Eat and breath

[Lord Jim]

While certainly no one would argue that "second hand smoke" is good for you, (neither is standing on a street corner in a city, sucking in car exhaust fumes) the next "study" I see that uses sound scientific methodology to determine the concentrations, time requirements etc., to make any valid predictions about how many "deaths" it causes will be the first one...

These yanked out the ass hysterical claims like "50,000 people a year die from second hand smoke" are nothing but ideologically driven fairy tales with absolutely no valid science to back them up.

Counting every person who dies from some respiratory related illness who says they lived around a smoker as a death due to "second hand smoke" is an embarrassingly awful way to conduct "science"...

The so-called "scientists" who have lent their prestige to this junk science nonsense ought to ashamed of themselves.

[Lord Jim]

I never had a smoker refuse to extinguish a cigarette in a restaurant (it makes my wife ill) after i asked politely--doubt that would happen wherever smoking is permitted now (and I doubt many would ask politely as well).

Man ain't that the truth....

I've had a couple of occasions here in this den of smoke Nazis known as San Francisco, where I've had to tell one of these self righteous in-your-face hyper-hypochondriac asswipes to go fuck themselves...(I didn't put it that way...but when one of these pushy jerks has walked up to me to tell me not to light up my pipe in their exalted presence, I have pointed out to them that I was there smoking before they got there, and if they didn't like it, they were free to go stand or sit some place else. Unless the person who wants to bitch at me about my pipe is hooked up to an oxygen machine they can get stuffed )

[Big RR]

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.

yrs,
rubato

OK, but are you contending that no protective equipment exists, or can be designed, that will do just what you say?

[Guinevere]

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.

yrs,
rubato

OK, but are you contending that no protective equipment exists, or can be designed, that will do just what you say?

The point is that in the labratories the use of harmful materials is necessary to the work being done, so it makes sense to creat an environment where the work can be done still utilizing those materials. The scope, scale, and intensity of exposure are all far different than what you find if you're sitting in a bar having drinks, or out to dinner for the evening. I'm quite sure -- even having dated chefs and bartenders -- that smoking cigarettes is unnecessary to the provision of food and drink.

[Big RR]

Drinking is unnecessary as well, as is fatty food, or whatever. The point is that the bars and restaurants are part of the service industry and a significant part of the customer base would prefer to be able to smoke while eating, drinking, dancing, etc. (otherwise no business owner would permit smoking in their establishment) so, much as lab or factory needs to have hazardous materials present in some cases, these businesses need to have smoke.

All I'm saying is let the businesses run their own businesses and respond to the demands of the market--the government should stay out of it (unless it chooses to mandate the provision of safety equipment to those who desire it).

[@meric@nwom@n]

as is fatty food

That is always such a completely stupid argument. No one has ever been killed off by second hand fat.

[Sean]

as is fatty food

That is always such a completely stupid argument. No one has ever been killed off by second hand fat.

Could happen...

If a fat fucker fell on you!

[Long Run]

Like most things, this issue is about where you draw the line between promoting health and invading property rights -- I draw mine at adult establishments on this one, while others are more absolute or more permissive.

But note that second hand smoke bans are promoted on the basis of protecting nonsmokers. However, after the bans have been in effect, the main benefit always trumpeted is the reduction in the number of people who smoke. This occurs because when you take away places folks can smoke or you raise their taxes yet again, there is a drop off in the number of smokers*. This is behavior control, pure and simple. None of us would like it if the same approach were so aggressively taken against our "vices" whether they be quesadillas, pear cider or weird movies of making whoopee next to dead bodies.

*They may try rarely to show a study of improved health for nonsmokers, but usually can't for obvious reasons.

[rubato]

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.

yrs,
rubato

OK, but are you contending that no protective equipment exists, or can be designed, that will do just what you say?

Oh brother, you really don't get this do you?


We do not 'permit' people to use PPE when using dangerous materials we REQUIRE them to. If they are found to be using those chemicals and failing to use the REQUIRED PPE and other safety measures they are automatically fired. So if you are saying with a straight face that people who work in bars might reasonably be REQUIRED to wear respirators then yes this is the same. Otherwise it is a pure bullshit example.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

But note that second hand smoke bans are promoted on the basis of protecting nonsmokers. However, after the bans have been in effect, the main benefit always trumpeted is the reduction in the number of people who smoke. This occurs because when you take away places folks can smoke or you raise their taxes yet again, there is a drop off in the number of smokers*. This is behavior control, pure and simple.

*They may try rarely to show a study of improved health for nonsmokers, but usually can't for obvious reasons.

Bingo.

