I really, really hate smokers

[SlowwHand]

Actually, I've noticed that the moderation here is very biased against homosexuals and in favor of people with more conservative views.

You are so full of crap. If I needed one piece of evidence, well, thank you.
You damn dumb****.
A) YOU are one who say I'm ultra conservative.
B) Not lately, but in a past life I was banned....a few times.
C) My views now are no different than they were in the past.
1) I still think you're a horse's ass
2) I still think we need to bomb more people.

[Boris Godunov]

That is all I said. There is too much regulation, and some of them need to go, especially the ones that harm businesses. Among those is a smoking ban. I think businesses should be permitted to cater to smokers if that is what they want to do.

When you say this:

I've always said that not all regulations are bad. I suspect where we disagree is where the line should be drawn.

It is not compatible with this:

There are many jobs I avoid and cannot do, as well as entire industries due to my disability. If someone cannot stand the smell of smoke then they should simply avoid occupations that would draw them into contact with smokers.

And this

I think employees should be permitted to take on risks, and in many jobs they take risks which would be considered 'undue'.

And this

Again, I believe employees should have the freedom to accept these risks as a cost of doing business, provided they are informed ahead of time.

First, we're talking about workplace safety regulations, not benefits or wage laws or anything like that. Worker safety. So far as I can gather, you are stating you oppose any and all worker safety regulations, because (based on your silly logic) if a workplace is too unsafe, the employees can just choose to work elsewhere. Free market sorts it all out! So what if the machines in the factories lop off arms regularly? Or there's lead in the paint, asbestos in the walls? This would make the Robber Barons all warm and fuzzy.

Second--and this ties into the above--the issue of second-hand smoke isn't about personal preference or a bad odor. It's a health and safety issue. The rationale for bans is never that it makes things smell bad, it's that it endangers workers by exposing them to an undue health risk.

Look at police officers. The risks that they take as a part of their job are far greater then a bartender in a smoking bar. Would you say that it's exposing officers to undue risks provided they are made aware of the risks beforehand?

The risks faced by police offices are an integral (and unavoidable) part of the job. It's why they are there. Exposure to second-hand smoke is not integral to the job of bartending or waiting tables, as their purpose is NOT to breathe in carcinogens. Apples and oranges.

By the way, police officers operate under strident safety regulations to make their job as safe as is feasibly possible. I guess you would oppose that? Why require them to keep their safeties on? Where's the flexibility? The risk they assume involves someone else engaging in illegal behavior that would put them in danger, too.

Also, at least as far as the NY ban goes (and I'm sure others), businesses CAN still cater to smoking clientelle, so long as they do not require their employees to be exposed to the smoke. Once again, this has nothing to do with the patrons.

[Krill]

Please ban Ben from this site. We would be a much better community without him.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, we're talking about workplace safety regulations, not benefits or wage laws or anything like that.

I'm speaking of all of the regulations, not just workplace safety regulations.

Worker safety. So far as I can gather, you are stating you oppose any and all worker safety regulations, because (based on your silly logic) if a workplace is too unsafe, the employees can just choose to work elsewhere.

I don't believe that a smoke-filled workplace is a significant and serious 'imminent' threat to the health of the worker. Yes, the smoke is carcinogenic, but so is the mercury in CFLs. As Ming has so eloquently stated, there are significant environmental hazards in daily living, of which a smoking bar is not significantly greater then the exposure otherwise.

Free market sorts it all out! So what if the machines in the factories lop off arms regularly? Or there's lead in the paint, asbestos in the walls? This would make the Robber Barons all warm and fuzzy.

Asbestos is a construction issue, not a job issue. It's no different then Lead pipes. Get it out of them and replace them with the modern fire retardants. Smoking is a different issue altogether.

Second--and this ties into the above--the issue of second-hand smoke isn't about personal preference or a bad odor. It's a health and safety issue. The rationale for bans is never that it makes things smell bad, it's that it endangers workers by exposing them to an undue health risk.

A risk no greater then car exhaust.

The risks faced by police offices are an integral (and unavoidable) part of the job. It's why they are there. Exposure to second-hand smoke is not integral to the job of bartending or waiting tables, as their purpose is NOT to breathe in carcinogens. Apples and oranges.

I don't see it any different as working for a maid for someone who smokes. It's all about the desires of the customer. If they are paying you to perform a service, then you should deliver that service regardless of the working conditions. If you don't like the conditions, then you must quit rather then demand that the customer adapt to suit you.

By the way, police officers operate under strident safety regulations to make their job as safe as is feasibly possible. I guess you would oppose that? Why require them to keep their safeties on? Where's the flexibility? The risk they assume involves someone else engaging in illegal behavior that would put them in danger, too.

Police aren't privatized either. However, I think there are significant issues with red tape as well in the performance of their duties. I'd be surprised if a cop didn't spend out half their time filling out reports of one sort or another.

Also, at least as far as the NY ban goes (and I'm sure others), businesses CAN still cater to smoking clientelle, so long as they do not require their employees to be exposed to the smoke. Once again, this has nothing to do with the patrons.

Fair enough. This simple means that those who are willing to work with the smokers get paid a premium for hazard pay.

I'd find that an acceptable compromise. I like market incentivisation anyways.

[DaShi]

You are so full of crap. If I needed one piece of evidence, well, thank you.
You damn dumb****.
A) YOU are one who say I'm ultra conservative.
B) Not lately, but in a past life I was banned....a few times.
C) My views now are no different than they were in the past.
1) I still think you're a horse's ass
2) I still think we need to bomb more people.

Thanks for proving my point.

[SlowwHand]

[DaShi]

Poor Sloww. Your skin is too thin. How sad is it that you just jump into this thread for the sole purpose to insult me? Not sad for me, it means I'm getting through to you.

[SlowwHand]

I really doubt that. Don't flatter yourself. No, go ahead. It will be hard for you to find anyone else who will.

[DaShi]

I just work with what you give me. That's all I've done.

[Elok]

Methinks this calls for a .

Asher will probably be back (or so I hope) when his anger dies down. It may be a couple weeks before he can come back without sacrificing his pride, but he'll almost certainly be back sucking on the Poly crackpipe sooner or later, so you all might as well stop your ing right now.

Meanwhile, is there some compelling reason why people can't switch to chewing tobacco? Or some other nicotine delivery system which is more elegant and palatable and doesn't indiscriminately release poisons into the atmosphere?

[Supr49er]

This thrade makes me sad

Me too.

[MattBowron]

if there were no political correctness to this site, wouldn't this topic be called by someone "***(1) hates fags(2)?"

*** (1): derogratory term for homosexuals
*** (2): UK slang for cigarette

[notyoueither]

2. Gay people's concept of monogamy is one at a time. The statistics have shown that 'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year.

What statistics?

[Darius871]

I'm going to take an indefinite and perhaps permanent leave of absence from the site.

Don't give the pr*cks the satisfaction!

[snoopy369]

if there were no political correctness to this site, wouldn't this topic be called by someone "***(1) hates fags(2)?"

*** (1): derogratory term for homosexuals
*** (2): UK slang for cigarette

Good point.