Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances

[Reefmonkey]

One, I never said you were a tofu-eating, pachouli wearing anything ? Apparently you feel guilty of such crimes though, as you continuously put yourself in this category of those types, at the mere suggestion that a healthfood store might be a place where you can go and not be exposed to the toxic fumes of secondhand smoke.

Oh, let's see, you see the world as black and white, either someone wants to buy into your "premise" of a bar as a smoky place full of intoxicated people, or they must be at the other extreme, where they should hang out at a health food store, which has nothing to do with serving alcohol, and when you are called on it, you weasel out of it. At least be man enough to stand by your insinuations.

Of course, after weaseling out of your baseless mischaracterization of nonsmokers, you go on to make another baseless mischaracterization:

I NEVER said anything about "bars not being able to sustain" without the asmatic crowd bringing in their hard earn dollars for that one fuzzy navel they caress all night then leave without tipping after these Erkels have struck out all night.

You also show that you completely misunderstand what I said - I was pointing out that MidtownCoog and RedScare had said bars were not able to sustain themselves without the smoking crowd, ie smokers keep bars open. Your assertion that there are many bars for nonsmokers contradicts MidtownCoog and RedScare.

Also, if you want to quote Holmes, then realize that the man had enough sense to move a little further down the bar or onto the next bar if smoking was allowed in his presence.

So now you're Holmes' biographer? Had you even read Holmes' decision in Otis v. Park before I referenced it here?

Interesting that you don't even mention the findings of the University of Wisconsin study, because there is nothing you can say to mitigate that fact. At least TheNiche has brought a few interesting new arguments to this discussion, but you have brought nothing. You just keep banging your head against the wall with the same tired "people should just accept the risk" mantra that people have been chanting since the beginning of the thread. I understand that is the way you think things should be, but it isn't the way things work in reality. OSHA doesn't say "people know the risks of working in a specific job, they should just accept them or get another job," OSHA requires employers to reduce those risks to set levels. The Houston health department doesn't say "people know they risk getting sick if they eat in certain ethnic food establishments, they should accept that or choose not to eat there." They issue citations, and close noncompliant kitchens down. That is the reality you refuse to accept.

[Reefmonkey]

Again, reefmonkey, it seems that a premise to your argument is that the government allows a cigarette use ban in public places or that might makes right. But those kinds of arguments are easily undermined.

No, the premise of my argument has always been that OSHA has saved lives and prevented suffering for workers by requiring employers to reduce hazards, such as inhalation hazards, in the workplace; bar employees deserve to be afforded that same protection.

The premise of my argument has also always been that the city health department has reduced illness by requiring restaurant owners to abide by sanitation standards; bar patrons have as much right to have their pulmonary health protected as they and restaurant patrons do to have their gastrointestinal health protected.

Those arguments you have never been able to undermine.

Your argument about "the right to take an informed risk" is naive - it ignores reality. It assumes an economy where all workers, even unskilled workers, are always so in demand that they can afford to refuse a high-risk job and will still be able to make enough to keep a decent standard of living, and can uproot their families and move elsewhere if the dominant industry in their area is high-risk, so therefore risks don't need to be mitigated. Also, these jobs need to be done, and many of the most dangerous - eg power generation, waste management, cannot be farmed overseas if Americans aren't willing to accept the risks or demand too much money. And I don't think anyone here sees moving jobs overseas as a good thing, or having to pay more for energy, waste management a good thing, so if we can keep the jobs here and make them safe enough that we don't have to throw money at people to get them to work there, I think that is the best thing for America. Bringing this back to the issue of bar employees, it is a great job for say, a college student, with flexible hours outside of normal class hours, and makes way more money than folding jeans at the Gap in a smoke-free mall. For a student struggling to get though college without a staggering student loan debt, the difference in money between the two jobs may make the difference. "Choice" is not such a simple thing. And we have already granted protection from inhalation hazards to industrial workers, so not granting them to bar workers violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

I also noticed that musicman had the same read of TJones' "premise" of a bar that I did, so it wasn't just me. Though since the rest of TJones' posts teeter on the edge of incoherency, I am willing to accept that TJones just worded the statement so badly that it could be misconstrued to be saying that a "real" bar must always be smoky and filled with inebriants, but he didn't really mean that.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TJones]

You also show that you completely misunderstand what I said - I was pointing out that MidtownCoog and RedScare had said bars were not able to sustain themselves without the smoking crowd, ie smokers keep bars open. Your assertion that there are many bars for nonsmokers contradicts MidtownCoog and RedScare.

Nice try at a spin there doc.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You quoted me sir, not Red or Midtown, you quoted ME then you went on to type that I got "caught in my own contradictions." How can one possibly misunderstand your quote and comment ?

Whaaa...whazat, must suck to lie, then get caught in it, HUH, Mr. Pachoulimonkey ? Talk about "weaseling", you were priceless, but you are now Pathetic, and not worthy of anymore of my valuable time.

Edited August 15, 2007 by TJones

[Reefmonkey]

Nice try at a spin there doc.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You quoted me sir, not Red or Midtown, you quoted ME then you went on to type that I got "caught in my own contradictions." How can one possibly misunderstand your quote and comment ?

Whaaa...whazat, must suck to lie, then get caught in it, HUH, Mr. Pachoulimonkey ? Talk about "weaseling", you were priceless, but you are now Pathetic, and not worthy of anymore of my valuable time.

Your feeble attempts to discredit me are what is pathetic.

The very worst you could accuse me of was indiscriminately lumping you in with RedScare's viewpoint when I said "But wait, I thought you guys are all saying bars can't possibly stay in business if they don't allow smoking?", but since you talked about drinking with RedScare in post 217, it is certainly a pardonable offense.

