An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Workplace smoking bans - Some facts and figures
Alistair Hutton
DrEdinburghRegistered User regular
DrEdinburghRegistered User regular
There's a lot of edbate on smoking bans, on the impingement of indivdual liberty for the (supposed) benefit of the majorty. Theoretical debates about how people would react. About whether it would do any good or not.
Well, theory no more, a number of countries have impelemented a ban and precious, precious, numbers have been collected. Lets check out my favourite. Heart attacks. In Britainthere has been a general fall by 3% in heart-attacks suffered each year. In Scotland (moking ban implemented over a year ago) the Heart Attack rate in the first year of the smoking ban dropped by 17%. 17 > 3. In the same period, just in case you think there was some impressive country wide No Heart Attack scheme implemented, England's heart attack rate fell by 3%. And the super kicker is the that was the average, heart-attacks for non-smokers fell 20%, take that "passive smoking has no effect" lobby. Other countries have seen the same, Piedmont in Italy saw an 11% reduction in an area that had a slightly increasing rate of hert attacks.
There's a whoe bunch of stuff about residual levels of toxins falling in both childeren and adults as well which shows that a fear that smokers would just light up at home and poison the children seems, in general, to be unfounded.
So there we have it, smoking bans lead to healthier hearts. Awesome!
Well, theory no more, a number of countries have impelemented a ban and precious, precious, numbers have been collected. Lets check out my favourite. Heart attacks. In Britainthere has been a general fall by 3% in heart-attacks suffered each year. In Scotland (moking ban implemented over a year ago) the Heart Attack rate in the first year of the smoking ban dropped by 17%. 17 > 3. In the same period, just in case you think there was some impressive country wide No Heart Attack scheme implemented, England's heart attack rate fell by 3%. And the super kicker is the that was the average, heart-attacks for non-smokers fell 20%, take that "passive smoking has no effect" lobby. Other countries have seen the same, Piedmont in Italy saw an 11% reduction in an area that had a slightly increasing rate of hert attacks.
There's a whoe bunch of stuff about residual levels of toxins falling in both childeren and adults as well which shows that a fear that smokers would just light up at home and poison the children seems, in general, to be unfounded.
So there we have it, smoking bans lead to healthier hearts. Awesome!
I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Alistair Hutton on
0
Posts
Smoking should be banned anywhere except in your own house. I literally do not want to breathe a tiniest whiff of smoke in my lungs because some tard has chosen to ruin his. They can do so, I really don't care at all. But I don't want to be a part of THEIR choice in any way. I don't care if it has negative health effects or not, I just don't want to koff every time one of these asses walk past me and blow their smoke in my face. The smell and taste is freaking horrible. Luckily my country has banned it in all public places including bars and restaurants.
Someone may of course disagree with me, but it doesn't change my opinion.
Make smoking illegal.
And Leitner, that correlation argument is a failsafe you prevent the unnecessary reality of having to face something unpleasant. No one really takes it seriously. No where I look is it taken seriously, at least.
I like to see stalwart stubbornness. It's encouraging. Fuck those flimsy- minded fools willing to change their opinions whenever they're given some evidence or argument that should logically destroy their argument. Bravo, you! And yes, I understand the sentiment was, "because you disagree with me I won't change my mind," but the idea was still present, and even if it weren't, I thought it was funny.
Also, I might actually be willing to accept smoking bans on public property if significant health risks from second hand smoke are established, but everywhere else should be up to the discretion of the establishment. However, I highly doubt that the effects of the smoke could be so deadly that natural diffusion in an open area could possibly matter.
We should all move to Liberty-land, where externalities don't exist.
All those people must be after the smokers because they hate them or something. I mean, they are only the biggest health organizations in the world, what do they know about stuff like health. They are totally lying.
THIS THE MOST LOGICAL ANSWER
I don't think smoking should be banned. If you want to smoke, do so.
Just don't do it around people who don't want to do so.
I really don't see what is so difficult in that. I don't do some...eh, personal stuff around other people because it would make them very uncomfortable. Smokers should do the same.
