Smokers = Whiney Bitches

[Stuart Mackey]

Instead of banning tobacco use in bars, why not mandate that they be properly ventilated?

IIRC the New Zealand government looked at that issue and found that proper ventilation, while it removed the visible effects of mass smoking, did not reove enough of the various poisons that go with smoking to make an enclosed space safe enough to spend time in, let alone work in, on a regualar basis.

[Admiral Valdemar]

IIRC the New Zealand government looked at that issue and found that proper ventilation, while it removed the visible effects of mass smoking, did not reove enough of the various poisons that go with smoking to make an enclosed space safe enough to spend time in, let alone work in, on a regualar basis.

Likewise, here it was deemed expensive for most bars to upgrade their ventilation systems to accomodate gov't recommendations for smoke levels.

[Darth Wong]

Instead of banning tobacco use in bars, why not mandate that they be properly ventilated?

Because a high airflow fume hood over every barstool would cost a fortune and look ugly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Because a high airflow fume hood over every barstool would cost a fortune and look ugly.

I don't know. The laminar flow cupboards I've used are quite a fetching shade of blue and gunmetal.

[Glocksman]

And you have provided nothing in the way of a self-consistent rationale for your position. This "if they don't like it, they can work elsewhere" logic of yours is utterly absurd, and you seem to be capable of seeing that only when it's applied to other industries, yet you reject the analogy to this particular industry. Why? They're not real employees? These aren't real jobs? They don't deserve workplace protection?

As I pointed out earlier, if we take your position to its logical extreme, we'd be banning smokehouses and barbecued meats due to the carcinogens in both the meat and the smoke that the place generates.

You have to draw a line and define 'tolerable risk' somewhere.

I choose to define a smoke filled barroom as a tolerable risk because the customers voluntarily assume the risk by entering the place and the employees knew the odds of dealing with smokers before they even applied for the job.

My life is at risk on my job every day, as I drive a 9 ton piece of equipment that can lift both me and a 2 ton pallet 50 feet or more off the floor. Sure, I wear a harness, but is that going to do any good if the truck's software (Raymond trucks are notorious for buggy software) decides to drop my ass 50 feet in 2 seconds? I probably won't die, but I'll certainly be injured, harness or no.

My point is that I know the risks and accept them. If I were unaccepting of the risks or simply scared of heights (I also work on an open platform Crown stockpicker), I wouldn't have applied for the job. People who work in bars since the 1980's when the ETS studies came out know the risks of secondhand smoke. If you don't like it, don't apply for work in a bar.

[Frank Hipper]

I don't see why local governments don't provide for a "Smoking License"; if you want to have smoking in your place of buisiness, you pay for the license.
That way you can also be required to display this license publicly (much like a health department certificate in a restaurant), so in case someone is unaware that smoke is bad for you because they've come from living beneath a rock, there's a convenient piece of legislated signage to inform the public, and potential job applicants.

It would generate a tiny bit of revenue, too.

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't see why local governments don't provide for a "Smoking License"; if you want to have smoking in your place of buisiness, you pay for the license.
That way you can also be required to display this license publicly (much like a health department certificate in a restaurant), so in case someone is unaware that smoke is bad for you because they've come from living beneath a rock, there's a convenient piece of legislated signage to inform the public, and potential job applicants.

It would generate a tiny bit of revenue, too.

And penalise the people who work there?.. no thanks.

[Frank Hipper]

I don't see why local governments don't provide for a "Smoking License"; if you want to have smoking in your place of buisiness, you pay for the license.
That way you can also be required to display this license publicly (much like a health department certificate in a restaurant), so in case someone is unaware that smoke is bad for you because they've come from living beneath a rock, there's a convenient piece of legislated signage to inform the public, and potential job applicants.

It would generate a tiny bit of revenue, too.

And penalise the people who work there?.. no thanks.

How?

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't see why local governments don't provide for a "Smoking License"; if you want to have smoking in your place of buisiness, you pay for the license.
That way you can also be required to display this license publicly (much like a health department certificate in a restaurant), so in case someone is unaware that smoke is bad for you because they've come from living beneath a rock, there's a convenient piece of legislated signage to inform the public, and potential job applicants.

