[Vision2020] More Banning?

[bear at moscow.com]

Ted,

I am sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands of things we shouldn't
do that aren't healthy for us, but as adults, we have a choice!

Don't the workers have a CHOICE where they work when they APPLY for the
job? Or are you saying that they interviewed somewhere else and didn't
know that the bar they wanted to work at was a smoking establishment as
opposed to a non-smoking establishment? Just as customers have a choice to
go to a smoking establishment as opposed to a non-smoking establishment.

You'll pardon the pun, but I think this is a mere smoke screen. The
"concerned citizen" / "Mexican manufacturer"/ "shill" (Depending on your
point of view), never mentioned the need for this legislation was the
protection of the workers! He did mention that his friends wife wouldn't
go watch him shoot pool because of the smoke! (As an aside, I wonder what
kind of health regulations for his workers he provides down in Mexico?)

If you don't want to work there, then don't. I'm sure that there are
"smokers" that are willing to fill the jobs! If you don't  want to go
there as a customer because of the smoke, then don't, I'm sure that there
are customers that will!


WE DO NOT NEED MORE LEGISLATION!




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For arguments sake?  Are you implying the data from the CDC might be in
> error?  That tobacco is not the leading cause of premature death in the
> US?
> That hundreds of thousands of people do not die prematurely in the US
> every
> year from tobacco abuse/addiction?
>
> You are not addressing the central point of my post.  Second hand smoke in
> the workplace in smoking bars exposes workers *by merely breathing* to a
> drug that is associated *with more premature death in the US than any
> other
> cause.*
>
> Expanding your argument, which apparently is that tobacco should be
> allowed
> to be smoked in workplaces (note this is indoors, not outdoors where
> tobacco
> smoke does not concentrate), exposing workers, when they breathe, then
> would
> you approve of allowing tobacco smoking in all indoor workplaces, or where
> would you draw the line?  What restrictions regarding tobacco smoking in
> the
> workplace would you accept, that do not cross the line into "Big Brother"
> regulation, if any?
>
> You raise the issue of food and regulation of fats.  But your example does
> not cover the same circumstance as the bar workplace smoking issue
> regarding
> bar workers.  Are workers at McDonalds exposed to the fat from the double
> cheeseburgers the customers eat, or the fat from the potato fryer, merely
> by
> being in the same room?  Is it the case that when a customer eats a double
> cheeseburger, or when a load of fries is cooked in the fryer, this dumps
> some of the fat into the workers bloodstream when they breathe?
>
> Workers at McDonalds do not have to consume this fat unless they choose to
> by eating.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 6/19/09, bear at moscow.com <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> IF for arguments sake, I agree with all the statistics you listed, why
>> do
>> we need MORE legislation?  Where does it stop? Is the Moscow City
>> Council
>> going to take on the Trans-Fat issue next? Where does Big Brother
>> legislation end, and Personal Responsibility take over?
>>
>>
>> Some US cities are acting to reduce consumption of trans fats. In May
>> 2005, Tiburon, California, became the first American city wherein all
>> restaurants voluntarily cook with trans fat-free oils. Montgomery
>> County,
>> Maryland approved a ban on partially hydrogenated oils, becoming the
>> first
>> county in the nation to restrict trans fats.
>> New York City embarked on a campaign in 2005 to reduce consumption of
>> trans fats, noting that heart disease is the primary cause of resident
>> deaths. This has included a Public education campaign and a request to
>> restaurant owners to eliminate trans fat from their offerings
>> voluntarily
>> . Finding that the voluntary program was not successful, New York City's
>> Board of Health in 2006 solicited public comments on a proposal to ban
>> artificial trans fats in restaurants. The board voted to ban trans fat
>> in
>> restaurant food on December 5, 2006. New York was the first large US
>> city
>> to strictly limit trans fats in restaurants. Restaurants were barred
>> from
>> using most frying and spreading fats containing artificial trans fats
>> above 0.5 g per serving on July 1, 2007, and were supposed to have met
>> the
>> same target in all of their foods by July 1, 2008.
>> Philadelphia also recently passed a ban on trans fats. Philadelphia's
>> City
>> Council voted unanimously to pass a ban on February 8, 2007, which was
>> signed into law on February 15, 2007, by Mayor John F. Street. By
>> September 1, 2007, eateries must cease frying food in trans fats. A year
>> later, trans fat must not be used as an ingredient in commercial
