[Vision2020] More Banning?
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Sat Jun 20 07:01:34 PDT 2009
It would seem to me that a person applying for a job in a bar would know full well what kind of environment they were going to be working in and would be making an adult decision on the pros and cons. The same applies to people who work in mines, fight forest fires, fish off the Aleutians or manufacture explosives. All have an element of risk and people make a decision whether or not the risk is worth it. If a person is disinclined to work in an environment that contains second hand smoke, perhaps they should apply at Wal-Mart. No second hand smoke there.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Moffett
To: bear at moscow.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] More Banning?
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
>> >> =======================================================
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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/d2418798/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list