AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Then you have seen the many workers who go outside to smoke. As previously posted, I am a reformed smoker and hate being around cigarette smoke now. But it is a legal substance and it is the right of people to engage in unhealthy practices so long as they don't violate the rights of others. I am guessing that there are plenty of workers who smoke and would LIKE to work in a restaurant where smoking is allowed that there would be plenty of such labor available. If there isn't, then that fact could impact on a proprietor's decision of whether to allow smoking or not. Nobody is forced to work anywhere in this country, at least for now.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Then you have seen the many workers who go outside to smoke. As previously posted, I am a reformed smoker and hate being around cigarette smoke now. But it is a legal substance and it is the right of people to engage in unhealthy practices so long as they don't violate the rights of others. I am guessing that there are plenty of workers who smoke and would LIKE to work in a restaurant where smoking is allowed that there would be plenty of such labor available. If there isn't, then that fact could impact on a proprietor's decision of whether to allow smoking or not. Nobody is forced to work anywhere in this country, at least for now.

Like I said, it's unreasonable to expect someone to quit their job b/c of unnecessary exposure to a toxic substance.

There are lots of things which are conditionally legal based on their emissions and locations. For example, you could have a diesel generator at your workplace, but not if you run it indoors where the fumes could harm people. When they complain, you can't just tell them to quit if they don't like it.

Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe and toxin-free work environment. State boards of health also have the right to require places of employment to meet basic standards of health and safety; smoking indoors violates those basic standards pretty clearly.

Besides, as you say - just go outside. It isn't as if that ever killed anyone.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Here you have hit on a a valid consideration. What safety rules are appropriate to be required in the workplace? Certainly rules that allow the employees information and ability to work safely are appropriate. This is what OSHA does. OSHA can require an employer to have provisions in place that protect the workers such as a shower facility should the worker come in contact with dangerous substances, etc., use of face shields, eye and ear protection, machine guards, protection from devices or practices known to cause high incidences of accident and injury. Toxic fumes and emissions are certainly a part of all that. While all risk cannot be removed, it is appropriate to require or permit employees to do high risk jobs as safely as possible.

But is ingestion of cigarette smoke the same thing? Would that not fall under the same category as high fat or empty calories or exposure to allergens? If the government tells the employees that they can't smoke, can it tell them they can't have a candy bar in the vending machine? They can't bring a peanut butter sandwich because a coworker might be allergic? They are only permitted fresh foot and low fat healthy items in their lunch boxes?

Again much of the health risk to others can be eliminated with proactive ventilation. And social pressures are dealing with much of the problem too, which is how it should be handled. Make something socially unacceptable, and the practice becomes rare voluntarily.

That apparently is the position that OSHA has taken:

Quote:

December 18, 2001
OSHA Drops Smoking Proposal

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has withdrawn a seven-year-old proposal that would have banned smoking in virtually all workplaces.

OSHA officials said they reached the decision with the support of major anti-smoking public health groups, including the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

In announcing the move, OSHA referred to widespread opposition to the rule.

"Most of the activity on workplace smoking restrictions is now taking place at the state and local level," Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health John Henshaw said. "Today's action takes the positive step of setting aside what had become a contentious and unproductive effort. Of course, this action does not preclude future agency action if the need arises."

According to the American Lung Association, there has been a 50 percent increase in workplaces that have a smoke-free policy since 1994. Today, nearly 70 percent of employees work in businesses that have instituted smoke-free workplace policies.

"The urgency for federal action that existed when the rule making began has been changed by the actions of local communities, private employers and the states," Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a letter to OSHA.
http://safety.blr.com/news.aspx?id=89561

And while he wouldn't get my business, in the interest of protection of individual rights, I still say that the guy running his restaurant can't force anybody to work there or eat there, and he should be able to use or allow a legal substance there if he chooses to do so.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But is ingestion of cigarette smoke the same thing? Would that not fall under the same category as high fat or empty calories or exposure to allergens? If the government tells the employees that they can't smoke, can it tell them they can't have a candy bar in the vending machine? They can't bring a peanut butter sandwich because a coworker might be allergic? They are only permitted fresh foot and low fat healthy items in their lunch boxes?

This is known as Appealing to Extremes. The problem with smoking in the workplace is not the harm to oneself, but to one's coworkers and the harm done by the customers to the workers.

Neither of your other examples is valid; candy bars harm nobody (except maybe the over-indulgent eater), Peanut allergies are the same, the contents of your lunch box harm nobody.

You are making a false comparison in order to push your point; don't do this. If you think it should be legal to smoke in the workplace, fine, but that has nothing to do with what types of food one eats. The two substances are categorically different.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

My comments are in purple:

:Cycloptichorn" wrote:

The Constitution does not require for each dollar made by Americans to be taxed equally; and, the Constitution does not prevent Obama and the Legislature from undertaking any of the actions they have undertaken whatsoever.