Yeah, I think we're off to a bad start here.
Well, the whole "correlation =/= causation" argument is often valid...I think often people forget that "correlation =/= lack of causation" either, though.
In fairness, though, the OP was kinda weak.
You know, theres some guys in my classes that are seriously not great about the personal hygiene. It's one of the hazards of the engineering program. Should we be able to ban them? They make me and others very uncomfortable.
Maybe we should limit smoking bans to situations in which there are actual health effects on bystanders. Just because a minute sample managed to enter your lungs as you passed by a smoker on the sidewalk doesn't mean you're going to the the lung cancer. As for the smell or taste bothering you...well, I'll say again how do you know that you don't stink?
EDIT: Fuck, if we're banning things just because we find their smell/taste unpleasant, can we start working toward a patchouli ban?
"They don't allow smoking on airplanes. No smoking, but they allow children. Hmmm. 'Well, smoking bothers me.' Well, guess what …"
-Bill Hicks
People need to face the fact that they can't live in a world without shit that kills you, period. I fucking hate this idea that we should be immortal. Get the fuck over yourself already, you're not that special.
That being said, I don't care if smoking is banned in most public buildings. There are two places aside from your home that smoking should always be allowed: Bars, and outside in the open air. I don't ever need to smoke badly enough for it to bother me if I can't smoke in a restaurant or movie theater etc. However the bar thing pisses me off, because... well, it's a fucking bar. And smoking should never be banned outside because that makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
I would normally go into more detail, but this is one of those topics that to me is so ass fucking backwards from common sense that I can't. It would be like if someone asked to you to explain why rape was bad. Just... no...
You telling me what I can and cannot do with my body that was given to me as a birthright is morally wrong. Other than saying "it's icky for you" give me one good reason why harming yourself through smoking is wrong. You can't, because it has nothing to do with morals. And I'm not talking about second hand smoke here, as that's a seperate argument, and you seriously just claimed that harming YOURSELF through smoking is morally wrong. Just... wow. I don't know how people develop such a god complex that they think they have this kind of authority.
Oh I totally agree. It was just easier (read lazier) then refuting the evidence in the op which was, as you said, so weak.
Yeah, because fuck bartenders. Fuckers should just go find another job if they don't like breathing smoke 40+ hours a week.
Or are we forgetting that one of the primary reason for workplace smoking bans is to protect employees, not patrons? Not all bartenders smoke.
EDIT: Unless of course we have some rational argument as to why bartenders should be exempt from the same protections that waiters, movie ushers, flight attendants, or the guy in the cubicle next to you get.
EDIT: Another note, just to establish bias...I don't smoke.
Why is it so wrong that somebody wants to reduce the number of carcinogens in their enviroment? It seems perfectly reasonable to legislate against toxic fumes in their enviroment. Not only that but it has legal precedent, you opposed to people being banned (well at least reduced) from poluting the air in other ways e.g. industial plants?
I love me a good smoke.
I can understand people dont want to be around cigarettes, thats cool. But if Im outside and smoking, walk away from me, or fuck you, sorry. And If I own a business and I want to make it smoking, guess what? Dont apply for a job here if you dont like to be around smoke. Government should not have the right to tell me what I can and cant allow in an establishment that I own, esp. if its not an illegal activity.
Fuck this workers rights bullshit and this fair hiring garbage. Its my business, I should be able to run it the way I choose and cater to the patrons I want. Just as you have a right to not be around my "morally wrong, horrible, nasty body killing habit", I should have just as much of a right to tell you to look for employment elsewhere.
I get a physical reaction from people smoking around me. I get a dry, tickly throat and a bad cough. I also then step out of the building stinking. I'm sure it'd be great for everyone to start off their holidays by stepping off a plane smelling of smoke. :P
I'm not enamoured with other people's children, either. But they don't affect me physically (unless maybe they yell really loud and give me a headache). And children, you know, are other human beings. Plus they're already not allowed in most bars, pubs, clubs, workplaces, etc. Let's take pets. Animals aren't allowed on planes. Animals aren't allowed inside the majority of public buildings.
