Smoking bans for private businesses

[cubby1223]

yes. as long as you have even 1 employee. You can not have a work environment that is detrimental to the health of your employees.

You know that is untrue. And you also know you do not believe in it.

Hell, I'm watching the Bears/Jets game on TV right now, and football is so much more damaging to one's health than smoking is.

So why not do the world a favor and shut your damn pie hole, you ignoramus 😉

 

[Sp12]

I think smoking should be banned everywhere, but that's just me.

 

[Amused]

Segregation was perpetuated in large part through the systematic decision of private businesses to exclude black people. The government stepping in and infringing on their property rights in order to stop this was a good thing for America.

Actually, no. Segregation was LAW (see Jim Crow). It was enforced by the very thing you advocate: Government regulation of private choices by private businesses.

Without Jim Crow laws, Segregation would have died for the most part just as it would today... This is why the laws were passed, to FORCE segregation.

 

[cubby1223]

yes. as long as you have even 1 employee. You can not have a work environment that is detrimental to the health of your employees.

Oh and just for effect, your absolute declaration has also banned all police officers, firemen, and doctors from being able to work in the U.S.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ighter-dress-uniforms-chicago-fire-department

Seriously, guys, if you want to ban smoking, just say you don't like smoking then shut the fuck up - stop trying to rationalize it out because all of what you say is so full of holes, none of your absolutes work.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, no. Segregation was LAW (see Jim Crow). It was enforced by the very thing you advocate: Government regulation of private choices by private businesses.

Without Jim Crow laws, Segregation would have died for the most part just as it would today... This is why the laws were passed, to FORCE segregation.

No, segregation came in both legal and private business form. Restaurants in many states were not required to be whites only or blacks only, but business owners did it anyway. So, what you wrote is false.

 

[cubby1223]

There are known carcinogens in my drinking water.

You can go through all the textbook answers on what chemicals are where and what causes what.

In the real world, second-hand smoke is *not* detrimental to the vast overwhelming majority of people. It's uncomfortable, but not detrimental.

The real statistics, and I'd have to search around, there was a discussion on the radio I was listening to, is that average exposure to roommate who smokes, it will take you on average over 2,000 years to develop cancer from the second-hand smoke.

You are more likely to develop cancer from using a cellphone than you are from breathing second-hand smoke. Therefore, according to activist nutjobs like IronWing, cellphones must be banned from the workplace under OSHA!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, the fucking monitor IronWing is using to read ATP&N is causing cancer too, therefore I think he must ban himself from the internet to prove to us he is not a hypocrite 😀

 

[fskimospy]

There are known carcinogens in my drinking water.

You can go through all the textbook answers on what chemicals are where and what causes what.

In the real world, second-hand smoke is *not* detrimental to the vast overwhelming majority of people. It's uncomfortable, but not detrimental.

The real statistics, and I'd have to search around, there was a discussion on the radio I was listening to, is that average exposure to roommate who smokes, it will take you on average over 2,000 years to develop cancer from the second-hand smoke.

You are more likely to develop cancer from using a cellphone than you are from breathing second-hand smoke. Therefore, according to activist nuts like Ironwing, cellphones must be banned from the workplace under OSHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

So go search around then.

Instead of referencing vague and likely made up things you heard on the radio, go find some scientific studies on second hand smoke that says it doesn't pose a realistic threat to workers or restaurant patrons over the normal course of a lifetime. Then go find a study that shows the cancer rates from cell phone use are equal to or higher than second hand smoking.

 

[Amused]

No, segregation came in both legal and private business form. Restaurants in many states were not required to be whites only or blacks only, but business owners did it anyway. So, what you wrote is false.

What I wrote is largely true. Only a minority of businesses in non-Jim Crow states excluded blacks. And with passing time, those number dwindled and would have continued to do so. Very few businesses would be able to stay afloat today were the civil rights act repealed and they tried barring people based on race.

Jim Crow was law. Without Jim Crow, the majority of businesses would have allowed blacks. This is why the great migration north occured during Jim Crow laws in the South. The North had far more opportunities because there was no Jim Crow laws, thus most businesses allowed blacks.

Thus your point is moot.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't think it makes any more sense than banning drinking in bars. A night of drinking is far more hazardous than a night of inhaling second hand smoke...

