After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Why not leave it like that? The dives (which I love, BTW) provided a legal service.

Take it back the the employee aspect. If ppl don't buy into SHS being a hazard, there's really nothing to be said. Laws could also be passed to force bars to have better ventilation, but then your forcing bars to spend money instead of just forcing them to make more money.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I'm screwed.

Most men will be as well.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Take it back the the employee aspect. If ppl don't buy into SHS being a hazard, there's really nothing to be said. Laws could also be passed to force bars to have better ventilation, but then your forcing bars to spend money instead of just forcing them to make more money.

Don't go in or work in bars with poor ventilation and/or just don't go in bars.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Don't do it, BEP. Don't do it.

I didn't.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Take it back the the employee aspect. If ppl don't buy into SHS being a hazard, there's really nothing to be said. Laws could also be passed to force bars to have better ventilation, but then your forcing bars to spend money instead of just forcing them to make more money.

I think there already are laws pertaining to proper ventilation. Wouldn't that fall under the domain of the EPA, or maybe more accurately OSHA?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by NewChief

If, on the other hand, you believe that sidestream smoke actually poses a health risk, there are legitimate reasons for smoking bans.

BTW, it's not a "belief" it's a simple FACT that the studies on this don't show a SIGNIFICANT health risk for ETS, certainly not at a level that would justify bans. The onus is on the anti-smoking crowd to show a significant risk, something they can't do.

[listopencil]

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...ONS&p_id=24602

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I think there already are laws pertaining to proper ventilation. Wouldn't that fall under the domain of the EPA, or maybe more accurately OSHA?

Don't bother. He is talking out of his ass and obviously hasn't done any research on this subject.

Yes, you are right, that all falls under the category of OSHA's workplace air quality standards... which ETS does NOT violate.

[listopencil]

This is referred to as the "General Duty Clause"
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...HACT&p_id=3359

SEC. 5. Duties
(a) Each employer --
	(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.	29 USC 654
(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Don't bother. He is talking out of his ass and obviously hasn't done any research on this subject.

Yes, you are right, that all falls under the category of OSHA's workplace air quality standards... which ETS does NOT violate.

Yup. Exactly so. I grabbed some info from the OSHA website.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I think there already are laws pertaining to proper ventilation. Wouldn't that fall under the domain of the EPA, or maybe more accurately OSHA?

Yes. And being a fellow patron of dives, you've seen how well some of their ventilation works. Their ventilation may be fine where a carton of cigs isn't being puffed.


On a lighter note. I have a friend who continues, yrs later, regularly lighting up in bars only to have someone tell him to take it outside. At first it was him kind of making a stand or being forgetful, but now he just comes off as an attention whoring retard. It's no small wonder he's been banned from more bars than anyone I know, not for smoking but other stupid behavior.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Again, that's the point. If you or anyone else sees ME as being a douche and they support smoking bans.. they need to look in the mirror. I am absolutely being a douche, just like they are when THEY go along with stripping OTHERS of their rights. Hopefully people are self aware enough to see that.

I think he means that you are personally being douchey.

Not that your position is de facto douchey.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Yes. And being a fellow patron of dives, you've seen how well some of their ventilation works.


On a lighter note. I have a friend who continues, yrs later, regularly lighting up in bars only to have someone tell him to take it outside. At first it was him kind of making a stand or being forgetful, but now he just comes off as an attention whoring retard. It's no small wonder he's been banned from more bars than anyone I know, not for smoking but other stupid behavior.

Yeah, but that's a risk you willingly take when you choose to patronize a bar that allows smoking. I am more annoyed by the fact that California doesn't allow fully naked strippers and booze in the same bar. And now I can't even watch a trashy slut shake her tits and ass through the haze of stale cigarette smoke? Might as well stay home.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I think he means that you are personally being douchey.

Not that your position is de facto douchey.

You REALLY have trouble following along.. Let me dumb it down for you.

I know I am PERSONALLY being douchey. THAT IS THE POINT. It SHOULD illustrate that anyone who arbitrarily takes away other's rights is PERSONALLY being douchey and they may want to take a step back next time before they are so cavalier about it. Being on the receiving end should piss people off. If they honestly don't give a shit about being banned then at least they are consistent in their views... if it bothers them then they need to come up with a damn good justification for why THEY should be treated with more deference than a private business owner.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Let me dumb it down for you.

That might not be possible.