It's a really weak argument.
Yes they should. This isn't Victorian England ad we've realised that legislating the workplace does all kind of nice things, like stopping people getting horribly mangled, destroying their lungs or discrimination against people for being certain races and sexes. These positives for both society and the individual outweigh the positives of you being able to do whatever the fuck you want on your own land.
You know, if you are on the dole here, you pretty much have to take the first job that is offered to you. If you were offered a job in a bar or smoking environment, then you'd be forced (yes, by the government) to take it or you'd have your unemployment benefits cut off.
There was an example of this when a Christian man refused to take a job in an Ann Summers shop, and as a result his unemployment benefits were cut off, and he had to go to court and wrangle with the legal system in order to gain some of it back.
Also, if you want to run your business however the fuck you want I hear Nigeria has fairly lax workplace protections. Bye!
Disclaimer: I don't know whether Nigeria actually has lax workplace protections. But among the nations of the world, I know there are dozens to choose from that will let you and your employees smoke like chimneys.
Well, Bill Hicks was a comedian, and he was arguing more the idea than the actuality of forcing smoking to be permitted in flight. It's the business's discretion to allow smoking. If an airline allowed it, than that's their prerogative. Granted, there's probably safety reasons for it being prohibited, but assuming there weren't, I might imagine they'd some profit. It would be the smoking airlines. Smokers would be ecstatic for the ability to smoke on flight, as such it would appeal mainly to that population, and in effect eliminate non-smokers. In a plane nearly full of people around you only present because they can smoke, do you think you'd be happy at all if you didn't? Enjoy yourself?
I really don't know how many people there are who smoke and travel as much as to make a single smoking flight so worth it. There probably aren't. As such, ticket cost would rise, and the business would most likely eventually flounder and fail.
tl;dr - Smoking will almost never likely be allowed on commercial flights (for safety and over customer satisfaction) unless government interferes with private business in favor of smokers.
Wow, what? I imagine (read: hope) I may be misunderstanding this, but as I'm reading it, it's "Well if you're not going to adhere to social standard, gtfo of America, dick!" Aren't private businesses... private? Shouldn't he be allowed to operate his business how he wants? Isn't that American?
History has shown us what happens when we allow private businesses to operate however they want. We as Americans decided we didn't like that. So yeah, if you don't like it (and can't convince a majority of us to change our minds) I might recommend a plethora of third-world shitholes that will let you run your business as you please.
Especially since the whole "private businesses are private" thing can go into all kinds of bad directions, even before you get into the idea of racist/sexist hiring policies or sexual coercion in the workplace. Once we decide a line need be drawn somewhere (and I'm assuming you'd agree that requiring sex as a requirement for employment would be on the other side, no?) then it's just a matter of where we draw it.
Exposing your workers to poison for 40+ hours a week for no good reason ended up on the other side of the line too. Boo fucking hoo.
Guess what? I live in america, land of the free. If you think that you or anyone else should be able to regulate what happens in my business, when as I said before, its not an illegal activity, you're wrong. Not only is this does this have an effect on my own personal freedom, but it affects my income potential and way of living. Sorry about your luck in England, but in the states its not very hard to stay on the "dole" at all. If you dont want to work in a smoking establishment, you dont have to.
But really, trying to link allowing smoking in a business I own to discrimination or having an unsafe workplace? Thats pretty weak.
I uh what? Are you trying to claim that regular exposure to smoke isn't harmful?
p.s. Apparently in America lots of other people (the majority even) agree that the government does have the right to regulate what happens in your business.
I'm not in England. I'm in Montana, probably one of the most free states in the US. We still have a smoking ban in all workplaces, including (soon, once it goes into effect) bars.
And yes, allowing smoking in your business does create an unsafe workplace. The detrimental effects of long-term high-concentration exposure (such as in a bar or restaurant) to SHS are not exactly controversial anymore.
