Scooter wrote:The idiocy lies squarely with those who are advocating that a business has some sort of god-given right to poison its employees and customers.
The number of such people being exactly zero.
Scooter wrote:
Andrew D wrote:As for the employees, they can work elsewhere.
Sure, because there is a countrywide labour shortage for those with little education and few skills.
I never would have expected this. That Andrew of all people would in essence be saying "let them eat cake" to workers exposed to unsafe workplace conditions. Should that also apply to all those who got black lung working in coal mines, or asbetosis, or sawmill workers who lost digits or limbs due to their employer's disregard for their safety, or does it only apply to someone who had no choice but to work double shifts in a smoke-filled bar to be able to afford diapers for her kid?
So, let's see. Bars and restaurants should be required to drive away their own customers who want to patronize establishments that permit smoking,[sup]1[/sup] even though there are more (and, hence, more jobs in) such establishments that prohibit smoking than permit it. That should do wonders by way of job creation.
-------------------------
1. When San Francisco passed its smoking ban, one bar/restaurant in the financial district not only refused to prohibit smoking; it actually set out cigarettes free for the taking. Its business skyrocketed, and its competitors' business shrank correspondingly.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Scooter wrote:The idiocy lies squarely with those who are advocating that a business has some sort of god-given right to poison its employees and customers.
The number of such people being exactly zero.
I see. Tobacco smoke is no longer a carcinogenic toxin? Did I miss the memo?
Bars and restaurants should be required to drive away their own customers who want to patronize establishments that permit smoking
Just like any other business spewing noxious chemicals into an enclosed atmosphere (or otherwise poisoning its employees or customers) should be shut down.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
If I may Scoot, you talk about establishments poisoning their employees and customers. I think you can leave the customers out of this as they certainly don't have to drink in smoke-filled bars to put food on the table. Given the options of smoking or non-smoking bars they have free choice.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Lord Jim wrote:I'm trying to remember the last time I was in a bar where the bartender wasn't a smoker....
I'll get back to you when I can recall when it was....
I was out last night. The bar was busier than the restaurant, people were eating on that side - something you just couldn't stomach in the old smoky days, and the bartender had help to get through the evening. Amd I know him - we used to date - amd he is smokin but he is no smoker.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Yesterday a smoker hung her coat over mine. Typical boorish smoker behavior. Now my coat reeks. Thanks you selfish bitch. I just wish smokers had a clue how bad they smell. The toxins are one thing, the stench another.
Yesterday a woman wearing horrid perfume hung her coat over mine. Typical boorish perfume-wearer behavior. Now my coat reeks. Thanks you selfish bitch. I just wish people who drench themselves in cheap fragrance had a clue how bad they smell. The toxins are one thing, the stench another.
Jarlaxle wrote:Yesterday a woman wearing horrid perfume hung her coat over mine. Typical boorish perfume-wearer behavior. Now my coat reeks. Thanks you selfish bitch. I just wish people who drench themselves in cheap fragrance had a clue how bad they smell. The toxins are one thing, the stench another.
Missing your target wee lad, I can't stand scents either and don't wear any.
Keep trying while more and more places deny the boors their stench making abilities.
Jarlaxle wrote:Yesterday a woman wearing horrid perfume hung her coat over mine. Typical boorish perfume-wearer behavior. Now my coat reeks. Thanks you selfish bitch. I just wish people who drench themselves in cheap fragrance had a clue how bad they smell. The toxins are one thing, the stench another.
Missing your target wee lad, I can't stand scents either and don't wear any.
Keep trying while more and more places deny the boors their stench making abilities.
Actually, I'd bet you do. I have NEVER met a woman that didn't use something scented...soap, shampoo, deodorant, face cream, hand lotion, etc.
Sean wrote:If I may Scoot, you talk about establishments poisoning their employees and customers. I think you can leave the customers out of this as they certainly don't have to drink in smoke-filled bars to put food on the table. Given the options of smoking or non-smoking bars they have free choice.
