator, commercial fisherperson or an inner-city traffic cop carries inherent risks, which should be obvious. Being a bartender in a smoke-filled bar also carries with it inherent and equally-obvious risks.

However, there is still a distinct difference between the two. The dangers presented in many of the jobs mentioned in this thread (those which carry government safety regulations) have dangers which stem from the nature of the job - working from high elevations, with heavy suspended loads, standing in the street, etc. When you work at a restaurant or bar, these risks don't exist. Instead, you have the customers who bring the risks in the door with them, and it is completely within their rights to do so.

The difference here is that dangerous jobs, such as building a skyscraper, have risks that cannot be avoided. That is, if you want to build skyscrapers, those risks will exist, and one must evaluate them accordingly. With privately owned establishments, it's a completely different situation. The risk of being exposed to smoke at a private business does not exist at all establishments. You can work in the service industry and never be exposed to smoke a day in your life, if you so choose.

That's not true dj. The risks associated with a commercial fisherman or construction worker are risks of the actual job. The actions they perform which are dangerous ARE their job, not the environment of their job. And, the government does everything they can to mitigate those risks. For instance, back in the day, you didn't have to tie yourself to the building when working construction. Now you do. So, when there's a risk inherent with a specific task, society does everything it can to make it as safe as possible.

Being a server or bartender in a restaurant or bar doesn't have ANYTHING to do with smoke. Smoke is NOT a part of their job. Its an environmental risk that CAN be (and has been) eliminated. That's the big difference here. Just because smoking historically has been permitted in these establishments doesn't mean its part of the job. Their job is to serve people food and drink - not breathe in smoke.

You're missing my point completely.

Put simply - the customers bring the risk with them into the establishment in the case of a private restaurant/bar. The other jobs being compared are just dangerous by their very nature. You cannot be a police officer without accepting some level of personal risk. You can, however, choose not to be a cop, and be an EMT instead, if you want to reduce your risk of being put into dangerous situations.

Your argument about smoke not being a part of certain service industry jobs is wrong. Those workers know from the beginning that they will be around smoke while working. Their job is to provide a service, and they choose to do so in an environment that caters to smokers.

This whole argument about worker safety is borderline incomprehensible. One could liken it to the current trend of crybabies we have in this country who sue over the most incredibly stupid situations. We don't live in a system that assigns jobs. We live in a society that allows each and every one of us to pick a job that suits our strengths and weaknesses, as well as personal preference.

The fact that such a simple matter is being made into something completely overblown is amazing to me. Two words: FREE MARKET.
*** Edited 11/13/2006 5:48:13 PM UTC by djDaemon***

Kevinj what are you talking about,a cab on a tractor is an option?They sell them everyday without cabs.

The smoking ban doesn't affect me in any way,but it does make the question arise as to what kind of ban or whatever will brought upon us next.
*** Edited 11/13/2006 6:24:00 PM UTC by cpdad***

Well, NYC is banning Transfat, right?

I don't understand how this became a 5 page thread. Smoking is bad for you...it is bad for the people around you. If you want to continue to damage yourself...go right ahead. You have every right to do so.

BUT, you don't have the right to damage others which is what you do when you smoke in enclosed, public places.

This has been state law in Florida for at least a decade and there is no movement afoot to reverse the decision. And, let me tell you, life is good. When I last visited Ohio I was actually surprised because I forgot how clean the air was down here.

By "enclosed, public places" you mean places like libraries, courthouses and such, right? Because I was under the impression that bars and restaurants were privately owned, and that's what this discussion has focused on.

In Florida, the "Florida Clean Indoor Air Act" prohibits smoking in all enclosed public (not government only) places. That is restaurants, movie theatres, bowling alleys, arenas, malls, etc.

The intent of the law is "to protect people from the health hazards of secondhand smoke."

The law does not apply to private membership clubs like the Lions club, Italian-American clubs, etc.

It applies to all restaurants/bars unless it is a "stand-alone" bar where no more than 10% of gross revenue is from the sale of food. In other words....alcohol only.

It excludes designated smoking rooms in hotels but not hotel common areas (ala the Rotunda/lobby at Breakers).

Exemptions for indoor workplaces are:

Private Residences (if you want to be a maid consider whether the homeowner smokes or not).

Tobacco Shops (self explanatory)

Smoking guest Rooms (presumably a housekeeper can request to clean only non-smoking rooms).

Stand Alone Bar (mentioned above).

I'll tell you, it is such a shock to travel out of the state and find restaurants with smoking sections (that do no good as far as I'm concerned). In fact, the air is so clean that I can tell now when someone has walked into the my office who does smoke...or if someone lights up on the other side of the building.

In fact, I was driving home at lunch today and smelled smoke. I looked in my mirror and saw that the woman in the car behind me was smoking. That is how sensitized we are now to clean air down here.

dj - I'm not missing your point. You're not making a good one. You even said it yourself - businesses are privately OWNED. But, they are public places because they allow the PUBLIC in. If someone off the street can just walk into your business, its now a public place. You may own it, but you've invited the public inside. So, you now have to play by the rules of the state and the government.

Chief Wahoo,

You mean you dont feel that your liberties are being stripped away? Dont you feel the tyranny being opposed upon you? You poor...poor citizens of Florida...living in the shackles of a cruel and maniacal government! Revolt I say! Fight for your freedom while you still can Chief Wahoo!

Oh wait...im over-reacting...
*** Edited 11/14/2006 3:24:23 AM UTC by Kevinj***

Maybe they should just stick all the blowhards on one train and be done with it.

Which ones, the smokers, or the ones who are busy walking on water BECAUSE SMOKING THE THE MOST AWFULEST THING IN THE WORLD and THEY HAVE DEFEATED IT!!!!!!! GRRRR!!!!!!11

Just trying to keep things in perspective :-)

djDaemon said:
By "enclosed, public places" you mean places like libraries, courthouses and such, right? Because I was under the impression that bars and restaurants were privately owned, and that's what this discussion has focused on.

And it's the distinction that apparently people supporting the law don't care about. That's why there's not much more to contribute from where I'm sitting. I can't sway anyone if they think it doesn't matter.

I realize that "public" places, as used in Chief's context, applied to those places. I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make a point. Just because the public is allowed into the building, doesn't mean it's required for you to enter. You are invited to those places - that's not a complex idea to comprehend, one would think.

But, as Jeff pointed out, if such a simple point of fact is being ignored by so many of you, then this discussion really has nowhere to go.

Jeremy Sell said:
Commercial fishing and farming are two of the most dangerous occupations in America. People choose those occupations while knowing the risks.

And yet, the government still forces safety regulations on those businesses.

Jeremy Sell said:
you need to consistently apply it to all work environments

Being consistent would go a long way in helping you understand my point. If you tell me that workplace safety regulations should all go away, at least your point would be consistent - even if I didn't agree with it.

Jeremy Sell said:
Everyone knows it's dangerous, so exposing yourself to it is voluntary and you should be responsible. The only way you could claim involuntary exposure is if you were completely obvlivious to the danger of smoke.

Everyone knows that it's dangerous to work at the top of a skyscraper under construction. Using your arguments, OSHA should not require employers to provide fall protection. A worker who wants to work for that particular company knows the risks of working without fall protection. He is free to work elsewhere.

djDaemon said:
The difference here is that dangerous jobs, such as building a skyscraper, have risks that cannot be avoided.

You misunderstand the argument. What right does the government have to say that a private business must provide their employees fall protection?

djDaemon said:
You can work in the service industry and never be exposed to smoke a day in your life, if you so choose

Your argument about smoke not being a part of certain service industry jobs is wrong.

I wish I had a shortcut key where I could easily insert "this is not a restaurant issue." Maybe I'll just type TINARI.

I don't really like to repeat arguments made earlier in the same thread, but I don't think it's that hard to understand. The fact is, 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies. I am not a waiter, a busboy, a bartender or a host. I work in a professional, white collar office. My office is not smoke free.

And if the best you can do is tell me to get a new job if I don't like it, then you really fail to understand the point.

djDaemon said:
This whole argument about worker safety is borderline incomprehensible.

If your argument is that free market will protect people, then you must also be against all workplace regulations. If you tell me that you are against all labor and safety laws, then at least your argument comes from something other than thin air. Stop making this about whether or not you ask for smoking or non-smoking at Bob Evans.

djDaemon said:
Just because the public is allowed into the building, doesn't mean it's required for you to enter.

And just because a business is private, doesn't mean they don't have rules to follow. You're making some pretty arrogant statements ("if such a simple point of fact is being ignored by so many of you"), but you seem to be missing the simple point that a private business that offers facilities, services, accommodations, or privileges that are available to the public is different than a private residence.

Cedar Point is a private business that provides a service to the public. They set admission, they set hotel rates, they make rules on dress code. Within the law, they can deny entrance to anyone.

The State of Ohio requires that Cedar Point keeps the Hotel Breakers sanitary ("All floors, carpets, and equipment in hotels, and all walls and ceilings shall be kept in sanitary condition." ORC 3731.13). Using the arguments contained in this thread, Cedar Point should be free from that regulation. If customers enter the Hotel Breakers and see that it is not sanitary, they are free to go elsewhere.

The State of Ohio requires that Cedar Point provide restroom facilities to its customers at no charge ("... also makes available for use by the same sex, at the same location, an equal number of the same kind of rest room facilities, toilets, urinals, and washbowls free of charge. ORC 3767.34). Using the arguments contained in this thread, Cedar Point should be allow to charge for restroom use. If customers don't like paying to use the restroom, they are free to go somewhere where bathrooms are free.

Your only argument is that government shouldn't be able to tell a private business what to do, and yet there are books of laws and rules that private businesses are required to follow.

I'm sure some with the narrow viewpoint will think I'm being factitious, but just like my OSHA examples, the examples above are not far fetched or unrelated. If you're going to argue this, make sure you're consistent. If you agree that the government has no right to place restrictions on businesses in order to protect workers and customers from secondhand smoke, then all safety and labor regulations go away.