False!
Article I.Section 8.
Requires uniform taxation, not uniform non-uniformity taxation.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/purple]

Ican is a notorious tax denier and has a questionable understanding of the Constitution; I certainly don't need to remind you of either of those facts. For him to focus so strongly on Obama's impeachment is a little ridiculous.

False!
I am not even a tax denier, much less a notorius tax denier. I advocate a uniform tax on all individual gross income without deductions, exemptions, refunds, paybacks, corporate taxes, business taxes, and without inheritance taxes. That's not being a tax denier! That's being a proposer of an actual uniform tax.[/purple]

There is no doubt whatsoever that Bush ordered actions which violated the 4th amendment, FISA, and treaties against torture, amongst numerous other duplicitous acts on his part.

False!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article.Section 9.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; ...[/purple]

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Many people have lived to a ripe old age despite the fact that they smoked and many have died young presumably due, at least in part, to an unhealthy diet. Peanut dust in minute quanities is dangerous for those highly allergic which is why some--most?--airlines no longer serve peanuts for inflight snacks.

I am not, therefore, making an argument based on false comparisons. I am making an argument based on valid comparisons. If the government has the right to determine what non-work-related healthy practices a company must require of its employees, then the ingestion of cigarette smoke is not that much different from ingestion of anything else that is unhealthy. And allowing the government the right to take away one right--even a right to something that we ourselves don't condone or cotton to--we do provide precedence for government to interfere with more individual rights.

Again, exposure to secondhand smoke can be minimized or eliminated with proactive ventilation. If it is unhealthy or dangerous to the general public when voluntarily used on private property, then ban tobacco as a legal substance. Otherwise, when nobody's rights or choices are compromised, government should stay out of it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

When people eat foods that are bad for them, they are not harming other's health.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It's the fact that smokers are purposefully poisoning others with a by-product of their action they have no control over. A smokeless cigarette would cure that, but we all know that's been impossible to invent. Falling back on liberty and freedom meaning one has the right to make other people sick with their actions is the same as assuming the right to driving a car onto the freeway and recklessly dart in and out of traffic. What happens there? They could get a ticket before they hit someone, or they can hit someone injuring and killing people including themselves (just like cigarettes). I drive the California freeways and I see that kind of driving way too often. Driving recklessly on a private parking lot is just as dangerous as doing it on the freeway. You're on private property but you can still get a ticket or arrested. It's not that one person goes into a privately owned restaurant and smokes if there's no ordinance and the owner is okay with it, it's that ten people go into that restaurant and smoke. It's like a cigarette gas bomb, or it was until California state and local governments began passing laws.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Again, exposure to secondhand smoke can be minimized or eliminated with proactive ventilation. If it is unhealthy or dangerous to the general public, then ban tobacco as a legal substance.

Well, I smoked nearly all my life, with periods of non-smoking between two and five years in between (now in one - hopefully - longer again). [My father, a pneumologist, smoked till his death: a family saying was that we only smoked as a kind of advertisement.]

I doubt that there are -until now- known ventilation which can minimize or even elimated the unhealthy content of smoke.
But certainly there might be some in the USA.

Alcohol, btw, is dangerous and unhealthy as well ...

When you work in a toxic surrounding and/or with unhealthy materials, labour safety laws try to protect workers. A restaurant, a bar, a pub generally and per se isn't an unhealthy workplace.
It only becomes one with smoking customers.
(In most German states, pubs, bars, restaurants have seperated smoker rooms: customers AND personal can decide if they want to go there. [Though I don't think this to be a good idea ...])

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

My comments are in purple:

:Cycloptichorn" wrote:
The Constitution does not require for each dollar made by Americans to be taxed equally; and, the Constitution does not prevent Obama and the Legislature from undertaking any of the actions they have undertaken whatsoever.

False!
Article I.Section 8.
Requires uniform taxation, not uniform non-uniformity taxation.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/purple]

Ican. Your argument omits the language of the relevant section:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

It has been pointed out to you several times before that the uniformity that you continue to pound relates to GEOGRAPHY. Is that why you omit the relevant language? To pretend that the uniformity provision means something other than what it actually says in the Constitution?

And why do you cite the 10th Amendment? The amendment provides that powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. The Constitution EXPLICITLY delegates power to the United States Congress to lay and collect taxes. In other words, the 10th Amendment does NOT support your argument that Cyclop's statement is false.

Cyclop's statement is true and you haven't provided anything from the Constitution to prove otherwise.

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

That's ican rewrite the Constitution to please me or prove a false point.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Makes me wonder how they ever graduated from school; they seem to read only what they want to read, and ignore what's really written in its totality.

Most of the conservatives on these threads seems to have this special "skill."

