The slippery slope

We have known that cooking fumes are deadly for years as well, but no one wants to outlaw BBQ restaurants.
Again, it is private property, as long as the ventilation allows for OSHA standards in air quality... if you don't like it, don't eat or shop there.

[wolf]

Kelo vs. New London, if nothing else, has shown us that we have a great deal of difficulty defining the terms "public" and "private."

I think market forces rather than law should determine things like this (smoking/non-smoking).

But now I have another reason not to go to Philadelphia.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Again, it is private property, as long as the ventilation allows for OSHA standards in air quality... if you don't like it, don't eat or shop there.

By your reasoning, why should OSHA standards apply? Couldn't market forces determine the acceptible level of air toxicity in the workplace?

That is not my reasoning at all. I was very clear. There is no need to twist my words and meaning in any way.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

That is not my reasoning at all. I was very clear.

It would appear not. Even after your admonition I don't see how I twisted anything. If you don't like working in a non-OSHA-compliant workplace, and said workplace is private property, couldn't you find another job?

If I am missing the distinction, please point it out to me.

I was specific in my post, but I will spell-it-out for you, since you need that.
I feel that there need to be certain standards for air quality within reasonable limits.
Saying there can be no smoke means that there can be no more BBQ joints, no more Asian cook to order bars, no more anything with any kind of smoke... I would not be able to burn trees in the groves I used to work in, or cook in any of the restaurants I used to work in... this little OSHA red herring is so transparent.
Smoking sections, cooking areas, clubs and bars had to be OSHA compliant for air quality/ventilation well before any of this came-up.
True, if you want to be in a completely smoke free environment, I agree, you need to find another job.
Absolutely, bar or restaurant that is privately owned, where the owners wish their patrons to be able to smoke on their property would be a stupid choice of places to work, just like if you hate to walk and don't want varicose veins... don't do it genius.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Saying there can be no smoke means that there can be no more BBQ joints, no more Asian cook to order bars, no more anything with any kind of smoke... I would not be able to burn trees in the groves I used to work in, or cook in any of the restaurants I used to work in... this little OSHA red herring is so transparent.

They don't ban "smoke". The type of smoke matters. Different types have different acceptible levels. Burning plastic is different from burning wood, which is different from burning palm oil. There are plenty of things that, if burned in a restauraunt at a similar concentration to the normal griddle smoke, would be considered toxic or carcinogenic, and plenty of things that, if burned at a much higher concentration than the griddle, would be considered fine.

And several types of cooking fumes and smoke have been classified as type one carcinogens. Again, as long as the area meets OSHA standards via ventilation it is no one's damn business what someone allows on their private property.
I guess no one should be allowed to be a fireman now?
It is sick that so many have allowed the busybodies to impose their bullshit on private citizens... your food will be next.
Liberty is a bad word now.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I guess no one should be allowed to be a fireman now?

They have a ton of safety regulations ... no more valiantly dashing into a burning building with no face mask, etc.

[Skunks]

The psychoanalytic theorist, Slavoj Žižek, has argued that the contemporary trend of introducing smoking bans in the Western world is part of a much larger cultural trend towards "absolute narcissism", in which it is always assumed "that whenever you are in contact with another person, somehow he or she can infect you".

(wikipedia)

An interesting perspective.


But me, I think neither smoking nor overeating is a problem which ever will be solved (in any meaningful sense of the word) by way of legislation. Nor gay marriage, nor abortion, nor most of the things that are of late treated as sincerely critical issues.

Before yes vs no, equally intense consideration should be given to whether or not the question is relevant and to whether or not it is our place to decide. Too often, the unasked for answers are no on both counts.

[Griff]

Well said.

But, how can they be "free" if they are not "free" to inflict their will on all of those around them, even on their own property?
To a busybody, freedom means "I'm free to never be uncomfortable, to never hear speech I don't like, never to have to change the channel or to have to decide whether to watch or not to watch or to decide not to shop or eat somewhere where someone has different values and tastes than I" and nothing else.
It is the freedom to be a bully and it gives them wood.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

We have known that cooking fumes are deadly for years as well, ...

BBQ fumes (inside a building) are also dangerous. So why was the other half of that fact (BBQ is also dangerous) intentionally ignored? Classic Rush Limbaugh logic? We don't BBQ inside for same reasons - a threat to innocent lives. However cigarette smokers so hate other's rights as to condom same kind of lies that also claimed the Ozone layer was not being destroyed. Half truths. We now have a fact. Second hand smoke is dangerous - 'slam dunk'. And based in science; not in Karl Rove propaganda.

Any public establishment that allows smoking condemns me - bans me - from that establishment. Smokers literally drive off healthy people only because of drug addiction and total disrespect for others. Would you point an unloaded gun at another? Of course not. So obvious that we don't need laws to ban that act - or at least should not. And yet cigarette smokers are so addicted (and therefore not logical) as to impose their addiction on all others.

You want to drag race? Fine. Go find a track where you do not threaten other's lives. You want to smoke? Fine. Build a structure for your drug addiction. No objection to a cigarette or heroine addiction. Problems start when you impose those additions on others.

You have no right to urinate in a urinal where others are eating. Urine vapors are not deadly. Meanwhile cigarette smokers have no problem doing something far more dangerous than urinating in the same room. It’s called practicing an addictive drug habit with complete disregard for the rights and health of others.

You want lower intelligence? Fine. That's your problem. Keep smoking. However you have no right to impose that penalty on anyone else.

Smokers need to understand what they are. Addicts. They are dangerous - just like BBQing inside the room - at the expense of other innocent people.

[Ibby]

But it's YOUR choice to not go there. The government shouldn't be involved at all.

[Kitsune]

Why stop at places to eat? Why not people's cars? Of course, this is only if there is a child under age six in the car because, obviously, it is child abuse.

Is it really? Does subjecting a child to second hand smoke constitute child abuse? Is the smoker causing damage to the child's body, much like (or potentially causing more damage than) striking them? If it is abuse, is subjecting others to second hand smoke parallel to commiting assault? Can I go into public and release cyanide vapor for my enjoyment and just assume others around me should go away? People have a choice! I should be able to go into a restaurant and open a capsule of anthrax to the air if I want! Often, I walk down the street and fire my handgun randomly in the air. I have a very high chance of hurting myself in enjoying that hobby, but people around me shouldn't interfere with my freedom despite that I might hurt them, right?

Wheeee! I love sliding down this slope!