>> kitchens.
>> The law does not apply to prepackaged foods sold in the city. On October
>> 10, 2007, the Philadelphia City Council approved the use of trans-fats
>> by
>> small bakeries throughout the city.
>> Albany County of New York passed a ban on trans fats. The ban was
>> adopted
>> after a unanimous vote by the county legislature on May 14, 2007. The
>> decision was made after New York City's decision, but no plan has been
>> put
>> into place. Legislators received a letter from Rick J. Sampson,
>> president
>> and CEO of the New York State Restaurant Association, calling on them to
>> "delay any action on this issue until the full impact of the New York
>> City
>> ban is known."
>> San Francisco officially asked its restaurants to stop using trans fat
>> in
>> January 2008. The voluntary program will grant a city decal to
>> restaurants
>> that comply and apply for the decal. Legislators say the next step will
>> be
>> a mandatory ban.
>> Chicago also considered a ban on oils containing trans fats for large
>> chain restaurants, and finally settled on a partial ban on oils and
>> posting requirements for fast food restaurants.
>> On December 19, 2006, Massachusetts state representative Peter
>> Koutoujian
>> filed the first state level legislation that would ban restaurants from
>> preparing foods with trans fats.[95] The statewide legislation has not
>> yet
>> passed. However, the city of Boston did ban the sale of foods containing
>> artificial trans fats at more than 0.5 grams per serving, which is
>> similar
>> to the New York City regulation; there are some exceptions for clearly
>> labeled packaged foods and charitable bake sales.
>> Maryland and Vermont were considering statewide bans of trans fats as of
>> March 2007.
>> King County of Washington passed a ban on artificial trans fats
>> effective
>> February 1, 2009.
>> On July 25, 2008, California became the first state to ban trans fats in
>> restaurants. Effective January 1, 2010, Californian restaurants will be
>> prohibited from using oil, shortening, and margarine containing
>> artificial
>> trans fats in spreads or for frying, with the exception of deep frying
>> donuts. Donuts and other baked goods will be prohibited from containing
>> artificial trans fats as of January 1, 2011.
>>
>> The primary health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an
>> elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).A comprehensive review of
>> studies of trans fats was published in 2006 in the New England Journal
>> of
>> Medicine reports a strong and reliable connection between trans fat
>> consumption and CHD, concluding that "On a per-calorie basis, trans fats
>> appear to increase the risk of CHD more than any other macronutrient,
>> conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption
>> (1
>> to 3 percent of total energy intake)". This study estimates that between
>> 30,000 and 100,000 cardiac deaths per year in the United States are
>> attributable to the consumption of trans fats.
>>
>> There are suggestions that the negative consequences of trans fat
>> consumption go beyond the cardiovascular risk. In general, there is much
>> less scientific consensus that eating trans fat specifically increases
>> the
>> risk of other chronic health problems:
>> Alzheimer's Disease: A study published in Archives of Neurology in
>> February 2003 suggested that the intake of both trans fats and saturated
>> fats promote the development of Alzheimer disease.
>> Cancer: There is no scientific consensus that consumption of trans fats
>> significantly increases cancer risks across the board. The American
>> Cancer
>> Society states that a relationship between trans fats and cancer "has
>> not
>> been determined." However, one recent study has found connections
>> between
>> trans fat and prostate cancer. An increased intake of trans-fatty acids
>> may raise the risk of breast cancer by 75 percent, suggest the results
>> from the French part of the European Prospective Investigation into
>> Cancer
>> and Nutrition.
>> Diabetes: There is a growing concern that the risk of type 2 diabetes
>> increases with trans fat consumption. However, consensus has not been
>> reached. For example, one study found that risk is higher for those in
>> the
>> highest quartile of trans fat consumption. Another study has found no
>> diabetes risk once other factors such as total fat intake and BMI were
>> accounted for.
>> Obesity: Research indicates that trans fat may increase weight gain and
>> abdominal fat, despite a similar caloric intake. A 6-year experiment
>> revealed that monkeys fed a trans-fat diet gained 7.2% of their body
>> weight, as compared to 1.8% for monkeys on a mono-unsaturated fat diet.
>> Although obesity is frequently linked to trans fat in the popular media,
>> this is generally in the context of eating too many calories; there is
>> no
>> scientific consensus connecting trans fat and obesity.
>> Liver Dysfunction: Trans fats are metabolized differently by the liver
>> than other fats and interfere with delta 6 desaturase. Delta 6
>> desaturase
>> is an enzyme involved in converting essential fatty acids to arachidonic
>> acid and prostaglandins, both of which are important to the functioning
>> of
>> cells.
>> Infertility: One 2007 study found, "Each 2% increase in the intake of
>> energy from trans unsaturated fats, as opposed to that from
>> carbohydrates,
>> was associated with a 73% greater risk of ovulatory infertility
".
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > *http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n1/full/nm0199_15.html*
>> > **
>> > *The largest study ever undertaken to examine the health effects of
>> > tobacco
>> > finds that there are already a million deaths a year from smoking in
>> > China,
>> > and it predicts large increases in mortality over the next few
>> decades.
>> > This
>> > pattern is likely to be repeated in other developing countries. *
>> > --------------
>> > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm
>> >
>> > Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the
>> United
>> > States and produces substantial health-related economic costs to
>> > society (*1<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm>
>> > ,2*).
>> > --------------
>> > Well, at least its a form of population control!  And I have heard
>> serious
>> > economic arguments that the premature deaths from tobacco use are a
>> > benefit
>> > to society, reducing the long term costs of Medicare and Social
>> Security
>> > that are increasing with a longer life span.
>> >
>> > But that this is even a subject for apparently serious debate
>> (exposing
>> > workers and customers in bars to the smoke of tobacco), the use of
>> which
>> > is
>> > associated with the deaths (often ugly drawn out deaths) of hundreds
>> of
>> > thousands of people prematurely in the US every year, is an example of
>> the
>> > contradictions, blind-spots and obfuscation, regarding establishing
>> > rational
>> > legal and social policies based on the facts of the harm from drug use
>> and
>> > abuse, common in the US.
>> >
>> > Tobacco prematurely kills more people than heroin, cocaine and meth
>> > combined, many times over.  I have often gone to a bar and after a few
>> > hours
>> > could feel the drug effects of the nicotine from the second hand
>> smoke,
>> as
>> > though I had smoked one or two, though I never held a cigarette in my
>> > hand.
>> > Of course, I did not have to be there... But the peer pressure and
>> > cultural
>> > influences to go to bars is significant, especially for young adults.
>> >
>> > Bucers "smoking room" does not expose the workers at Bucers, as far as
>> I
>> > have been able to see, to the smoking of those in that room, or at
>> least
>> > not
>> > very much.  The room is not attended by "bar persons," that I have
>> seen,
>> > to
>> > use a gender neutral form of the phrase "bar maid," which is often
>> > assumed is who will be waiting tables in a bar, the sexier the female
>> the
>> > better (more drinks are ordered with sexual arousal of the male
>> patrons).
>> > Of course Bucers is not really a "bar."  There is no hard liquor sold
>> > there.
>> >
>> > Most bars have employees working in the area where smokers will smoke.
>> > Some
>> > bars have non-smoking areas, but this does not stop workers in the
>> smoking
>> > section from exposure.  What workplace allows workers to be exposed to
>> > tobacco smoke?  Does Microsoft, Ford or McDonalds allow smoking in
>> their
>> > workplaces?
>> >
>> > The U of I once allowed smoking, if I recall correctly, in Brink Hall.
>> > Then
>> > they banned smoking in this building.  Then after the smokers crowded
>> the
>> > entrances, creating a gauntlet of smoke for those entering the
>> building,
>> > they requested smokers move a number of feet away from entrances.
>> >
>> > No workplace should expose employees to a drug (of course tobacco
>> smoke
>> is
>> > more complex than just nicotine, with numerous compounds) that kills
>> more
>> > people prematurely than any other single cause.
>> >
>> > I have a pack of cigarettes.  I bought it several years ago.  Shermans
>> > Naturals.  Occasionally I smoke one.  About half the pack is gone.  I
>> have
>> > been lucky.  For whatever reason(s), though I have smoked on and off,
>> at
>> > one
>> > time smoking about 5 cigarettes a day, I have never become
>> addicted.  When
>> > I
>> > was smoking about 5 cigarettes a day, I noticed that my wind and
>> endurance
>> > when running was impaired.  And that was the end of that... I dropped
>> the
>> > habit very easily.  Again, I was lucky.  I have known people who were
>> > owned
>> > by tobacco addiction, two or three packs a day.  Who pledged over and
>> over
>> > to quit.  Who hated how they smelled, how they tasted when being
>> kissed...
>> > Who tried nicotine patches, distractions of one sort or another, who
>> > fought
>> > themselves daily over their compulsion to smoke repeatedly off and on