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Did you miss the part where I was referring not to the smoker but to those exposed to secondhand smoke? Are you saying there is no way to provide ventilation that would minimize or eliminate that? And yes, alcohol is certainly a dangerous substance when abused and must be avoided by those allergic or subject to addiction or it can be deadly and it should not be used by those who could be a danger to themselves or others if impaired. Nevertheless, for most people, a glass of wine or two at dinner or a cold beer on a hot afternoon is perfectly safe with negligible, if any, negative effect.

I put second hand smoke in a well ventilated room in the same category however much I dislike being exposed to it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Well, yes, at least what scientists say here in Europe. (But we are in the backwoods, as you know.) (And it depends on what you understand by "minimize" here: ten years death later?)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You mean like a wind tunnel? LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Those "smoker cabins" at the airports are like telephone boxes with wind channels ...

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I give up Walter. If I try to respond to posts like this I run too great a risk of misinterpreting what you intend to say. I have no clue what you mean. I'm POSITIVE you frequently misinterpret what I intend to say.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

foxfire :

i agree with much of what you write , however few - if any- of "the very rich" will ever lose their house or suffer severe depravation the way many poor people will .

you might also want to consider what thomas aquinas said :

Quote:

...one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them...

and i do believe there is an "imbalance" in today's capitalist system .
if we do not want government (our elected representatives) to have any say in running of our society , we could just as well do away with all laws and set the clock back a few hundred years .
the rich like the protection of the laws so they won't be attacked and have their money stolen and their lives threatened . i do think they have to be willing to pay the "premium" (taxes) for that protection .

canada is a somewhat more egalitarian society and even the poor and unemployed don't have to worry about completely losing their health insurance , as an example .
mrs h had a hip replacement last fall . the surgeon never asked what kind of insurance we have or if we can pay out of our own pocket . to him she ws a patient who needed his help and professional competence - that was all .
while we have to pay a rather small premium towards the "universal" health-insurance , those with low incomes do not have to pay any premium (the premiums are not graded by "healthscores" but by income ) .
should it bother us that those that do not pay any premiums get the same service we get ? of course not , we are just glad that we are all pretty well "equals" when it comes to healthcare - we are at least a little bit "egalitarian" , i believe .

please do not think that i am interested in discussing healthcare - that subject has been dealt with plenty . i just wanted to illustrate that there can be different "capitalist" systems .
you may perhaps believe that the canadian "capitalist" system is inferior to the "american" system . you may even believe that canada does not have any capitalism . that's fine with me . there are still many capitalists in canada that live happily under the canadian "capitalist" system .

perhaps many canadians have more of a christian "slant" - even though they do not belong to any christian church or wear their christianity on their sleeve . there is perhaps a strong feeling of "being your brother's keeper" and of "charity" - not by giving money to specific charities but by paying taxes so that all who need it can be given the "charity" they need .

is it a perfect system ? of course not - it's far from perfect . our personal (mrs h's and my) belief is that higher taxes , well allocated , will result in an even stronger society . and that can only be good for all canadians .
(i can assure you that not all canadians share that view - but they do like to avail themselvves of the services <GRIN> )
take care !
hbg

(a little longer than i had anticipated it to be )

2 Replies

@hamburger,

I enjoyed your post, hamburger. You made several relevant points that have substantial merit. There's an enormous amount of space in between extreme right (100 percent laizze faire capitalism; 0 percent "welfare" state) and extreme left (100 percent socialism; 100 percent "welfare" state). With respect to our own system, we are clearly to the right of center. Conservatives, however, complain to high heaven whenever they think someone else is benefiting from the public purse--but they have no qualms being the first ones in line whenever any cheese is being distributed. It's the mindset of the GREEDY.

0 Replies

@hamburger,

Thoughtful comments Hamburger, but again, you're dealing with a population about 1/10th the size of ours, less than the State of California alone. That presents certain logistical problems for us that Canada dosn't have so much. I can certainly see virtues in a single payer system and I can see drawbacks to that, but if you are happy with the scope and quality and freedom of choice with your system, who am I to quarrel with you about that? I do believe duplicating it on a scale the size of the United States might not be as simple as some wish it to be. One size fits all simply does not work in all cases.

Some years of my adult life have been spent working in hospital administration and I saw the opportunities for cheating and graft--opportunities too lucrative to be resisted by any but the most principled--when our own versions of universal healthcare went into effect--namely, Medicare and Medicade. Have these been a great blessing to many? Yes they have. Have they driven up healthcare costs and corrupted part of our medical system? Yes they have.

I'm not interested in discussing healthcare either, and offer this only as an example as you did. You used it to effectively illustrate the virtues. I used it to, I hope, effectively illustrate some of the problems.

I am a huge believer in Christian charity, or any charity, too. I believe that it hands government too much power and too much opportunity to make mischief when we assign government the ability to dispense charity. I believe only those with the hardest hearts and most selfish souls withhold benevolence. I just believe it should be voluntary. I don't see it as charity for some to have the power to require me to provide it and when they assume such power, I see that as a violation of my unalienable and Constitutional rights.

I accept I am probably a minority in that point of view.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know