And bans on outdoor smoking are even more asinine. Does anybody actually think inhaling second hand smoke by walking 3 feet away from a smoker is somehow worse than inhaling exhaust from a car driving down the street next to you?

 

[fskimospy]

What I wrote is largely true. Only a minority of businesses in non-Jim Crow states excluded blacks. And with passing time, those number dwindled and would have continued to do so. Very few businesses would be able to stay afloat today were the civil rights act repealed and they tried barring people based on race.

Jim Crow was law. Without Jim Crow, the majority of businesses would have allowed blacks. This is why the great migration north occured during Jim Crow laws in the South. The North had far more opportunities because there was no Jim Crow laws, thus most businesses allowed blacks.

Thus your point is moot.

Jim Crow was not a specific law, and it varied by states. There were plenty of businesses that segregated all on their own.

 

[Amused]

Jim Crow was not a specific law, and it varied by states. There were plenty of businesses that segregated all on their own.

Again, the difference between Jim Crow states and non-Jim Crow states was so dramtic, that it caused a great migration.

Segregation (exclusion of races by businesses) is largely untenable without forcing your competition to do it too. Period. Not only is your point moot, it blew up in your face.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, the difference between Jom Crow states and non-Jim Crow states was so dramtic, that it caused a great migration.

Segregation (exclusion of races by businesses) is largely untenable without forcing your competition to do it too. Period. Not only is your point moot, it blew up in your face.

Uhmm, no it didn't. It existed in plenty of states alongside statutory segregation in others until they were all outlawed together by the civil rights act. It's not moot by any definition of that word in English, and as long as we stay in reality as opposed to the made up world you're trying to live in, my point is standing just fine.

 

[Amused]

Uhmm, no it didn't. It existed in plenty of states alongside statutory segregation in others until they were all outlawed together by the civil rights act. It's not moot by any definition of that word in English, and as long as we stay in reality as opposed to the made up world you're trying to live in, my point is standing just fine.

Right. For your point to stand, the great migration north would have to have never happened and Jim Crow could not have been the cause because non-Jim Crow states were just as (or almost as) bad.

Pure and utter bullshit. Your example blew up in your face.

 

[cubby1223]

So go search around then.

Instead of referencing vague and likely made up things you heard on the radio, go find some scientific studies on second hand smoke that says it doesn't pose a realistic threat to workers or restaurant patrons over the normal course of a lifetime. Then go find a study that shows the cancer rates from cell phone use are equal to or higher than second hand smoking.

It's ATP&N, any time spend researching for an online argument is wasted - Time is better used being productive to the bettering of my own life 😉

My main opinion still stands that everyone's objection to smoking is *actually* based on their personal discomfort, not their health.

(I did do a quick google search but just saw the anti-smoking activist sites, don't feel like wading through all of it, because it's of no consequence to my main opinion)

 

[fskimospy]

Right. For your point to stand, the great migration north would have to have never happened and Jim Crow could not have been the cause because non-Jim Crow states were just as (or almost as) bad.

Pure and utter bullshit. Your example blew up in your face.

No, for my point to stand segregation would have had to exist in places for an extended period of time without compulsion through statute, and it did. The validity of my points are not at all subject to made up conditions stemming from your inability to read for comprehension. It has nothing to do with what place was worse. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Amused]

No, for my point to stand segregation would have had to exist in places for an extended period of time without compulsion through statute, and it did. The validity of my points are not at all subject to made up conditions stemming from your inability to read for comprehension. It has nothing to do with what place was worse. Absolutely nothing.

It has absolutely everything to do with it. The north desegregated volutarially due to market forces and popular demand. In fact, by the end of the first half of the 20th century, but before the civil rights amendment, the north was desegregated for the most part, while the South was still bound by Jim Crow.

 

[fskimospy]

It has absolutely everything to do with it. The north desegregated volutarially due to market forces and popular demand. In fact, by the end of the first half of the 20th century, but before the civil rights amendment, the north was desegregated for the most part, while the South was still bound by Jim Crow.

I'm not sure how to say this other than... it really doesn't. The story of segregation in the north is a way longer discussion than I'm willing to have with someone like you, but it doesn't even really matter because the north and the south never even remotely approached each other's viewpoints on race anyway. We fought a war about that, btw.

You're attempting to attack my point by making up bizarre and unrelated requirements for it and then declaring victory. It's silliness.