>> all
>> > day, the coughing and lung irritation.  And this went on for years...
>> >
>> > Ted Moffett
>> >
>> > On 6/19/09, bear at moscow.com <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ted,
>> >>
>> >> What about something less draconian than a ban? What about a physical
>> >> separation with air exchangers? What do you think about the way
>> Bucers
>> >> has
>> >> their set up?
>> >>
>> >> I can tell you that as a smoker, I am less inclined to compromise
>> with
>> >> total bans and advocates of total bans when their interests are up
>> for
>> >> consideration later. And I vote.  There has to be a middle ground
>> >> somewhere.
>> >>
>> >> And you mention that  keeping bars smoke free is a benefit to the
>> >> workers
>> >> in these businesses who need the jobs yet are exposed to second hand
>> >> smoke. In the case here in Moscow, I don't even think the employees
>> were
>> >> even asked. Based on the tape I saw of the meeting before city
>> council
>> >> on
>> >> the 18th of May, it was an individual that is a bar customer, and
>> from
>> >> his
>> >> comments, I have to believe he was talking about Mingles. So, because
>> he
>> >> doesn't like the smoky atmosphere in Mingles,  all of the bars in
>> Moscow
>> >> have to ban smoking?
>> >>
>> >> I just think much more research needs to be done to see IF there is a
>> >> problem before the Council passes a ban. The quick, knee jerk
>> reaction,
>> >> the simple solution to the problem IF there is one, is to pass a ban.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > New York City has banned tobacco smoking in bars and restaurants.
>> >> There
>> >> > have been some negative consequences, but New York still has a
>> night
>> >> life
>> >> > for drinkers:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > From website above:
>> >> >
>> >> > New York City is still coming to terms with smoke-free night life
>> >> three
>> >> > months after a ban went into effect outlawing smoking in virtually
>> all
>> >> > workplaces, including restaurants and bars.
>> >> >
>> >> > Five states — New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California
>> —
>> >> have
>> >> > passed similar smoking restrictions that include bars and taverns.
>> New
>> >> > York
>> >> > state's ban, which echoes the city's anti-smoking law, goes into
>> >> effect
>> >> > July
>> >> > 24.
>> >> > ------------------------
>> >> > I am in favor of banning tobacco smoking in bars (and workplaces).
>> >> > Keeping
>> >> > bars smoke free is a benefit to the workers in these businesses who
>> >> need
>> >> > the
>> >> > jobs yet are exposed to second hand smoke.  The workers in bars are
>> >> not
>> >> > forced to drink the drinks the customers order; yet they must
>> breathe
>> >> the
>> >> > air polluted by customers smoking.  Furthermore, the damage to
>> peoples
>> >> > lives
>> >> > and society from tobacco abuse/addiction (the single largest cause
>> of
>> >> > premature death) is so huge that laws blocking smoking tobacco in
>> what
>> >> are
>> >> > publicly oriented businesses (even if privately owned) is
>> reasonable,
>> >> if
>> >> > practical.  I would not support criminalizing tobacco. Any adult
>> >> wishing
>> >> > to
>> >> > smoke in their homes or on their property should be free to do so
>> (but
>> >> not
>> >> > to expose children to second hand smoke, of course).  But a ban on
>> >> smoking
>> >> > in bars (and on all advertising) would limit encouragement of
>> tobacco
>> >> use.
>> >> > If someone wants to form a private smoking/drinking "club" on
>> private
>> >> > property, they should be free to do so.  Just don't expect workers
>> who
>> >> > need
>> >> > jobs to have to breathe second hand smoke for a paycheck.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ted Moffett
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm not surprised that those in the grip of the smoking addiction
>> >> >> would drive drunk.  There is no human behavior so pathetic that
>> >> >> someone won't indulge it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, I am against outright smoking bans.  Yes, I should be
>> able
>> >> to
>> >> >> enjoy my evening without the stink of cigarettes, but the smoker
>> >> >> should be able to commit slow suicide if he or she chooses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are plenty of places that I can publicly eat or socialize
>> where
>> >> >> I will not be bothered by smokers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No more bans, please.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> =======================================================
>> >> >>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >> >>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >> >>               http://www.fsr.net
>> >> >>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> >> =======================================================
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>