See, your not seeing the point here. Im not MAKING anyone work in an environment they dont want to be in. Its MY business, not yours, not the governments. I own it, I hire the people, I pay taxes and I pay the bills. If I want to hire people who aren't opposed to working in a place that allows smoking, who are you to tell me that I cant? Its about choice, its about freedom. That is AMERICA. I suggest if you dont like the idea of me being able to handle my own hiring practices, which would still fall inside the legal boundaries that protect against gender/race/sex/age/sexual orientation practices, that maybe you should head off to china and let the government make your decisions for you.
Yet still we've enacted a smoking ban in all workplaces, including bars (the bar/casino portion goes into effect here shortly).
You can beat the freedom drum all you want, but I think you lost. America is still one of the most free places in the world, but we decided you couldn't poison your workers because you felt like it.
The declaration of human rights the U.N. recently proposed specifically laid out "right to employment." It prevented any employment opportunities being denied by race, gender, creed, sexual orientation etc. I do happen to think that's a pretty good idea. A fantastic idea. But that's because, with the exception of creed, these are mostly things which cannot be changed. Of course, extraneous circumstances exist. I don't think a lawsuit against Hooters would be valid if the waitress was denied employment for being obese. We've got to be malleable.
Anyhow, my point is that in this case, I don't think your point applies here. I don't think "Well what if it just happened that someone who worked there didn't have a choice!?"
How much do you give to charity? If his entire business model is shit because he might be imagining running a business where the situation might arise where the person working there didn't, have any rational choice other than to work in a place where ventilation was obviously so minimal he'd be bathing in smoke, than I imagine you must give a great deal to charities where real people really face real problems.
Otherwise, I think the situation should be taken as presented, wherein it's a completely unformed idea of a generic "anything" business where the policy would be to allow workers to smoke indoors at their discretion. Also, I didn't know smokers smoked all 40+ hours which they worked.
I don't even smoke.
We are, for example when choosing actors you can discriminate on race and sex, I'm pretty sure other jobs have similar clauses as well e.g. stripers.
I know. You're just a half-way batshit-insane libertarian. Don't worry, that's better than the all-out sort.
And no, they don't smoke all 40+ hours. Have you not heard of second-hand smoke? Do you have any idea how much SHS exposure some occupations run into when smoking by patrons is allowed? Specifically bartenders, waitstaff, flight attendants, etc.
Sadly, people who don't wash themselves for weeks are like some smokers, apparently don't care if they make someone uncomfortable.
I'm pretty sure playing music extremely loud on public (and even at your own home) is banned. It makes some people really uncomfortable. I really don't see why the same shouldn't apply to smoking, especially when it has negative health effects.
If I came next to someone in bar and started playing radio on full volume next to someone's ears, I would be a fucking uncaring asshole. If I would start shouting right at your face, I would be an asshole. I consider someone who sits right next to me and starts blowing horrible-smelling smoke right into my face a fucking asshole too. If someone starts something, I shouldn't be suffering from it.
The whole "If you don't like me smoking next to you then go somewhere else" argument is retarded. Why do smokers get a free pass of being uncaring assholes? Why should I go somewhere else because a smoker chose to poison the air in that specific spot?
Except you said you wanted to see it banned anywhere near you. even when there were no negative health effects. That's my issue. Because at that point your problem is entirely superficial...you have no more right to ban the occasional passing whiff of smoke than I do to ban patchouli.
I favor smoking bans in most indoor public establishments. Including bars. But I'm sorry, it's not hurting you to pass a smoker on the sidewalk. EDIT: Or to be near one in a public park. Or in most outdoor environments (with a few exceptions).
Well, I apologise for the 40+ hour comment. I shouldn't have resorted to that sort of jab, and typically resent those who do in a legitimate debate. I don't see that I'm bat-shit crazy. Mostly I'm just told I'm wrong, and not told why, and when there is a reason given it's so vague and generic that I'm supposed to pretend it's profoundly impacting to my arguments. (Externalities!)