Do they? When I was still a student, I had work-term assignments where I was required to work out of town for weeks at a time. In an era when restaurants still had smoking and non-smoking sections, I had to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner breathing in cigarette smoke because my manager was a smoker and we always had to sit in the smoking section to accommodate him. What "choice" did I, a 20 year old student hoping to make a good impression in order to turn a temporary assignment into permanent employment, have in those circumstances? To say that I would take my meals alone in the non-smoking section, and make myself look anti-social towards my colleagues?
I can imagine many analogous circumstances in which people, for business or employment purposes, might feel coerced into patronizing establishments where smoking is allowed, when they would have preferred otherwise.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Sean wrote:I can imagine flying pixies but that doesn't make them real...
A business owner eager to make a sale learns that the prospective client is a smoker and prefers to frequent only those establishments that allow smoking. His "choice" is to aggravate his asthma by sitting thru a meal inhaling the smoke of the diners around him, or to alienate a potential client.
And so on.
This isn't the stuff of pixies, but of flesh and blood human beings
I'm not sure how long ago you were a student Scoot but you may find that attitudes have changed slightly...
If attitudes have changed it is only because smoking in public indoor spaces has been made socially unacceptable through legislated bans. Undo those bans, and smokers will once again presume the right to inflict their habit on others.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Jarlaxle wrote:Yesterday a woman wearing horrid perfume hung her coat over mine. Typical boorish perfume-wearer behavior. Now my coat reeks. Thanks you selfish bitch. I just wish people who drench themselves in cheap fragrance had a clue how bad they smell. The toxins are one thing, the stench another.
Missing your target wee lad, I can't stand scents either and don't wear any.
Keep trying while more and more places deny the boors their stench making abilities.
Actually, I'd bet you do. I have NEVER met a woman that didn't use something scented...soap, shampoo, deodorant, face cream, hand lotion, etc.
Actually you haven't a clue. I buy all things unscented with no dyes.
Sean wrote:I can imagine flying pixies but that doesn't make them real...
A business owner eager to make a sale learns that the prospective client is a smoker and prefers to frequent only those establishments that allow smoking. His "choice" is to aggravate his asthma by sitting thru a meal inhaling the smoke of the diners around him, or to alienate a potential client.
And so on.
This isn't the stuff of pixies, but of flesh and blood human beings
And you think that in this day and age he would lose a sale by saying "Sorry, I have asthma. Do you mind if we eat in a smoke free area?"
Maybe where you live but certainly not in the rest of the world...
I'm not sure how long ago you were a student Scoot but you may find that attitudes have changed slightly...
If attitudes have changed it is only because smoking in public indoor spaces has been made socially unacceptable through legislated bans. Undo those bans, and smokers will once again presume the right to inflict their habit on others.
Bullshit! Attitudes changed amongst a lot of smokers way before smoking bans. Smoking has been socially unacceptable for a long time. I'm not saying that there aren't arseholes who would do what you say but there are just as many arseholes on the "Somebody call the police, he's smoking within ten miles of me!" holier-than-thou brigade.
If there is one thing that smokers and anti-smokers (note: anti as opposed to non-smokers...there's a huge difference) have in common it's a huge persecution complex!
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
It does seem that bars are temples of vice and as such the practice of vice ought to be left alone there. If it weren't for the employees I would agree with that completely but if the bar hires staff to operate it I can't condone it. We don't allow any other place of employment to tolerate an atmosphere which is known to be harmful.
Rubato-we do so, and the only requirement is that the employer provide protective devices to help protect the employees. P3 and P4 laboratories, for example, contain environments which are known to be harmful and workers take the appropriate precautions and use protective equipment.
Big RR wrote:Rubato-we do so, and the only requirement is that the employer provide protective devices to help protect the employees. P3 and P4 laboratories, for example, contain environments which are known to be harmful and workers take the appropriate precautions and use protective equipment.
You're being pointlessly argumentative. We do not allow employers to subject their employees to things which are known to be harmful. If PPE is used and it will effectively remove the harm then we are clearly talking about a different circumstance.