[Sean]

So if you are saying with a straight face that people who work in bars might reasonably be REQUIRED to wear respirators then yes this is the same.

LMAO - Actually why not? If the ban is truly about protecting the employees then surely this would be a great solution all round. Also, if smoking and non-smoking staff alike all had to wear respirators then there would be no unfair advantage in the tips stakes either!

[Lord Jim]

If bars that permitted smoking were required to provide gas masks to non-smoking patrons who requested them, I'd be all for it....

For one thing, they wouldn't be able to talk, so the rest of the customers would be spared their incessant self-righteous whining....

That's what I call a win-win....

[Big RR]

I guess I just don't get it rubato, what would I do without you? Some PPE is required, some is recommended, and some is offered and used by those who choose to. It's a pretty big tangle of laws, regulations, and work rules, but one need only go to a fire where you will see some firefighters using their breathing apparatus working right along side another one not; certainly there are times when it is required to use it, but workers also have some discretion. Thanks so much for clearing this up for me in your usual arrogant way.

[Jarlaxle]

An obvious one from personal experience: MAYBE one in three workers in our processing plant at work wears hearing protection. It can be very loud...but some just don't like it (it's cumbersome, uncomfortable, and very hot in the summer), it's often impractical (makes hearing your fellow workers difficult), and can actually be dangerous (can't hear the reverse alarm on a forklift).

Hell, has anyone EVER seen an experienced welder that DIDN'T have a bunch of burn scars on his hands and arms? I haven't. I'd bet LoCA has a few scars from welding. Yes, they are probably supposed to wear long sleeves & heavy gloves...and anyone who has tried to weld in long sleeves and heavy gloves in July knows just how practical THAT is!

[loCAtek]

Yeah, it's true...

[rubato]

So if you are saying with a straight face that people who work in bars might reasonably be REQUIRED to wear respirators then yes this is the same.

LMAO - Actually why not? If the ban is truly about protecting the employees then surely this would be a great solution all round. Also, if smoking and non-smoking staff alike all had to wear respirators then there would be no unfair advantage in the tips stakes either!

You've worn a respirator for any length of time and can comment on the liklihood that barmaids will accept this? as a condition of employment?

No?

No. Of course not.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

You've worn a respirator for any length of time and can comment on the liklihood that barmaids will accept this? as a condition of employment?

No?

No. Of course not.

yrs,
rubato

No actually I haven't... but I bet you have!

Why don't you tell us all about it and see if you can find a way to let us know how many thousands of dollars you were paid whilst wearing one.

[rubato]

"...

As for the employees, they can work elsewhere. ... "

How would that be different from saying that tire manufacturing workers "can work elsewhere" so we can allow them to work in a cloud of benzene fumes and take their chances with the leukemia?

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

You've worn a respirator for any length of time and can comment on the liklihood that barmaids will accept this? as a condition of employment?

No?

No. Of course not.

yrs,
rubato

No actually I haven't... but I bet you have!

Why don't you tell us all about it and see if you can find a way to let us know how many thousands of dollars you were paid whilst wearing one.

Respirators are very uncomfortable and they are a very risky form of PPE because fitting is sometimes difficult and hence the level of protection is uncertain. We either forbid using chemicals like that or try to use other engineering controls (glove boxes, ventilation &c). I haven't worn one in a long time.

People are blithely suggesting that bar workers can 'just use respirators' with no personal experience of the difficulty and discomfort to gauge the plausibility of that solution. I do know from personal experience how poor that idea is and I am saying so.

Getting a good 'hate on' today are we?


Attributing statements which I have clearly not made is an amazingly childish way to justify your own emotionally inappropriate response.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I guess I just don't get it rubato, what would I do without you? Some PPE is required, some is recommended, and some is offered and used by those who choose to. It's a pretty big tangle of laws, regulations, and work rules, but one need only go to a fire where you will see some firefighters using their breathing apparatus working right along side another one not; certainly there are times when it is required to use it, but workers also have some discretion. Thanks so much for clearing this up for me in your usual arrogant way.

I don't have any direct experience about what firefighters do or are required to do.

But I do have direct experience working in an environment where hazardous substances are used, where safety is an important corporate value and where there is a very good record of safety. Calling someone 'arrogant' for not being uncertain about their own life experiences reflects poorly, on you.

On the whole (as I tried to suggest far above) I would prefer bars to be left alone as 'temples of vice' where people can smoke, drink, &c but I cannot see any way to to this and maintain a uniform level of care for bar worker's health and safety unless the bars are staffed only by owners. Tobacco smoke is known to be harmful.

yrs,
rubato