And the study wasn't that impacting, anyhow. More to the point, statistically speaking, not even 17% is that strong, and it doesn't detail how the affects of better medicine. I'm not really trying to argue this point, but as I understood it, I thought the jury on second-hand smoke was still out. First hand smoke I'm well aware contains more poison than the bible (I made a funny!), but I up until now had not heard one conclusive piece of evidence, or one convincing study into the matter.
My ultimate point is that in the matter of smoking, it should be left to the business's discretion. A restaurant probably should ban indoor smoking, but I would be wary to say it had to.
Then again, I don't spend my time studying the affects of second-hand smoke. It's really an obscure topic for me, because I don't smoke, and only a few I know do. My parents among them.
Proof positive there is no effect: My step-mother smokes like a chimney and I don't have lung cancer yet.
Really it comes down to being considerate. If the smoker is outside smoking first, I say to bad for you. You can choose to stand somewhere else. If not, you are still being a fucking uncaring asshole. If your outside and a smoker lights up near you, ask him to move and he should. If not he is the uncaring asshole. You both have a right to be happy yes? Instead of fighting over the shit, why cant people just be considerate of each others rights?
Yes, but.
Every medical risk indicator states that smoking increases your chance of having a heart attack (I believe it's up to 5 times the risk at the moment?). A section of a country prohibits smoking in the workplace and have a very above average drop in heart attacks while other areas have the long term national average drop. Given almost identical national health policies across the country what else can be hypothesised as the causation? Other countries, staes and cities that have implemented the ban also report an above average drop in heart attack rates.
When does the manipulation of a known risk factor get the credit?
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Please understand the effects of a ban on smoking before making this statement.
Furthermore, note the existence of the argument that you have no right to do anything the state chooses to prohibit. Whilst I disagree with this, I do not believe that a right (in the context of something that cannot be denied by the state) to free enterprise necessarily exists.
I think his point is that smoking in general is not illegal, and thus he should be able to allow it on his property. It's compelling, until you get into some of the detrimental effects on society as a whole it causes.
This is true. Though obviously the state should act within the bounds of the constitution governing it. Which, in this case, I'm pretty sure they are. Especially since all of these bans are occurring at the state level or below (in the US)...often at the municipal level.
Yeah, I thought that right was federally guaranteed.
I understand that a ban makes it illegal in a certain area, but still smoking in general is not illegal. Im saying that a state or federal government is crossing the line by being able to do this. And honestly, if I had the money I would open a bar, allow smoking, hire only people that arent against working in a workplace that allows smoking and when I got fined, I would work my way up to the Supreme Court if I had to. I, and Im sure many many others, feel that this is government overstepping thier boundaries. Smoking is a choice and as such shouldnt fall under the fair hiring laws. Sex/Age/Religion/etc, these cannot be chaged and as such do need protection.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove causation in a situation like this? Philosophically, it isn't even possible. From a supremely rigorous scientific viewpoint, it would require experiments that could never be conducted (isolating people for years, giving people lung cancer, etc.).
True, this is correlation, not causality, but in the real world we have to deal with carefully analyzed correlations because most of the time that's all we're ever going to get, especially when dealing with large demographics, social sciences (including social health), and such.
No, shut up. Shut the fuck up right now. Wtf, philosophy? Psy-ints? Gtfo.
Now.
I'm pretty sure nobody is saying you can't discriminate against nonsmokers. They're simply saying that you cannot require people to cause harm to their own bodies as a requirement of employment, especially when that harm doesn't come from the actual performance of their duties. You can hire smokers exclusively all you want, as far as I'm concerned.
Same way you can't require people to cut themselves daily as a requirement of employment (at least I don't think you can...but hell, who knows). Even if they enjoy cutting themselves on their own time at home.
The entire text of the US Constitution is available on the internet. Go wild. Also, sites like FindLaw are good for finding court cases that clarify such things. I challenge you to point out where the right to free enterprise [EDIT: specifically the right to run a business and treat employees as you please] is federally guaranteed. I don't know for a fact that it isn't, so maybe you'll surprise me.