What I accused you of not understanding was that you, by claiming that there are plenty of bars that cater to nondrinkers, were contradicting RedScare's and others' claims that bars would not be in business without smokers. You proved you didn't understand it when you said "I NEVER said anything about "bars not being able to sustain" without the asmatic crowd bringing in their hard earn dollars....." and you obviously still don't understand your mistake, my semiliterate friend.

You chose to come after me in this thread, yet you have not contributed a single piece of significant content to the thread, and have conveniently ignored many of my arguments, such as the University of Wisconsin bar air quality data, because you know you can't say anything to counter it. Now you, like RedScare, without owning your defeat, make some lame parting shot in an attempt to save face, but you two are really just taking your ball and going home.

[dalparadise]

Well, I believe the market is the best determiner of whether non-smoking establishments are the way to go. So, I end up on the side of allowing bar owners to set their own policy and letting employees and patrons to decide for themselves if they want to be in the particular environment. I'm a non-smoker and prefer non-smoking restaurants. For bars, I see both sides. Sometimes I go to smoky drinking bars. Sometimes I like clear-air wine bars. But, I have a choice. I'm an adult. I can weigh the options and decide.

All that said, I like this Reefmonkey guy. Good arguments presented in an articulate manner.

This site might be getting fun again.

[TheNiche]

Your argument about "the right to take an informed risk" is naive - it ignores reality. It assumes an economy where all workers, even unskilled workers, are always so in demand that they can afford to refuse a high-risk job and will still be able to make enough to keep a decent standard of living, and can uproot their families and move elsewhere if the dominant industry in their area is high-risk, so therefore risks don't need to be mitigated. Also, these jobs need to be done, and many of the most dangerous - eg power generation, waste management, cannot be farmed overseas if Americans aren't willing to accept the risks or demand too much money. And I don't think anyone here sees moving jobs overseas as a good thing, or having to pay more for energy, waste management a good thing, so if we can keep the jobs here and make them safe enough that we don't have to throw money at people to get them to work there, I think that is the best thing for America.

So, if I may sum up this line of thinking, you claim that under such circumstances as a recession, in which a large segment of workers may need to temporarily reassess the market value of their labor, they would be immobile both in terms of skill set and location and may become willing to take on more risks than they would under normal circumstances. The scenario is very realistic; albeit only to some households. In a double-income household, a household without school-age children, a worker on the cusp of retirement, a worker that is willing and able to take out student loans and go back to school, or a worker that only located in a particular place to take part in the dominant industry but otherwise doesn't really care to live in the place, those kinds of workers would likely take their time and find a better job, very likely in a different place, and move...or just drop out of the labor force.

But for the group that is disadvantaged to the greatest extent by a recession or similar event, you seem to believe that they are entitled to jobs thoroughly-regulated to ensure safety, and that it would be unacceptable to allow them to choose to place themselves in harm's way, even if it were to their economic benefit and at level of risk deemed acceptable to the individual worker. I contend that when employers are forced to comply with safety mechanisms over and above that required to meet labor market demands and provide information such that those demands for safety are reasonable, they incur costs related to compliance. In many industries, those costs would simply not exist if they located in 3rd World countries that are just happy to see any foreign investment and have few regulations and little oversight--then they could hire inexpensive labor that is willing to work in a highly risky work environment. It weakens any competitive advantage held by the U.S. and creates an incentive to move firms overseas, an act that ironically is likely to put many greater numbers of people at risk given that firms have a tendency to hire more labor and spend less on productivity improvements when the labor is inexpensive and risk-tolerant.

By this mechanism, excessive regulation can contribute to job losses. Ironically, those Americans that previously worked in such industries tend to have to get a new skill set, retire, relocate to another city, or just tough it out. ...and toughing it out often involves reassessing their risk tolerance to a higher level. So not only are lots and lots of desperately poor people getting hurt in completely unregulated environments, often with poor legal systems, but Americans are forced to either adjust, retire, or take the next best job...even if that meant changing over from miner to commercial fisherman--a move in the direction counter to which you'd prefer.

As Red once said elsewhere on the forum, unintended consequences can be a delicate flower.

Bringing this back to the issue of bar employees, it is a great job for say, a college student, with flexible hours outside of normal class hours, and makes way more money than folding jeans at the Gap in a smoke-free mall. For a student struggling to get though college without a staggering student loan debt, the difference in money between the two jobs may make the difference. "Choice" is not such a simple thing. And we have already granted protection from inhalation hazards to industrial workers, so not granting them to bar workers violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

In this example, you try feebly to explain how a struggling college student may make a tough decision that you seem to view as something that simply shouldn't be so tough, and that should be cured by very simply removing what is tough from it. Firstly, I think you overestimate the difficulty with which a decision is reached. But primarily, in a free labor market, if there are a good number of prospective bartenders that really want a go at it and in a smoke-free environment, the wages would just keep going down or even switch over to the point at which bartenders had to pay the proprietor for the opportunity to bartend and get tips. As the wages decline, the profitability of smoke-free establishments would increase, and you'd likely see more of them, thus providing you and your smoking friends with a whole lot more choices such that you can surround yourself with non-smoking girls and they can gleefully taste Ashy Mouth among their own ilk. As it is, unfortunately, a minimum wage law applies and the choices are slightly more limited...although still very much extant.

...that thing about the 14th Amendment; you're again seeming to say that 'Might Makes Right'. And I would again disagree.

