[Vision2020] More Banning?

[Ted Moffett]

My simple question (or two) was not answered:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-June/064525.html

>From post at website above:

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?
--------
It's a rather incredible question, given that restrictions on tobacco
smoking in businesses, considering the toxic addictive nature of tobacco
smoke, injected into the shared air of an indoor room, for all to breathe,
is assumed to be reasonable in business after business.  The question: In
what businesses, if any, should smoking not be allowed, legally, to protect
the health of the workers (or the public)?  Some responding to this thread
think the government should have no say in the matter
regarding bars: they should be except from any broad legal (city, county,
state, federal) restrictions regarding the problems of exposing workers or
the public to tobacco smoke.

When smoking was "banned" in the U of I's Brink Hall, which I recall was
just "U of I" policy, there were no major enforcement problems.  And the U
of I English Dept. remained, for the most part, a center of liberal
enlightenment... Big Brothers smoking restrictions appeared to have limited
effect on the free thinking cognitive slant of the residents of Brink Hall.

Isn't the legacy of the millions of premature deaths from tobacco addiction,
even after the link between tobacco addiction and disease was scientifically
established decades ago, a testament to the cynical manipulations of the
"free market" of profit seeking, to the detriment of social good?  Candy
cigarettes and Joe Camel, etc.

As if someone seeking big tips, due to economic needs, should be exposed in
a bar to an addictive drug while they breathe?  These are the economic
opportunities some want local workers to face, without regulation: exposure
to an addictive drug for big tips as a person breathes?

Maybe bars are a kind of business where it's legally acceptable for workers
to be exposed to an addictive drug that kills more people prematurely
than any other cause (interesting no one in this discussion is repeating
this fact)... for the greater social good, of course, like local economic
opportunities, jobs, big tips... And then there is the greater social
good from the premature deaths from tobacco addiction eliminating thousands
from the long term Social Security and Medicare costs...

Ted Moffett

On 6/19/09, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> You wrote:
> "What do you think about the way Bucers has their set up?"
>
> I'm afraid I can't offer any comment because women aren't allowed inside
> the
> smoking room at Bucers, or at least we weren't when I tried to go a few
> years back.  <shaking my head>  It's such a ludicrous thing to type in the
> 21st century:  no women allowed.  Frankly, if the City Council wants to
> stick its nose in such matters as mandating smoking bans, I'd be far more
> interested in the cause had they addressed the gender discrimination by
> Bucers.  But, that's a different issue.
>
> I really have no dog in this fight -- while I’m a smoker, I rarely visit
> our
> local bars -- but I do have a couple of comments <g>.
>
> First, I think it's a stunningly stupid move on the part of the City to
> even
> consider such a move during tough economic times.  Have we not enough dark
> business space already?
>
> Second, I really think the city should get an adequate handle on things
> currently on its plate before taking on new enforcement responsibilities.
> For instance, let's talk snow removal enforcement as just one example  :-)
> Yes, we've had a couple of hard winters in a row, but even in mild winters,
> there are sidewalks that aren't shoveled for weeks on end, which presents a
> serious public safety hazard that is ignored by the city.  Streets can't be
> adequately plowed because the city refuses to address the issue of cars
> left
> on the streets for weeks at a time.  The resulting narrow roads are a
> safety
> hazard for all who travel on them, including emergency vehicles.  So.  Why
> on earth the city thinks it should take on a smoking ban in bars to the
> detriment of small businesses when it is woefully inadequate at enforcing
> rules already on the books is beyond me.
>
> Third, for those who object to smoke in bars, for the love of God, COME UP
> WITH YOUR OWN ALTERNATIVES rather than trying to force existing business
> owners to cater to your needs.  Isn't that exactly the kind of situation
> the
> free market should address.  Certainly, there are smoke-free bars, so
> patronize them.  They don't have pool tables?  Then convince an investor --
> or band together yourselves -- to start up a business to suit your needs.
> Granted, you wouldn't have a liquor license immediately, but had you tried
> to solve your own problem rather than whine and force government to ram
> your
> desires to eliminate lawful behavior that will likely cause some local
> businesses to fail, you could have had exactly what you want by now.  Lord
> knows there's plenty of dark retail spaces you could check into, and had
> you
> attempted to solve your problem rather than getting government to do it for
> you, you could have a nice setting or four that would suit your needs
> rather
> than advocating a ridiculous position that will hurt local business.
>
> Fourth, with respect to Ted's case, I reject it.  No one is forcing anyone
> to work in bars where there's second-hand smoke exposure.  For those who
> choose to not expose themselves to second-hand smoke, then DON'T APPLY FOR
> JOBS WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED!  Indeed, I find it incredibly hypocritical
> that some of those complaining about second-hand smoke exposure explicitly
> choose to work in bars rather than smoke-free restaurants or other
> smoke-free settings precisely because they can make better tips in bars,
> and
> a good portion of those tips come from smokers.  I've yet to see anyone who
> objects to working in an environment where there's second-hand smoke
> exposure refuse to take tips from smokers.  There's an ethical position for
> you  :-)
>
> Fifth, what's next?  I think <tongue in cheek> we should outlaw the sales &
> operation of inefficient motor vehicles in Moscow because they are bad for
> the environment, which means they are bad for all of us.  What about
> donorcycles -- we should all be aware of the significant impact on health
> care costs for all of us from those who choose to ride motorcycles.  And,
> if
> we want to talk about health risks, then let's go after restaurants that
> serve red meat because you'd have to live in a cave to not know that the
> consumption of red meat is linked to lots of health problems including
> heart
> disease, which is THE leading cause of death in this country.  And, what
> about those vegetarian employees working in restaurants with no vegetarian
> options?!  Quite often, an indirect compensation for restaurant employees
> is
> free or reduced prices on meals while working, yet if the restaurant
> doesn't
> offer any vegetarian options . . . so perhaps we should get the City to
> pass
> a law mandating that ALL restaurants offer vegetarian option.  Yeah --
> that's the ticket!
>
> Sixth, I don't know Bill Parks, but I will say that I might be more
> sympathetic to his cause had he thrown his weight behind the significant
> concerns for Moscow's air quality problem from allowing bonfires in
> neighborhoods.  *That* is an issue that affects entire neighborhoods . . .
> and the quality of life for people in their own homes and on their own
> property, yet I don't recall him addressing that.  Instead, he'd rather
> have
> the government address social & the business concerns of others.
>
> If what's been posted is accurate (I don't know if it is), I can't imagine
> Mr. Parks would be too happy if Moscow decided to outlaw the sale of
> products manufactured outside the country -- my guess would be he would
> vigorously object to local government messing with the legal activities of
> the free market in that respect.  It's really too bad he fails to see the
> correlation . . .
>
> Am I missing something?  Isn't any business owner interested able to
> operate
> a bar or tavern where smoking is prohibited???  Again let Parks & those who
> share his concern open & operate their own smoke-free venue rather than
> trying to get the government to force others' businesses to do things His
> way.  Isn't that what the free market is supposed to do?
>
>
> JMHO,
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life
> plus
> 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
> outside
> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> author.*****
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of bear at moscow.com
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:22 PM
> To: Ted Moffett
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090620/b6ca582f/attachment.html