[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