[Reefmonkey]

TheNiche,

You present a good argument, and I do agree that excessive regulation can be bad and result in job losses - in fact, my career, as an environmental consultant and now an environmental compliance officer has been all about keeping environmental regulations from becoming an excessive burden to my clients and now my employer. The truth is, most US regs err on the side of not being stringent enough, but often a particular EPA or TCEQ administrator interprets a reg or guidance document in a ridiculous way that doesn't do anything to protect the environment and unfairly constrains my employer. That's why there are people like me. It's not that regulation is bad, it just needs checks and balances. In addition to people like me, industry has powerful special interest groups that don't really care about the environment, and are constantly lobbying to make environmental legislation as lax as possible. Against all that pressure, reasonable legislation to protect the environment, public health, and worker health faces an uphill battle. On a smaller scale, the same thing has been happening with the smoking ban. Restaurant and Bar Owners' Associations, who don't really care about their employees' health or their patrons' health if it is going to impact their bottom line have been trying to kill the bar smoking ban for years. They sucessfully had it tabled for quite a long while. The reason they lost this time is the restaurant owners splintered off from the bar owners and now support the ban. This is what I have been talking about with interests battling interests. You want to label me as thinking "might makes right", but I really wish it didn't work that way. I am just glad in this instance the might that was on the side of protecting human health was greater.

I also agree that it is unconscionable that the US has shipped so much of its potentially dangerous and unhealthy industrial activities to unregulated markets like China, where people are being paid a slave wage to work in very unsafe conditions. This did not occur because of too much regulation, however. This occurred, again, because of a clash of interests that arose from an unregulated market. This occurred because of labor unions. With the Industrial Revolution in full swing during the Guilded Age, there was no regulation at all of worker compensation, working hours, workplace safety, even child labor. Unions rose to fill the void of lack of regulation, and fought for reasonable work weeks, fair wages, and safe conditions. This was unhindered market forces at work. Corporations were the powerful monolithic entities that the many, the workers, needed jobs from. One worker didn't want to work in unsafe conditions, or died from unsafe conditions, there were hundreds of malnourished workers clamoring to fill his place - better to die on the job than starve, I guess. An individual worker had no power to demand better money, safer working conditions. Then unions formed, and now there was an equality of power between the workers and the corporations. They demanded fair wage, resonable hours, safe shops, and got them. Again, Interests battling Interests. But unions got greedy, got corrupt, and started demanding ridiculous things, because they were less concerned about the overall health of the economy than they were about taking care of their own. They went from demanding safe conditions and fare wages to an entitlement system that killed the US steel industry and crippled the US auto industry. And it didn't have to be. Everything fair they gained is now mandated by the government, who came in late in the game. The government mandates a minimum wage. The government mandates time and a half for anything over 40 hours. The government mandates safe working conditions. If the government had done this in the beginning, enacted reasonable regulation, unions would never have gotten the traction they have, would never have become so powerful as to cripple American industry.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to guess you have never worked in a job where your life has relied on proper lockout/tagout procedure, where it has relied on air monitoring making sure that the atmosphere in the vessel you are entering is below the lower explosive limit, and oxygen levels above 19.5%? I'm guessing you have never worked in a job where OSHA regulations keep you safe on a daily basis? I have, and yet, even as someone with a masters' degree, an educated specialist, I have felt both clients and my previous employer pressuring me to cut corners on safety, both my own, and the subcontractor crews I was in charge of, just to get the job done right then. As you can probably guess, I am not one to back down from an argument, but I still was put in uncomfortable situations of refusing to work until the right equipment arrived, or conditions improved, and I knew the only thing that was keeping me from being fired was that they knew I could report them to OSHA and OSHA regulations protected me from being fired for reporting them. A lot of this occurred without the crews really understanding what was going on. These people certainly had an "imperfect understanding" of the risk they were facing (to borrow a phrase from you), whether from lack of education or whatnot, and the companies were not invested in explaining it to them. The only reason they made information such as MSDSs available is they were required to. Most of them were just nervous that they might get fired. None of them wanted to get sick or die, they were just blue-collar guys who were scared to lose their jobs, and if it hadn't been because I knew the regs, would have had no one advocating for them, and they probably would have just done the work. You can talk all you want about a person's right to choose a risky job or else move on, but until you have had a job with real risk, worked with blue-collar workers who are afraid to get sick, but just as afraid to get fired, you have no idea what it really is like. No one should have to choose between their health and their job.

People are still confused about the health effects of second-hand smoke, and tobacco industries have spent millions of dollars to make them stay confused. So many bar employees are young people who think they are invincible anyway, aren't thinking 40 years down the road, think if they themselves don't smoke, they will be okay. Lung cancer in nonsmoking women is on the rise, it is a fact. Do you think all the cute girls at all the Little Woodrows's locations take that into consideration when they take the job? The people whose health we don't protect now, even if they choose not to protect it, we will be paying for in the future when they get sick, though higher medical insurance premiums, higher Medicare costs. That's another way other people's second-hand smoke effects me, even if I never step foot in a smoky bar - I am going to have to help pay for the care of those the second-hand smoke made sick.

On a side note, I would have been equally happy to see the city pass an ordinance that required bars to install air handling systems that reduced smoke pollutants to negligible, or at least NAAQS or OSHA PEL levels. You can be sure there would have been a lot of bars that would have fought that, saying it would cost them too much money. I feel sorry for the bars that voluntarily installed such equipment and now can't use it. Hopefully they can sell it to bars in other places that still allow smoking and recoop some money.

Another side note on the issue of international competition, I have a solution to that as well. I think the US should require that any products imported into the US be produced in countries that have environmental laws and workplace safety and product safety laws at least as stringent as US laws. Demanding that the companies also pay a reasonable living wage and reasonable hours would be nice as well. The only way a company from a less developed country could get around that is if it acheived and maintained ISO 9000 series and ISO 14000 series compliance. This would rebalance our trade imbalance, protect US jobs, and be a globally responsible thing to do. It would also be pretty hard for the WTO to accuse us of protectionism if we did it for those reasons. Look at all the safety problems with Chinese imports right now. It is about time we start regulating our imports in this manner.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[sevfiv]

here's something a bit more concise (and new!) for thread viewers to read:

there is talk in New York about smoking in vehicles with passengers that are minors...

is this too much? would it be too much for houston, which is years behind new york in smoking bans?

i would hope that parents just wouldn't do it to begin with...

