- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Finally. no smoking!
Finally. no smoking!Follow
They've passed that law some time ago here in CT. Now I just go to the Casino to smoke and drink and give a hearty GFY to our economy while making my donation to the Native American Retirement Fund. Either that or I go to a local bar that has already been fined for allowing it(they can only be fined once I guess) and risk getting a ticket by some random cop.
An issue arises with employees. There is an average life expectancy decrease for working in the presence of any carcinegon. Take second hand smoke. Assuming we can come up with a number - and I'm not saying we can - what would we do? Let's say: work for one year in a smoke filled environment and your life, on average, will be two months shorter - and further, you'll have $5000 extra medical bills (on average).
We can:
(a) tell employee nothing of the risks (they can do their own research)
(b) tell them the numbers, allow them to choose
(c) ask them to sign something stating they understand the risk
(d) forbid smoking indoors in these environments
(e) compensate the employee for the assumed costs (how?)
(f) set up a trust fund for them to pay these long delayed "work-related" injuries
Obviously things like (e) and (f) are difficult and expensive to implement.
Right now, my state has chosen (d) (by and large).
But what if the average decrease in lifespan is one day per year worked and the cost is $20 per year worked? Even doubling the risk of lung cancer - which sounds like a huge increase - may not lead the *average* person to a significantly shorter life (e.g. most people don't get lung cancer at all - relatively few do, many are already old and may have several competing maladies).
In the US about 60 per 100,000 people die of lung cancer per year. Assuming a 70 year average life, about 4% will die from it - but obviously this includes some heavy smokers - so if perhaps 5% smoke heavily and most of them do, indeed, die from lung cancer, the average non-smoker risk may be far less then 4% - it probably is. Now there may be a significant difference between doubling the risk *overall* that one gets cancer versus doubling the risk that *a non-smoker* will get cancer.
It is easy to mislead with statistics (wittingly or unwittingly).
We can:
(a) tell employee nothing of the risks (they can do their own research)
(b) tell them the numbers, allow them to choose
(c) ask them to sign something stating they understand the risk
(d) forbid smoking indoors in these environments
(e) compensate the employee for the assumed costs (how?)
(f) set up a trust fund for them to pay these long delayed "work-related" injuries
Obviously things like (e) and (f) are difficult and expensive to implement.
Right now, my state has chosen (d) (by and large).
But what if the average decrease in lifespan is one day per year worked and the cost is $20 per year worked? Even doubling the risk of lung cancer - which sounds like a huge increase - may not lead the *average* person to a significantly shorter life (e.g. most people don't get lung cancer at all - relatively few do, many are already old and may have several competing maladies).
In the US about 60 per 100,000 people die of lung cancer per year. Assuming a 70 year average life, about 4% will die from it - but obviously this includes some heavy smokers - so if perhaps 5% smoke heavily and most of them do, indeed, die from lung cancer, the average non-smoker risk may be far less then 4% - it probably is. Now there may be a significant difference between doubling the risk *overall* that one gets cancer versus doubling the risk that *a non-smoker* will get cancer.
It is easy to mislead with statistics (wittingly or unwittingly).
i live in madison, WI
they banned smoking in public places here about a year ago, and the businesses affected are outraged by it.
If you don't want to deal with second-hand smoke, don't go to the bar. Making it illegal just causes more problems. Many of the bars in the area are now openly encouraging patrons to break the law, and don't take responsibilty for people that smoke regardless.
What was previously a easily-avoidable healthcare issue for pushy non-smokers is now a criminal issue for smokers and a damaged bottom-line issue for business owners.
They're trying to overturn it, but it's not going well so far.
Fortunately, the surrounding towns do not have the smoking ban, so i just go to bars in sun prairie now instead.
Edited, Thu Oct 27 17:56:52 2005 by PhlareWP
they banned smoking in public places here about a year ago, and the businesses affected are outraged by it.
If you don't want to deal with second-hand smoke, don't go to the bar. Making it illegal just causes more problems. Many of the bars in the area are now openly encouraging patrons to break the law, and don't take responsibilty for people that smoke regardless.
What was previously a easily-avoidable healthcare issue for pushy non-smokers is now a criminal issue for smokers and a damaged bottom-line issue for business owners.
They're trying to overturn it, but it's not going well so far.
Fortunately, the surrounding towns do not have the smoking ban, so i just go to bars in sun prairie now instead.
Edited, Thu Oct 27 17:56:52 2005 by PhlareWP
PhlareWP wrote:
If you don't want to deal with second-hand smoke, don't go to the bar. Making it illegal just causes more problems. Many of the bars in the area are now openly encouraging patrons to break the law, and don't take responsibilty for people that smoke regardless.
Okay, but assumedly these bars have employees who are paid to inhale known carcinogens - paid to shorten their lives. Should we do any of (a) through (e) above for said employees?
Seriously: if there were no employees exposed, they would have no problem.
Let me take the argument a step further: most seniors end up on medicare and thus likely recieve *some* treatment paid for by Uncle Sam. At a minimum, should the state charge employeers something for uping the cost to treat these people?
Here in colorado they are trying to ban smoking in bars.
In Boulder they have actually passed a bill that bans smoking in certain bars.
I would have to say, "good for joo" because I quit smoking a year ago and whatever keeps that goddamn cancer **** stick away from me the better.
Smoke? Live in a lie ******. Die of cancer, emphazima, bronchitas, heart disease, emphysema...shall I go on?
Why the hell would you even question such compassionate laws to increase general overall public health.
In Boulder they have actually passed a bill that bans smoking in certain bars.
I would have to say, "good for joo" because I quit smoking a year ago and whatever keeps that goddamn cancer **** stick away from me the better.
Smoke? Live in a lie ******. Die of cancer, emphazima, bronchitas, heart disease, emphysema...shall I go on?
Why the hell would you even question such compassionate laws to increase general overall public health.
fishermanbmr wrote:
Smoke? