wmw999 2,555 #51 June 26, 2006 QuoteA business has no right to expose its emplyees to known dangerous chemicals IMOMany people are exposed to toxic stuff at work; businesses are supposed to mitigate that, but it still happens. Coal miners die early from lung disease; chemical workers, construction workers can have high incidences of injury. They all have liability, but they all exist. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #52 June 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteA business has no right to expose its emplyees to known dangerous chemicals IMOMany people are exposed to toxic stuff at work; businesses are supposed to mitigate that, but it still happens. Coal miners die early from lung disease; chemical workers, construction workers can have high incidences of injury. They all have liability, but they all exist. Wendy W. But secondhand smoke is 100% avoidable, unlike coal dust in a mine...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #53 June 26, 2006 QuoteBut secondhand smoke is 100% avoidable, unlike coal dust in a mine... sure is - just stay inside, with the windows closed, don't drive, avoid smoking buildings, avoid the entrances to non-smoking buildings, don't go to work, don't go out, don't visit your friends, stay out of coal mines,,,,,,, ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #54 June 26, 2006 QuoteCoal miners die early from lung disease; chemical workers, construction workers can have high incidences of injury. And there are health standards that limit their exposure, dust mitigation systems that have to be operational, PPEs, random monitoring of dust/chem/radioactive materials. And if they fail inspections, employers get substantial fines.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #55 June 27, 2006 QuoteBut secondhand smoke is 100% avoidable, Yes it is, for the umpteenth time, by staying out of places that have a "SMOKING IS ALLOWED HERE" sign out front. Are any of you pro-government liberals going to address this aspect of the situation? I guess BillV took a whack at it, but failed miserably. Anyone got a real argument on this? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,555 #56 June 27, 2006 I've posted a couple of times in this thread. I don't see the need to keep expounding the same point, though. Trust me, I'm liberal Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #57 June 27, 2006 QuoteTrust me, I'm liberal I believe you are a liberal, and believe me, I love you anyway. Problem is, you AGREE that people ought to be able to smoke in bars that advise the customer in advance. I'm waiting for a rational argument explaining why this shouldn't be allowed. Vinny -- you approve of "Cigar Bars" -- for the second time, PLEASE explain why "Jack 'n Marlboro" bars would be ANY different. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #58 June 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut secondhand smoke is 100% avoidable, Yes it is, for the umpteenth time, by staying out of places that have a "SMOKING IS ALLOWED HERE" sign out front. Are any of you pro-government liberals going to address this aspect of the situation? I guess BillV took a whack at it, but failed miserably. Anyone got a real argument on this? As I wrote already, I have no problem AT ALL with the bar owner poisoning herself with second hand smoke. But not her employees.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #59 June 27, 2006 QuoteBut not her employees. And I guess this is the point of separation between our views. Otherwise, we agree. Do you approve of Cigar Bars that have employees? No? What if the employee is the owner's wife? Cousin? BTW, I do NOT smoke, and I DO believe we need to drive smoking out of society. However, it needs to be voluntary. Educational tactics have worked great so far. Why move to coercion? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #60 June 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut not her employees. And I guess this is the point of separation between our views. Otherwise, we agree. Do you approve of Cigar Bars that have employees? No? What if the employee is the owner's wife? Cousin? BTW, I do NOT smoke, and I DO believe we need to drive smoking out of society. However, it needs to be voluntary. Educational tactics have worked great so far. Why move to coercion? I don't know what a "cigar bar" is. I don't think I've ever encountered one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #61 June 27, 2006 QuoteI don't know what a "cigar bar" is. I don't think I've ever encountered one. It's a business that warns people of smoking before they enter, and has somehow been excluded from the new Denver laws. I'm not sure if the owner has employees or not (but I bet some of them do). You get a C- minus for not reading this thread. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #62 June 27, 2006 >Anyone got a real argument on this? Like I said, it's not a customer choice issue, it's an employee health issue. You may not consider employee health to be a real issue, but trust me - a lot of people do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #63 June 27, 2006 Quote>Anyone got a real argument on this? Like I said, it's not a customer choice issue, it's an employee health issue. You may not consider employee health to be a real issue, but trust me - a lot of people do. The argument then becomes employee choice. Who is forcing them to work in a smoking bar? Obviously when they walked in to apply for the job, they knew it was smoking so why the problem after they accept employment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #64 June 27, 2006 QuoteI don't know what a "cigar bar" is. I don't think I've ever encountered one. A cigar bar is a plcae that sells a wide variety of cigars and also most of the time lots of different wines and spirits. Big cushy leather couches. I like going to them. The nice ones at least.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,084 #65 June 27, 2006 >The argument then becomes employee choice. Nope. It's still illegal to nail the fire doors shut in a building - even if every single employee there knows about it and can quit if they don't like it. And even if fires are really rare. The "employees can always quit" angle doesn't work. Now, you can argue that it's not as significant of a risk, which is fine. Each municipality/state decides whether or not it is too risky to allow in a work environment. Colorado has decided that it is too risky, which (IMO) is their right as a state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #66 June 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteI don't know what a "cigar bar" is. I don't think I've ever encountered one. It's a business that warns people of smoking before they enter, and has somehow been excluded from the new Denver laws. I'm not sure if the owner has employees or not (but I bet some of them do). You get a C- minus for not reading this thread. Is "cigar bar" defined somewhere in this thread prior to my previous post?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #67 June 27, 2006 QuoteIs "cigar bar" defined somewhere in this thread prior to my previous post? Not defined. I thought with all the stuff you dig up you would know what a cigar bar is.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #68 June 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteIs "cigar bar" defined somewhere in this thread prior to my previous post? Not defined. I thought with all the stuff you dig up you would know what a cigar bar is. What does that have to do with "not reading this thread"? I don't think cigar bars sound like places I would go.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #69 June 27, 2006 QuoteI don't think cigar bars sound like places I would go. Some people will patronise Cigar-Bars. I think that they are wisely excluded from the smoking ban. Their intent, and the fact that smoking WILL take place there is obvious before either patron or prospective employee enters. Fair warning has been given. Prohibiting smoking there is tantamount to closing that particular business. Living in Scotland, which now has the most extreme anti-smoking legislation in the world, I've been surprised at the degree of support our blanket smoking ban has received, even among smokers! Folk adapt. In the meantime, there's a whole new "doorstep-culture" emerging. (Scotland bans smoking in ALL enclosed public spaces - more than 70% enclosed, that's a roof and two & a half walls. It also includes company vehicles, even if the smoker is the sole occupant!) Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #70 June 27, 2006 Hmmm...second hand smoke is carcinogenic...and carcinogens harm people...that would seem rational enough to most. If an establishment earns the majority of its profit off of the sale and consumption of cigars or cigarettes, I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with people killing themselves via carcinogenic inhalation therein. Still waiting.... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #71 June 27, 2006 Quote If you support the right of a smoker to pollute my lungs by engaging in a habit they enjoy in a public environment, then would you support the right of a someone to spray DDT into the air in a public environment as well? A bar is not a public environment. It is a private establishment. The choice should be in the hands of the owner, not the government. You don't like the fact that someone can smoke in a bar, then go somewhere else. Everyone has been saying it and it really is that simple. Just to recap, if you don't see a "NO SMOKING" sign, don't bitch when someone lights up. You made the choice to subject yourself to it. If the sign says 'DDT SPRAYED BY CUSTOMERS" you may want to reevaluate why the hell you chose to go to such a place. The only argument I find even remotely convincing is the employee angle.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,555 #72 June 27, 2006 I would like to see the default be no smoking, and that specific permission has to be sought to allow it (e.g. a "Smoking permitted" sign is required to light up). I'd also support its being a separate license, kind of like a liquor license. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #73 June 27, 2006 QuoteI would like to see the default be no smoking, and that specific permission has to be sought to allow it (e.g. a "Smoking permitted" sign is required to light up). I'd also support its being a separate license, kind of like a liquor license. Wendy W. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Wait, let me think about some more and I am sure I can find a good reason why it sucks. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #74 June 27, 2006 QuoteStill waiting.... Still waiting for what, the wax to fall out of your ears? Why do you approve of Cigar Bars, but not Jack 'n Marloro Bars? Why do you give a damn what's going on behind a door that's CLEARLY warned you to stay out? Do you plan on counterpointing anything in this thread with something beyond non-meaningful comparisons to murder and DDT? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #75 June 27, 2006 QuoteI would like to see the default be no smoking, and that specific permission has to be sought to allow it (e.g. a "Smoking permitted" sign is required to light up). I'd also support its being a separate license, kind of like a liquor license. Wendy W. Thoughtful, well reasoned, intelligent and sensible. This is precisely the sort of rubbish that'll get this thread kicked into The Bonfire! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