Under the New York City proposal, police could stop any drivers caught smoking with a passenger who appears younger than 18 years old. The offense, if approved by the city council and ultimately Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would earn the driver a $100 fine.

"Anyone who smokes is pretty much making everyone else smoke too," Gennaro said. "If someone has a cheeseburger, I'm not having that cholesterol, but I'm having the smoking."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3483482&page=1

[MidtownCoog]

Let the Yankess run their city as they see fit. Texas is not NYC. Thank God.

[RedScare]

On a side note, I would have been equally happy to see the city pass an ordinance that required bars to install air handling systems that reduced smoke pollutants to negligible, or at least NAAQS or OSHA PEL levels. You can be sure there would have been a lot of bars that would have fought that, saying it would cost them too much money. I feel sorry for the bars that voluntarily installed such equipment and now can't use it. Hopefully they can sell it to bars in other places that still allow smoking and recoop some money.

I would wholeheartedly agree with you here, as this solution would not have infringed on anyone's rights, yet accomplished the stated health related goals. However, just as the smoking lobby has its own obvious agenda, the anti-smoking lobby has its own. The second-hand smokescreen is just as nefarious as what the tobacco companies put out. It is just that those on that side of the fence choose not to see it. The co-opting of science and scientific studies for political purposes is very dangerous. The EPA is one of the worst. Your use of their edicts to prove a point means little if the science behind it is suspect, or worse, in the case of second-hand smoke, nonexistant.

[Reefmonkey]

here's something a bit more concise (and new!) for thread viewers to read:

there is talk in New York about smoking in vehicles with passengers that are minors...

is this too much? would it be too much for houston, which is years behind new york in smoking bans?

i would hope that parents just wouldn't do it to begin with...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3483482&page=1

I like the motivation behind it, but I don't like the means at all. Using traffic laws to enforce good parenting? There are times when it is necessary for the state to intrude upon the parent-child relationship and abridge parental rights for the welfare of the child, but the bar should be held high, and should be the jurisdiction of CPS, not traffic cops.

It does remind me of something, though - cabbies independently own and operate their cabs, they are their "place of business", yet may cities have ordinance that cabbies cannot smoke in their cabs, either at all, or while under hire. For those who think that bars should be able to run their "place of business" as they see fit, do you think taxi smoking bans are unfair?

[westguy76]

I would wholeheartedly agree with you here, as this solution would not have infringed on anyone's rights, yet accomplished the stated health related goals. However, just as the smoking lobby has its own obvious agenda, the anti-smoking lobby has its own. The second-hand smokescreen is just as nefarious as what the tobacco companies put out. It is just that those on that side of the fence choose not to see it. The co-opting of science and scientific studies for political purposes is very dangerous. The EPA is one of the worst. Your use of their edicts to prove a point means little if the science behind it is suspect, or worse, in the case of second-hand smoke, nonexistant.

Are you saying there is no scientific proof of second hand smoke?

[TJones]

I like the motivation behind it, but I don't like the means at all. Using traffic laws to enforce good parenting? There are times when it is necessary for the state to intrude upon the parent-child relationship and abridge parental rights for the welfare of the child, but the bar should be held high, and should be the jurisdiction of CPS, not traffic cops.

It does remind me of something, though - cabbies independently own and operate their cabs, they are their "place of business", yet may cities have ordinance that cabbies cannot smoke in their cabs, either at all, or while under hire. For those who think that bars should be able to run their "place of business" as they see fit, do you think taxi smoking bans are unfair?

Just when I think I'm out, you pull me back in.

Yes, unfair, and for the same reasons. Wouldn't you as a "POTENTIAL" customer, be able to have the choice of whether or not you want to get into that smelly smokey cab ? Forget smoking for a moment, just say you didn't like the way the cabbie looks or how he/she themselves smell, don't you have the right to choose whether they get your business or not ? Do cabbies have the right to choose their "POTENTIAL" client ? Not up on the HACK laws. What if a cabbie wanted to cater to smoking clients only, is that possible ? I can agree with cabbies not smoking while under hire if the customer is a non-smoker and if the cabbie chooses to take said customer, there is nowhere to go for the non-smoker in that situation and I see the health hazard there. If the client is a smoker though, would it then be ok for the cabbie to smoke ? It comes down to what is REASONABLE ? It's a little different with bars, you can move away from the smoker,or move to the open air patio or move to a bar that caters to non-smokers.

As far as the smoking in cars issue where children are concerned, there is the rub. You make it sound like you don't consider the welfare of the children first, who don't have a choice as to who their parents are, over yourself and adults who should have enough sense as to who they want to do business with and not set foot into a smoking allowed establishment ? What is wrong with you ?

Now you say it should be CPS' function to police traffic ? I am 200% sure an officer would be more likely to respond to a child trapped in a car with their parent smoking a pack of Camels in their face while traveling down I-10, over you coming up to them telling them about someone in violation of the smoking ordinance down at the Pub. Would you wait until you got home to call CPS if you saw a child not in their childseat, bouncing around the back of a Tahoe, or would you try to alert the Policeman driving in the next lane over from you ? The laws should be made to protect those that can't protect themselves. Newsflash....You can protect yourself from seconhand smoke, children in cars can't and children don't go to bars!

Edited August 16, 2007 by TJones

[Reefmonkey]

Just when I think I'm out, you pull me back in.

Yes, unfair, and for the same reasons. Wouldn't you as a "POTENTIAL" customer, be able to have the choice of whether or not you want to get into that smelly smokey cab ? Forget smoking for a moment, just say you didn't like the way the cabbie looks or how he/she themselves smell, don't you have the right to choose whether they get your business or not ? Do cabbies have the right to choose their "POTENTIAL" client ? Not up on the HACK laws. What if a cabbie wanted to cater to smoking clients only, is that possible ? I can agree with cabbies not smoking while under hire if the customer is a non-smoker and if the cabbie chooses to take said customer, there is nowhere to go for the non-smoker in that situation and I see the health hazard there. It comes down to what is REASONABLE ? It's a little different with bars, you can move away from the smoker,or move to the open air patio or move to a bar that caters to non-smokers. If the client is a smoker though, would it then be ok for the cabbie to smoke ?

