View Story | 38 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I have a right to a safe workplace. Yes, I'm sure you do. Then maybe you should argue that everything that is unsafe be banned then. Why focus on smoking alone?
by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Why focus on smoking alone?
This diary happens to be about a smoking ban. Democratic Party policy happens to be in favor of safe workplaces for everyone, in and out of the US, regardless of hazard.
Then maybe you should argue that everything that is unsafe be banned then.
And that's just silly, because there is nothing that is "unsafe." Also, my profession is risk analysis. So keep arguing if you like.
Good policy weighs costs and benefits, and sets priorities based on bang for the buck. Smoking cessation is one of the cheapest ways to save a lot of lives.
John McCain: Getting Terrorists off America's Lawn since 1880
by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM PDT
Now I'm intimidated!
My argument is that government should not be in the business of determining what is appropriate for me to consume. This workplace ban, for example, is nothing more than non-smokers getting an advantage that smokers don't have.
Do non-smokers have a right to a smoke-free environment? Yes. Do non-smokers have a right to require their employer mandate a smoke free environment? No.
In the few places that allow smoking at work (as opposed to an outside break room) then the non-smoker can leave. Yes, leave. Quit. Go somewhere else. Sound harsh? It isn't. Why? Because workers do not have a right to a particular place of employment.
by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM PDT
... you could justify having high levels of, say, cotton fiber in your workplace, even though they might cause lung problems for your workers, because anyone who doesn't like it could leave.
That's the Republican policy on workplace safety. That's also the Chinese government's policy on workplace safety. We're supposed to be better than either of them.
by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM PDT
Yes, I'm advancing republican policy by suggesting that it is inappropriate for government to be more zealous in targeting cigarette smoke than automobile exhaust, both of which are harmful.
Personally, I don't think that people should smoke at work, unless they all smoke. But should all the smokers be banned from smoking for the sake of the one that doesn't?
Like it or not, people have to take responsibility for their own lives, and where they can't, that is the point where government should step in. But the argument most non-smokers advance is that government should legislate a solution for them, when they at all times had a choice to frequent a place where smoking was accepted.
If responsibility is a republican talking point, then there is something seriously wrong with your "analysis."
by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM PDT
But should all the smoke rs be banned from smoking for the sake of the one that doesn't?
Yes. It's the smoke that is being banned from the workplace.
Smokers in Michigan are still free to smoke.
And what's this crazy talk about wanting this more than tailpipe emissions? (That's both a straw man - nobody's argued it - and a false dichotomy - it's both/and not either/or.) Maybe you've been out of the country since, um, 1965, but auto emissions are heavily regulated, have been increasingly so for decades, and are subject to ever-increasing demands for reductions. Google "Prius" or "ozone" for goodness sakes.
by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM PDT
I am really with you about the smoke free workplace, but the legislation here is not merely about a smoke free workplace. It covers restaurants and bars too. Many bars and restaurants already prohibit smoking, which is fine with me. But there are some that allow it, which is fine with me as well.
Now government, no matter what way you try to spin it, has any business telling those establishments that do allow it, that they can no longer do it because a non-smoker "might" happen to come in.
If a non-smoker goes to a bar that says "Smoker Friendly," what right does government have to mandate that private establishment change it's policy to accommodate those that don't smoke?
by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM PDT
Why do YOU have the right to SPEW carcinogens into the air for no other reason than a nicotine addiction? Shouldn't drinkers be allowed to enjoy their "drug" at work also? How about pot smokers, or other drug users? Most DEMS support restrictions on automobile exhaust. For example CAFE standards reduce the amount of gasoline used, thus lowerering emisions.
CIGAGERRETES are the ONLY product that if used according to their intended use will kill you.
Cigarette users are NOT victims, except possibly of cigarette manufacturers and advertisers. I should NOT have to endure smelly clothes, itchy eyes, coughing, etc beacause of someone bad habits, to earn a living in a workplace.
Tucker Carlson says "What right is there in the constitution is there to have clean air?"
MC=W^3: McCain=W's 3rd term
by sd4david on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM PDT
I should NOT have to endure smelly clothes, itchy eyes, coughing,...
Maybe we should criminalize stinky people, those with allergies, and those with colds since "YOU" should not have to endure them.
by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 38 comments