 

[Amused]

I'm not sure how to say this other than... it really doesn't. The story of segregation in the north is a way longer discussion than I'm willing to have with someone like you, but it doesn't even really matter because the north and the south never even remotely approached each other's viewpoints on race anyway. We fought a war about that, btw.

You're attempting to attack my point by making up bizarre and unrelated requirements for it and then declaring victory. It's silliness.

Um, no. You claimed:

Segregation was perpetuated in large part through the systematic decision of private businesses to exclude black people. The government stepping in and infringing on their property rights in order to stop this was a good thing for America.

I showed that to be false, and the the majority of segregation was enforced by law in the south, and the voluntary/locally institutionalized segregation of the north had largely disappeared before the government stepped in.

So your point was moot. You claimed segregation would not have ended without government force. I showed that it was being perpetuated by government force, and that the private sector, left to it's own devices, was moving away from segregation.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, no. You claimed:



I showed that to be false, and the the majority of segregation was enforced by law in the south, and the voluntary/locally institutionalized segregation of the north had largely disappeared before the government stepped in.

So your point was moot. You claimed segregation would not have ended without government force. I showed that it was being perpetuated by government force, and that the private sector, left to it's own devices, was moving away from segregation.

So by describing (inaccurately) the situation in an entirely separate place with views on race so different that they fought a war about it that cost over half a million lives, you falsified my position? Your method of argument is bewildering... and exhausting.

 

[Amused]

So by describing (inaccurately) the situation in an entirely separate place with views on race so different that they fought a war about it that cost over half a million lives, you falsified my position? Your method of argument is bewildering... and exhausting.

Your position was that segregation was largely a private decision. It was not, and were government to have stepped out and stopped perpetuating it, would have ended on it's own.

 

[fskimospy]

Your position was that segregation was largely a private decision. It was not, and were government to have stepped out and stopped perpetuating it, would have ended on it's own.

Nice unsubstantiated speculation there.

 

[zsdersw]

I think the history of these bans shows pretty easily that they are quite popular with people in the states where it is implemented, and yet that hadn't led to large majorities of establishments banning smoking in the past. So clearly, the bars aren't that sensitive to that desire.

Since these establishments remained in business before the ban went into effect, clearly patrons and employees were not disgusted with being in a place that allowed smoking if they continued to go to and work there.

 

[zsdersw]

No, they are regulating workplace exposure to a known carcinogen.

.. which, even if I believed it justified, is entirely unnecessary. People who work in bars know they are going to be exposed to tobacco smoke, and quite a few of them are smokers too. These are hardly the only places they can work, yet they choose to work there.

Restaurants, for the most part, already banned smoking on their own. I haven't been in a restaurant that allowed smoking since... well, probably since I was a little kid. That's 20+ years ago. The free market worked.

Some bars/taverns went smoke-free on their own too, and thrived. Why, exactly, are these smoking bans from local/state governments required, then?

 

[cubby1223]

There are multiple separate questions going on here like for instance:

(A) Should the government ban smoking in the workplace?
(B) Should the government have the option to choose to ban or not ban smoking in the workplace?

Personally I'd answer (A) no, (B) yes. Then activists come along and focus on question B, and try to use it to convince others of question A. Like what IronWing & eskimospy are trying to do.

Arguing semantics is pointless, have to break the argument down to the basic elements. And all I see is those who want smoking banned do so because they personally find it discomforting to be around. And that's the question I ask, is it morally right, is it socially right, to want to ban something you personally find discomforting?

 

[IronWing]

.. which, even if I believed it justified, is entirely unnecessary. People who work in bars know they are going to be exposed to tobacco smoke, and quite a few of them are smokers too. These are hardly the only places they can work, yet they choose to work there.

Restaurants, for the most part, already banned smoking on their own. I haven't been in a restaurant that allowed smoking since... well, probably since I was a little kid. That's 20+ years ago. The free market worked.

Some bars/taverns went smoke-free on their own too, and thrived. Why, exactly, are these smoking bans from local/state governments required, then?

Obviously folks in these states/localities determined it was in their best interests to ban workplace smoking. The free market did not work relative to smoking. It has taken decades of litigation and government intervention to get to the point where we are now, which is modest restriction on workplace smoking in a still limited number of states/locales.