As far as the smoking in cars issue where children are concerned, there is the rub, you don't consider the welfare of the children first, who don't have a choice as to who their parents are, over yourself and adults who should have enough sense as to who they want to do business with and not set foot into a smoking allowed establishment ? What is wrong with you ?

Now you say it should be CPS' function to police traffic ? I am 200% sure an officer would be more likely to respond to a child trapped in a car with their parent smoking a pack of Camels in their face while traveling down I-10 over you coming up to them telling them about someone in violation of the smoking ordinance down at the Pub. Would you wait until you got home to call CPS if you saw a child not in their childseat, bouncing around the back of a Tahoe, or would you try to alert the Policeman driving in the next lane over from you ? The laws should be made to protect those that can't protect themselves. Newsflash....You can protect yourself from seconhand smoke, children in cars can't and children don't go to bars!

Now finally you provided a well-thought-out, coherently written post. Well done.

Your position on cabbies is consistent with your position on bars, raises some good points, and is reasonable, that one should be able to actively ask a cabbie not to smoke if he is already in the cab. As far as the smoky smell goes, it is definitely gross and offputting, but not a health issue. I know I hate getting into an elevator at work with a smoker, or getting into an elevator a smoker has been riding in. It just reeks. However, that's a preference, and no reason to bar smokers from riding in elevators, as long as they do not actively smoke in them. I agree with you, a cabbie should be allowed to smoke in his cab as long as he refrains from smoking if requested to by his hire.

On children in smoking cars, you are right, it is a very difficult situation. Certainly CPS can't be policing traffic, and police do pull over parents who are endangering their children by not having them buckled in. In cases of child welfare, we want an immediate response.

However, if that parent is smoking with the child in the car, you know they are also exposing their child to second-hand smoke. Is issuing a citation for driving the child while smoking going to prevent smoking while the child is in the house? Should we be pulling children out of homes and putting them in foster care until their parents quit smoking? It's dangerous territory. I don't like to see too much intrusion on parental rights. Though I don't spank my children, I don't think judicious use of corporal punishment is necessarily child abuse, but there is certainly a movement to make it so, and that concerns me. On the other hand, I am all for awarding temporary state custody to children whose Christian Scientist parents refuse to give them life-saving medical treatment for religious reasons. So while I want parents to never smoke around their children, I can't think of a good way to enforce it. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think writing tickets to parents who smoke with kids in the car is. Though it isn't an ordinance I would spend any time fighting against.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TJones]

Honestly, I agree with you about how to go about policing wayward parents. If a parent can't have the mental capacity to realize "Hey, I might be hurting my child by smoking around them." Then perhaps that parent does need a dose of reality by the issuance of a ticket to remind him/her that they are endangering their child and possibly slowly killing them in the process. It all boils down to the parent actually policing THEMSELVES ! As you and I are both parents, and you seem to have a level head on your shoulders, we both understand that we should never endanger our children, nor would we knowingly do so, certainly not by smoking around them in any given surrounding. You will agree that with some parents it just DOESN'T click, so they need a reminder.

Spanking, that is a tool that need only to be used once or twice effectively in order to get the desired result. Children learn by mistakes, and when they make the mistake of getting a good whoopin' they learn to overcome making that mistake again. Punishments have to fit the crimes though. You can't spank the kid for EVERYTHING, then it becomes ineffective and just results in abuse.

Everything becomes coherent when you take the time to read and let it sink in. I have never said that having a smoking-ban didn't make me happy. Remember, I am NOT a smoker. I just disagree how the law has been defined and as to who it pertains to. If I felt that I was in any type of danger from going into a bar, then I would NOT go into that bar. Just like why I DON"T go into one certain bar in town, because I know for a FACT that they let knives into the place.

Edited August 16, 2007 by TJones

[TheNiche]

I also agree that it is unconscionable that the US has shipped so much of its potentially dangerous and unhealthy industrial activities to unregulated markets like China, where people are being paid a slave wage to work in very unsafe conditions. This did not occur because of too much regulation, however. This occurred, again, because of a clash of interests that arose from an unregulated market. This occurred because of labor unions. With the Industrial Revolution in full swing during the Guilded Age, there was no regulation at all of worker compensation, working hours, workplace safety, even child labor. Unions rose to fill the void of lack of regulation, and fought for reasonable work weeks, fair wages, and safe conditions. This was unhindered market forces at work. Corporations were the powerful monolithic entities that the many, the workers, needed jobs from. One worker didn't want to work in unsafe conditions, or died from unsafe conditions, there were hundreds of malnourished workers clamoring to fill his place - better to die on the job than starve, I guess. An individual worker had no power to demand better money, safer working conditions. Then unions formed, and now there was an equality of power between the workers and the corporations. They demanded fair wage, resonable hours, safe shops, and got them. Again, Interests battling Interests. But unions got greedy, got corrupt, and started demanding ridiculous things, because they were less concerned about the overall health of the economy than they were about taking care of their own. They went from demanding safe conditions and fare wages to an entitlement system that killed the US steel industry and crippled the US auto industry. And it didn't have to be. Everything fair they gained is now mandated by the government, who came in late in the game. The government mandates a minimum wage. The government mandates time and a half for anything over 40 hours. The government mandates safe working conditions. If the government had done this in the beginning, enacted reasonable regulation, unions would never have gotten the traction they have, would never have become so powerful as to cripple American industry.