It would generate a tiny bit of revenue, too.

And penalise the people who work there?.. no thanks.

How?

Because they dont have a choice in the matter of passive smoking if their employer holds a licence to allow for smoking in their premices

[Frank Hipper]

Because they dont have a choice in the matter of passive smoking if their employer holds a licence to allow for smoking in their premices

My entire point about buying, and posting a license is to inform applicants and the public that it's a smoking establishment.

This way applicants have a choice to go elsewhere for a non-smoking enviroment, as do current employees. And that works in reverse, as well.

[Stuart Mackey]

Because they dont have a choice in the matter of passive smoking if their employer holds a licence to allow for smoking in their premices

My entire point about buying, and posting a license is to inform applicants and the public that it's a smoking establishment.

This way applicants have a choice to go elsewhere for a non-smoking enviroment, as do current employees. And that works in reverse, as well.

With respect to already established employees that amounts to discrimantion, as well as towards job applicants, as you are preventing them from taking or retaining a job because of a volentary activity.

[Frank Hipper]

With respect to already established employees that amounts to discrimantion, as well as towards job applicants, as you are preventing them from taking or retaining a job because of a volentary activity.

No, it's informing them of potential health hazards.

[Stuart Mackey]

With respect to already established employees that amounts to discrimantion, as well as towards job applicants, as you are preventing them from taking or retaining a job because of a volentary activity.

No, it's informing them of potential health hazards.

No, its not. Take me for example. I have athsma and allergies up the brass razzoo..tobbaco smoke has undesirable effects on me.
If I cannot take a job, or continue in one because of a voluntary activity on the part of management that is unrelated to the activities of the bussiness then it becomes discrimnation.

[Frank Hipper]

With respect to already established employees that amounts to discrimantion, as well as towards job applicants, as you are preventing them from taking or retaining a job because of a volentary activity.

No, it's informing them of potential health hazards.

No, its not. Take me for example. I have athsma and allergies up the brass razzoo..tobbaco smoke has undesirable effects on me.
If I cannot take a job, or continue in one because of a voluntary activity on the part of management that is unrelated to the activities of the bussiness then it becomes discrimnation.

Perhaps I'm making the mistake of assuming that restaurants and bars would prefer to be non-smoking establishments, and therefore be more numerous, but what's forcing you to seek and/or remain employed at this one hypothetical place?

[Stuart Mackey]

No, it's informing them of potential health hazards.

No, its not. Take me for example. I have athsma and allergies up the brass razzoo..tobbaco smoke has undesirable effects on me.
If I cannot take a job, or continue in one because of a voluntary activity on the part of management that is unrelated to the activities of the bussiness then it becomes discrimnation.

Perhaps I'm making the mistake of assuming that restaurants and bars would prefer to be non-smoking establishments, and therefore be more numerous, but what's forcing you to seek and/or remain employed at this one hypothetical place?

Thats beside the point, discrimination is discrimination.

[Glocksman]

No, its not. Take me for example. I have athsma and allergies up the brass razzoo..tobbaco smoke has undesirable effects on me.
If I cannot take a job, or continue in one because of a voluntary activity on the part of management that is unrelated to the activities of the bussiness then it becomes discrimnation.

Is it discrimination (in the legal sense) when Hooters refuses to hire me as a waitress?

To work at Hooters as a waitress, I'd have to possess certain qualifications and *ahem* attributes. I lack those attributes and qualifications.


Similarly, to work at this hypothetical 'smokers bar', you'd have to possess certain attributes, namely lack of allergic reaction to tobacco smoke and a willingness to work around smoke and smokers.

It's no more discrimination than a refusal to hire obese men who can't pass a physical exam as police officers is.

[Darth Wong]

And you have provided nothing in the way of a self-consistent rationale for your position. This "if they don't like it, they can work elsewhere" logic of yours is utterly absurd, and you seem to be capable of seeing that only when it's applied to other industries, yet you reject the analogy to this particular industry. Why? They're not real employees? These aren't real jobs? They don't deserve workplace protection?

As I pointed out earlier, if we take your position to its logical extreme, we'd be banning smokehouses and barbecued meats due to the carcinogens in both the meat and the smoke that the place generates.