*** Edited 11/14/2006 1:51:32 PM UTC by Walt***

Actually I get the distinction that they are privately owned. In the coming years my wife and I will have a business...and it will be privately owned.

But again, just because a business is privately owned does not give the owner the right to let whatever activity he/she desires take place in the store. From my perspective, that is a simple fact being ignored. Do you have a lot of freedom to run your business how you see fit? Of course. But you also have to follow the standards, laws, and guidelines of the overarching government, which in this country is guided by the people.

The people of Ohio (like Florida) have decided that it is more important for their to be more options (notice, I also understand we have options!) for healthy non-smoking people to go out into businesses/establishments, than the potential windfall this may have for the amount of business owners who just cant seem to find a way to stay in business without their smoking customers. Its a vote for health, its a vote for freedom (now I am less constrained in my choices as a non-smoker than I was a month ago), and its a vote that speaks out against smoking in general.

No one here is arguing that a private business should do whatever they want. Did anyone say that they should? Quoting half of the ORC doesn't make a useful point, because smoking is an example of a social activity that, while obviously harmful, is also culturally accepted to a certain degree. At the very least, not everyone agrees on the issue the way everyone agrees that a clean hotel and clean restrooms should be mandated.

Is it that different from consuming alcohol? Sure, you can't breathe in "second-hand alcohol," but a drunk driver sure can kill you on the road, well outside of the privately owned business. So why make this distinction with this substance?

Who makes the distinction then? Obviously voters, but voters did the same stupid thing with prohibition. We all know how well that went over.

Walt said:
Your only argument is that government shouldn't be able to tell a private business what to do, and yet there are books of laws and rules that private businesses are required to follow.

I understand that there need to be laws in place in order to protect the workers. However, it's not as "all-or-nothing" as you make it seem. Are we that narrow-minded as a society that we cannot distinguish between common sense laws and all the rest?

Yes, an employer should not allow the use of rancid meat in their product. That's common sense - You can't misrepresent the product you're charging money for. As for the bathroom issue, I disagree with that law. I'm not saying it's a bad law by any means, just that the market would dictate that the majority of said law would be adhered to by the natural supply-demand free market system. Should CP be able to charge for bathrooms? Why not? Would I pee in a bush if they did? Absolutely.

From an employee-protection point of view, the same common sense approach can be applied. Are you a roofing laborer? Okay, your employer is required to provide you with the necessary equipment to limit the potential dangers inherent in your job. Does he have to remove the roof and place it on the ground so that you cannot get hurt? No. Does he have to build up the ground surrounding the house to roof-level so that you cannot get hurt? No. The employer simply is required to make you aware of the risks, and provide reasonable safety measures which are designed to minimize the risks.

The same principal applies to smoking in restaurants. The employer should inform their employee that they are working in an environment that will subject them to second hand smoke. Are they required to provide respirators? No, but perhaps they should be. I bet that smokers would feel a little worse if their cute waitress sounded like Darth Vader, simply because she was protecting herself from their cigarettes.

It sure seemed to me that the argument was "don't tell a private business what to do." In fact, a vote to protect citizens from secondhand smoke was compared to a vote banning Chinese food and pink web sites. I would have rather not quoted half of the ORC, but I don't think some were understanding the distinction.

I made the point earlier that society views tobacco differently than controlled substances. But if that's the difference between this and other similar regulations, isn't it obvious that society's viewpoint and the culture is changing?

There is a big difference between alcohol and tobacco. Speeding kills people on the road too. Alcohol only becomes a problem when it is abused. That is not true of tobacco. It's not like secondhand smoke only starts impacting those around smokers once they reach their third pack.

djDaemon said:
The employer simply is required to make you aware of the risks, and provide reasonable safety measures which are designed to minimize the risks.

And there is nothing unreasonable about requiring smokers to go outside or to another approved area to smoke. It's ridiculous to say that's on the same level as building up ground to roof level to prevent falls.

*** Edited 11/14/2006 2:34:38 PM UTC by Walt***

Well, it is my opinion that businesses are protecting their customers as well as their employees. I never realized how ineffective non-smoking areas of indoor places were until I was in a smoke-free environment.

Let's fact it, there is no great technology protecting the folks on the left side of the Bob Evans restaurant from those on the right side. I think I was just used to smoke in Ohio....which probably wasn't good.

Here is an off-topic complaint. Disney puts most of their outdoor smoking areas right next to restrooms. I appreciate the fact that they are trying to keep them confined but if I were a smoker I wouldn't be happy about being next to the john and as a non-smoker I don't appreciate that I have to walk through the smoking area to take a leak. I think they could be more creative in their placement of these places.

That statement was regarding employees, and the only service industry jobs I've held required that I go outside to smoke, regardless of the smoking policy for the customers. I never considered that unreasonable.

In fact, my most recent pre-degree job was at a popular pizza joint, which had a no smoking policy both for its employees and customers. Business there was outstanding, and at the same time there was another place that sold pizza in a different atmosphere, and allowed smoking. In that scenario, both of us had choices. With government intervention, only one of us does. Is that progress?