Another side note on the issue of international competition, I have a solution to that as well. I think the US should require that any products imported into the US be produced in countries that have environmental laws and workplace safety and product safety laws at least as stringent as US laws. Demanding that the companies also pay a reasonable living wage and reasonable hours would be nice as well. The only way a company from a less developed country could get around that is if it acheived and maintained ISO 9000 series and ISO 14000 series compliance. This would rebalance our trade imbalance, protect US jobs, and be a globally responsible thing to do. It would also be pretty hard for the WTO to accuse us of protectionism if we did it for those reasons. Look at all the safety problems with Chinese imports right now. It is about time we start regulating our imports in this manner.

First, I'd like to clarify on a couple points: 1) I'm not an economic protectionist. I don't care about the idea of losing American jobs if the process of offshoring industries ultimately causes the cost of production of particular goods to decline, which in the presence of competitive markets results in the cost savings being passed back to American consumers (and all consumers throughout the world). 2) Insofar as foreign workers understand that there are risks to working in the new plant producing goods for export, and they are willing to take the jobs there, I'm not all that concerned about their welfare. What would've been their alternative? Subsistence wages? Perhaps an even more dangerous employer? Surely they wouldn't have taken the job if they didn't perceive it as something that would have a better chance than not of improving their standard of living. If the U.S. enforces standards on imports that have the stated goal of looking after the safety of other peoples in other lands, but those standards have the effect of taking better jobs away from them and hindering the economic development of those nations, all the while depriving our consumers of less expensive goods, then I really have a hard time seeing how anybody wins.

I would agree with you that unions are a big part of a complicated system, but would contend that environmental and safety regulations are also a very big part. No one factor is by itself responsible.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to guess you have never worked in a job where your life has relied on proper lockout/tagout procedure, where it has relied on air monitoring making sure that the atmosphere in the vessel you are entering is below the lower explosive limit, and oxygen levels above 19.5%? I'm guessing you have never worked in a job where OSHA regulations keep you safe on a daily basis? I have, and yet, even as someone with a masters' degree, an educated specialist, I have felt both clients and my previous employer pressuring me to cut corners on safety, both my own, and the subcontractor crews I was in charge of, just to get the job done right then. As you can probably guess, I am not one to back down from an argument, but I still was put in uncomfortable situations of refusing to work until the right equipment arrived, or conditions improved, and I knew the only thing that was keeping me from being fired was that they knew I could report them to OSHA and OSHA regulations protected me from being fired for reporting them. A lot of this occurred without the crews really understanding what was going on. These people certainly had an "imperfect understanding" of the risk they were facing (to borrow a phrase from you), whether from lack of education or whatnot, and the companies were not invested in explaining it to them. The only reason they made information such as MSDSs available is they were required to. Most of them were just nervous that they might get fired. None of them wanted to get sick or die, they were just blue-collar guys who were scared to lose their jobs, and if it hadn't been because I knew the regs, would have had no one advocating for them, and they probably would have just done the work. You can talk all you want about a person's right to choose a risky job or else move on, but until you have had a job with real risk, worked with blue-collar workers who are afraid to get sick, but just as afraid to get fired, you have no idea what it really is like. No one should have to choose between their health and their job.

You would be correct; I have not worked such a hazardous job. And if I did and there were somebody specifically tasked with ensuring mine and my coworkers' safety, I probably wouldn't give it nearly as much thought as I might if I were responsible for my own well-being. Make me responsible, and my will to live may very well result in better personal safety than what is likely to be enforced for my benefit from somebody whose life doesn't depend upon my survival and is only employed because the government mandates that they be. ...this isn't a personal knock at you, but I'm sure that not all safety personel are all that competent, caring, or ethical...and certainly I care about my life more than they care about my life.

People are still confused about the health effects of second-hand smoke, and tobacco industries have spent millions of dollars to make them stay confused. So many bar employees are young people who think they are invincible anyway, aren't thinking 40 years down the road, think if they themselves don't smoke, they will be okay. Lung cancer in nonsmoking women is on the rise, it is a fact. Do you think all the cute girls at all the Little Woodrows's locations take that into consideration when they take the job? The people whose health we don't protect now, even if they choose not to protect it, we will be paying for in the future when they get sick, though higher medical insurance premiums, higher Medicare costs. That's another way other people's second-hand smoke effects me, even if I never step foot in a smoky bar - I am going to have to help pay for the care of those the second-hand smoke made sick.

I do not doubt that second hand smoke can be harmful, but I would question the long-term effects and would appreciate evidence to the effect that second hand smoke in the college years is likely to cause lung cancer 40 years from then. I'd also make the point that at the rate of advancement of medical technology and proceedures, the treatment for lung cancer may be routine and nearly fail-safe by that time--granted, that's entirely speculative, but it is definitely something worth considering if your argument is going to take us that far into the future. The promise of technological progress does offset the present risk profile of second hand smoke.

Also, there are many types of cancer that are becoming more commonplace, but simply saying that lung cancer is becoming more common in non-smokers does not provide any link to causality.

Edited August 17, 2007 by TheNiche

[crunchtastic]

There have been some posts about intuition/perception/response/argument. I'll say right now: I've got nothing to back me up--but second-hand smoke, second-hand whatever, better living through 21st century agribusiness..... how long is the list? As if cigarettes are my worst enemy.

Forgive me being new to this board and tired of this topic. I hung in for quite a while. But come on.

Red still wins the 'drinks with' category.

[Reefmonkey]

There have been some posts about intuition/perception/response/argument. I'll say right now: I've got nothing to back me up--but second-hand smoke, second-hand whatever, better living through 21st century agribusiness..... how long is the list? As if cigarettes are my worst enemy.

Forgive me being new to this board and tired of this topic. I hung in for quite a while. But come on.

And your point is????