No, because those establishments are doing everything reasonably possible, within the definition of their respective industries, to mitigate the risk. Tolerance of cigarette smoke is not integral to the definition of a bar, as demonstrated by the fact that smoke-free bars abound in numerous cities without a problem.

[Frank Hipper]

Thats beside the point, discrimination is discrimination.

Again, smoke free workplaces would not be outlawed in this, my imagining is that a place that applies for a smoking license would do so in response to tightened regulations on public smoking. Why would they want to become a smoking establishment out of the blue, after all? Assuming this, wouldn't you have been working under a discriminatory system already, with no option at all for a smoke-free enviroment before these changes?

Again, surely the smoke free places are going to be more popular, if anything such a licensing deal would only be wanted by niche businesses. Why wouldn't there be an increase in smoke-free places of employment, why wouldn't they be a preferable career change? The service industry is cutthroat, if I were in that position I'd be looking for a job at a place that might actually go somewhere more upscale than the cancer ward.

[Stuart Mackey]

No, its not. Take me for example. I have athsma and allergies up the brass razzoo..tobbaco smoke has undesirable effects on me.
If I cannot take a job, or continue in one because of a voluntary activity on the part of management that is unrelated to the activities of the bussiness then it becomes discrimnation.

Is it discrimination (in the legal sense) when Hooters refuses to hire me as a waitress?

To work at Hooters as a waitress, I'd have to possess certain qualifications and *ahem* attributes. I lack those attributes and qualifications.

I am sure you look beutifull when you get dressed up..just remember to shave your legs .
Its not the same thing, and I suspect that you know it. but I will deal with that further down.

Similarly, to work at this hypothetical 'smokers bar', you'd have to possess certain attributes, namely lack of allergic reaction to tobacco smoke and a willingness to work around smoke and smokers.

It's no more discrimination than a refusal to hire obese men who can't pass a physical exam as police officers is.

Smoking is a voluntary activity. And as such it is not reasonably nessary to perform a job. I for one cannot think of any job that would require I smoke. Being obese, would, however be a practical barrier to being in the Police because you could not do the job, correct?
As such to have a company under the senareio posted above, would mean that an employer could refuse to hire people based on if they indulge a habit that is legally voluntary, even if that habit is not required for the job.

[Stuart Mackey]

Thats beside the point, discrimination is discrimination.

Again, smoke free workplaces would not be outlawed in this, my imagining is that a place that applies for a smoking license would do so in response to tightened regulations on public smoking. Why would they want to become a smoking establishment out of the blue, after all? Assuming this, wouldn't you have been working under a discriminatory system already, with no option at all for a smoke-free enviroment before these changes?

You are correct about working in a discrimatory workplace that does not, for practical purposes, allow for a smoke free environment. However, because of the nature of smoking, a work place either is, or is not, smoke free, there is no inbetweeen. And thats where your argument is not tenable here, simply because smoking is voluntary and indulging in it takes away the rights of those who do not smoke.

Again, surely the smoke free places are going to be more popular, if anything such a licensing deal would only be wanted by niche businesses. Why wouldn't there be an increase in smoke-free places of employment, why wouldn't they be a preferable career change? The service industry is cutthroat, if I were in that position I'd be looking for a job at a place that might actually go somewhere more upscale than the cancer ward.

Given the widespread use of tobbacco and the nature of smoking to suggest people simply go elsware is unreasonable, especially in a period or era of high unemployment. Givent he amount of social smokers there is little economic advantage to be smoke free. Then there is the social reality that somokers and non-smokers socialise together in public places, which is also an economic deterrant.

[SAMAS]

Why should it be legal to place workers in a needlessly hazardous enviroment?

Because it's the worker's choice to go there.

I work at the Port of Houston, and instead of the mild dangers of secondhand smoke from some of my coworkers(in which case, I leave the area if possible, or at least work upwind of them), I deal with the far more immenent threats of getting crushed, impaled, suffering heat stroke, and similar nastiness to myself or portions of my anatomy. If I don't want to risk those dangers, I don't take the job.

Just as it is with waiters in restaurants and bars. If you don't want to work around smokers, then don't work at the place.

