[Vision2020] More Banning?

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jun 20 07:38:28 PDT 2009


Gary,

I am all in favor of choice. But I don't see how the fact that workers  
and customers ultimately choose to occupy smoke filled places should  
count as a solution to the problem that we're discussing. There is  
still the social and personal impact of second hand smoke, whether  
people choose it or not. I wonder, too, what kinds of 'choice' some of  
the folks who work at bars have. Walmart or the Alley? That is not  
much of a choice, for me personally.

Again, I'm not in favor of a smoking ban but it is clear that this is  
a social problem, one about which the city government should care.  
Leaving things the same because people ultimately choose their lot is  
not much of a solution.

Joe Campbell

On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:01 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>  
wrote:

> 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 Califo 
> rnia —
> >> 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
> =======================================================
> the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ======================================================= Y>
> =======================================================
> 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/20090620/6d8e3c72/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list