No one is forcing you to read this thread or respond to it. If the discussion didn't hold your interest, then you are free to move on.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[Reefmonkey]

I don't care about the idea of losing American jobs if the process of offshoring industries ultimately causes the cost of production of particular goods to decline, which in the presence of competitive markets results in the cost savings being passed back to American consumers

Well, that discussion probably deserves a thread of its own. I'd love to discuss it in depth with you, but I'm not sure where we could fit it on a website about Houston architecture. I'll just say the belief among white-collar workers "I'd buy American goods if they could be produced as cheaply as overseas goods...." has been common at least since the 1970s, and I have to admit I used to say it myself. It's easy for a white-collar worker to think that when it is just blue-collar jobs going overseas. I think some people are waking up to the reality, though, now that white-collar jobs like accounting and IT support are being outsourced to places like India and Malaysia. In the end, what good are low-priced goods if one day so many people are unemployed or underemployed due to overseas outsourcing that they can't even afford the cheap stuff?

Insofar as foreign workers understand that there are risks to working in the new plant producing goods for export, and they are willing to take the jobs there, I'm not all that concerned about their welfare. What would've been their alternative? Subsistence wages? Perhaps an even more dangerous employer? Surely they wouldn't have taken the job if they didn't perceive it as something that would have a better chance than not of improving their standard of living. If the U.S. enforces standards on imports that have the stated goal of looking after the safety of other peoples in other lands, but those standards have the effect of taking better jobs away from them and hindering the economic development of those nations, all the while depriving our consumers of less expensive goods, then I really have a hard time seeing how anybody wins.

It is seductive to think that by buying goods from developing countries and encouraging them to focus on production of exports, we are helping those countries' economies and the peoples' quality of life, but too often, that just is not true. Well-meaning NGOs, even the UN, encouraged several African nations to focus their agricultural efforts on exportable cash crops, such as cocoa, coffee, and sisal, and they neglected the development of food crops for these countries' domestic needs, resulting in food shortages and inflation, actually decreasing quality of life. Cote d'Ivoire's serious political instability is attributable to this. Manufacturing of goods for export in developing countries can and does often cause this kind of inflation. Oops, there I go, talking about it, getting off-topic. I'm not going to say anything else about it.

As far as second-hand smoke and cancer risk goes, I am not going to be less careful about exposing myself to carcinogens and just assume by the time I have cancer the medical science will have caught up. If it does, that will be great, but I am not going to depend on it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the man said.

The scientific community may not have conclusively proven how bad second-hand smoke is yet, but common sense tells me it isn't good for me. I don't need indisputable proof, nor is it very wise to wait for indisputable proof, to take action to prevent a potential negative effect. (There, see, I always manage to get back on topic in the end )

Edited August 17, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[KinkaidAlum]

Let the Yankess run their city as they see fit. Texas is not NYC. Thank God.

It's 2007. Drop the stupid Yankee thing because it makes us all look like tools.

As an aside, the same arguments arose in Boston when the smoking ban took affect in bars about 3 years ago. Bar owners and smokers complained that business would be hurt. Funny thing is, the Bar business in town is healthier than ever.

Smoking is an addiction. Smokers will continue to go to bars in large numbers just like they do in every other city that has enacted these laws. They'll just stand outside in the snow, sleet, rain, humidty, etc... puffing away now instead of hogging all of the best places inside.

[TheNiche]

Alright, well I'll try to end the discussion of international economics right here, as quick as I can.

I'll just say the belief among white-collar workers "I'd buy American goods if they could be produced as cheaply as overseas goods...." has been common at least since the 1970s, and I have to admit I used to say it myself. It's easy for a white-collar worker to think that when it is just blue-collar jobs going overseas. I think some people are waking up to the reality, though, now that white-collar jobs like accounting and IT support are being outsourced to places like India and Malaysia. In the end, what good are low-priced goods if one day so many people are unemployed or underemployed due to overseas outsourcing that they can't even afford the cheap stuff?

Who do you think shops at Wal-Mart? Who seeks barebones value? Is it investment bankers or is it garbage men? Is it geophysicists or is it roofing foremen? White collar folks tend to make more money, and as such tend to have greater flexibility to 'Buy American' without it being a very big deal. Blue collar folks, certainly those in predominantly-ununionized Houston, may give nationalist favoritism to the industry in which they work, but beyond that, I'd dare to say that its a no-holds-barred search for value.

If we couldn't afford the cheap stuff, that's our own fault--but not because we would've allowed outsourcing--more likely, because we would've prevented it or done some other stupid-ass thing to systematically retard our economic growth while the third world country has maintained reasonably free markets. Otherwise, it is only likely that as the other country develops (typically at a relatively fast rate) our comparative advantage is steadily regained as their wages rise...and in the mean time, our consumers have greater buying power, freeing up money that would've been wasted for other uses, including investments yeilding returns in the future. And as their wages rise, they tend to be able to afford their own environmental regulation and other assorted regulations that once enacted tend to level the playing field. Its ultimately all about the equilibreum.

It is seductive to think that by buying goods from developing countries and encouraging them to focus on production of exports, we are helping those countries' economies and the peoples' quality of life, but too often, that just is not true. Well-meaning NGOs, even the UN, encouraged several African nations to focus their agricultural efforts on exportable cash crops, such as cocoa, coffee, and sisal, and they neglected the development of food crops for these countries' domestic needs, resulting in food shortages and inflation, actually decreasing quality of life. Cote d'Ivoire's serious political instability is attributable to this. Manufacturing of goods for export in developing countries can and does often cause this kind of inflation. Oops, there I go, talking about it, getting off-topic. I'm not going to say anything else about it.

I would wholeheartedly agree that NGOs and various western governments have royally screwed many countries in sub-saharan Africa by trying to intervene on their behalf. The worst example I can think of is how sanctions were threatened on any country that used DDT, causing most not to use it, but putting their populations at high risk for malaria and other diseases spread by mosquitoes. The figure I heard quoted was 20 million dead. ...I could've lived with a few extinctions, but apparently others in the western world cannot. Shame.