[Slartibartfast]

And you have provided nothing in the way of a self-consistent rationale for your position. This "if they don't like it, they can work elsewhere" logic of yours is utterly absurd, and you seem to be capable of seeing that only when it's applied to other industries, yet you reject the analogy to this particular industry. Why? They're not real employees? These aren't real jobs? They don't deserve workplace protection?

As I pointed out earlier, if we take your position to its logical extreme, we'd be banning smokehouses and barbecued meats due to the carcinogens in both the meat and the smoke that the place generates.

No, because those establishments are doing everything reasonably possible, within the definition of their respective industries, to mitigate the risk. Tolerance of cigarette smoke is not integral to the definition of a bar, as demonstrated by the fact that smoke-free bars abound in numerous cities without a problem.

If an industry is based around generating dangerous, poisonous gases, radiations, etc, chances are employees will have to use some kind of protective gear, like a full body hazard suit or at least a mask. Have you heard of any smoking bar where the bartender and/or waiters are obligated, by law, to wear protective gear like gas masks?

I also have never heard of any workplace that involves getting into a methane chamber unprotected, and then claiming "we had a sign in the outside, if you don't want to inhale poison don't work for us" and be left alone by the government.

[Slartibartfast]

I work at the Port of Houston, and instead of the mild dangers of secondhand smoke from some of my coworkers(in which case, I leave the area if possible, or at least work upwind of them), I deal with the far more immenent threats of getting crushed, impaled, suffering heat stroke, and similar nastiness to myself or portions of my anatomy. If I don't want to risk those dangers, I don't take the job.

I'm sure your boss at the Port of Houston liberally crushes and impales you every day, and exposes you to heat stroke, just because he feels he'll make more money that way instead of the usual Port work, which probably involves throwing flowers at people and having pillow fights.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, apparently this isn't clear for most people:

Serving drinks and waiting tables is not, and should not be, a hazardous duty. Lifting crates and mixing poisonous chemicals and dodging bullets from criminals / enemy soldiers, is. Saying "but policemen risk getting shot all the time, why shouldn't bartenders risk cancer?" is massively stupid.

The moment we find a way to transform firearms into water guns and knives into rubber and remove the hazard from being a cop, we will. I'm sure invulnerability suits for port workers are also a big priority.

[Frank Hipper]

You are correct about working in a discrimatory workplace that does not, for practical purposes, allow for a smoke free environment. However, because of the nature of smoking, a work place either is, or is not, smoke free, there is no inbetweeen. And thats where your argument is not tenable here, simply because smoking is voluntary and indulging in it takes away the rights of those who do not smoke.

Of course smoking is voluntary, but the scenario I'm trying to weave here is one in which the bar/restaurant relies on a smoking clientele for it's business. If reliance on that clintele is what makes this one place a success, or few places, the indulgance of the customers takes precedence, yes?

Given the widespread use of tobbacco and the nature of smoking to suggest people simply go elsware is unreasonable, especially in a period or era of high unemployment. Givent he amount of social smokers there is little economic advantage to be smoke free. Then there is the social reality that somokers and non-smokers socialise together in public places, which is also an economic deterrant.

Many lawmakers in the US and elsewhere do not feel it unreasonable to suggest people go elsewhere to smoke. Social pressure is not on non-smokers anymore to accomodate smokers, smokers are literally a dying breed.

Despite the hue and cry raised in Mesa, AZ over it's revolutionary (at the time) smoking ban, most bars and restaurants have not gone out of business because of it. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't smoke in any public, enclosed space in Maricopa County, and there is a thriving service industry here.
Smokers are not a priority, they are on the verge of being true social outcasts. The licensing arrangement I propose would only cater to a handful of businesses who might find it economically preferrable to cater to the few who would prefer a smoking anviroment.
Given that list of priorities, it could also be argued that such an establishment might only hire smokers; by way of an analogy, you don't see fat, toothless, elderly waitresses working at a Hooters like you might at a Denny's. If Hooter's can be discrminatory out of a sense of self preservation on the subject of looks, is there any reason why another place could not be discrminatory out of a sense of self preservation based on personal habit?