As for the inflationary tendency in manufacturing countries, there are several good reasons for that. One is that wages go up, and the basket of goods that people consume changes dramatically and in a very positive way; its just that they're spending more on products that couldn't have been afforded before. Another factor is that living tends to become increasingly more expensive in cities, as more people compete for the same amount of dirt and as transportation systems evolve rapidly. The important thing is that wages are rising faster than inflation, which is the case among our most rapidly growing trade partners.

Lastly, net exporting countries are racking up a trade imbalance of their own, but as that occurs, the value of their currency increases dramatically relative to the net importers, making it less expensive for them to import from the countries that they're producing goods for. China and Mexico, for instance, import an enormous amount of machinery and electronics from the U.S. and are increasing their use of our financial and business services sectors. Economists, myself among their ranks, call this the balance of trade.

As far as second-hand smoke and cancer risk goes, I am not going to be less careful about exposing myself to carcinogens and just assume by the time I have cancer the medical science will have caught up. If it does, that will be great, but I am not going to depend on it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the man said.

The scientific community may not have conclusively proven how bad second-hand smoke is yet, but common sense tells me it isn't good for me. I don't need indisputable proof, nor is it very wise to wait for indisputable proof, to take action to prevent a potential negative effect. (There, see, I always manage to get back on topic in the end )

You may choose to have no confidence in the advancement of medical technology, but as baby boomers age and inherit all the wealth of their parents, creating massive opportunities for marketing of medical technology and a huge and active voting block of people demanding special government attention and subsidy, I predict advances by leaps and bounds. But the measure of risk is not for you to make and force upon society; it is for the individuals within society to make for themselves, weighing the pleasure that they get with its potential risks. And while I don't think anybody is arguing that second hand smoke is good for you, there are a lot of people (including those like myself that can't stand it) that just try to avoid hanging out with smokers in poorly-ventilated areas to trying to control other peoples' lives.

[TheNiche]

It's 2007. Drop the stupid Yankee thing because it makes us all look like tools.

No. Dropping it unaturally would make me a yankee tool.

I don't use it frequently, but when I do...usually while inebriated, I want it to be pure, a true reflection of myself.

[Reefmonkey]

No. Dropping it unaturally would make me a yankee tool.

I don't use it frequently, but when I do...usually while inebriated, I want it to be pure, a true reflection of myself.

Right on!

[EastEnd Susan]

I dont smoke but a few of my friends here at work do. The smoke Nazi just told them that they cant smoke out in the side yard which is the designated smoke area because it is not 25 feet from a door. The only people that use this door is the people that go out there to smoke. She says that what the houston ordinance says. Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the ordinace? I think shes taking this a bit far. The boss man doesnt seem to care who smokes where. Its the smoke nazi that has the problem. Our company only has 14 people and of the 14 only 1 is a bad egg. She has nothing to do but find something to gripe about. No one likes her, no one talks to her. She has now earned the new name of Spider Pig. Help me find a way to shut her up!

[MidtownCoog]

SO the baseball team must be tools, too!

Go Yankees!

FYI - 1100 Louisana never enforeces the 25 ft. rule.

Edited August 20, 2007 by MidtownCoog

[RedScare]

City of Houston Amended Smoking Ordinance

See Section 21-241 for distances from exits. The 25 feet does not apply to bars.

[musicman]

City of Houston Amended Smoking OrdinanceSee Section 21-241 for distances from exits. The 25 feet does not apply to bars.

we were talking about this this past weekend. it does apply IF they don't have another permit to allow outside seating (on public property) which many don't. there are MANY owners who are trying to arrange some kind of outside seating area. since market squares back patio is theirs, it would be ok. but on the front sidewalk that would be a different story. at least that's what the owner told us.

I think shes taking this a bit far. The boss man doesnt seem to care who smokes where. Its the smoke nazi that has the problem. Our company only has 14 people and of the 14 only 1 is a bad egg. She has nothing to do but find something to gripe about. No one likes her, no one talks to her. She has now earned the new name of Spider Pig. Help me find a way to shut her up!

LOL i see why you need a beer now. Edited August 20, 2007 by musicman

[EastEnd Susan]

we were talking about this this past weekend. it does apply IF they don't have another permit to allow outside seating (on public property) which many don't. there are MANY owners who are trying to arrange some kind of outside seating area. since market squares back patio is theirs, it would be ok. but on the front sidewalk that would be a different story. at least that's what the owner told us.

LOL i see why you need a beer now.

Thanks musicman. Oh.. I did drink a beer this weekend with no side effects. Doc says it was a reaction to the alcohol and the bactrim.

[RedScare]

we were talking about this this past weekend. it does apply IF they don't have another permit to allow outside seating (on public property) which many don't. there are MANY owners who are trying to arrange some kind of outside seating area. since market squares back patio is theirs, it would be ok. but on the front sidewalk that would be a different story. at least that's what the owner told us.

Given that the City has virtually no plans for enforcement of the ordinance, the 25 foot rule will pretty much be a non-issue. Frankly, who is going to listen to a smoke Nazi complaining that a smoker is only 10 feet outside the door? The owner has no authority over someone on City ROW, the police are not going to take time away from fighting real crime to use a tape measure, and the City enforcement person is off at night. This is aside from the fact that in 10 years of smoking in front of buildings all over Houston, I have never once had the distance issue raised.

While I am quite sure that there are a few non-smokers looking to cause a stink over the 25 foot rule, I am even more sure that it will get them nowhere. I am also quite sure that bar owners will not be looking to inconvenience their smoking clientele more than they already will be. Those that think otherwise need only look at the opposition to the ordinance by bar owners in the first place.

[musicman]

^

concur red, enforcement will definitely be THE issue. i think legally all the bar owners have to do is post signs and remove all ashtrays from the non smoking areas.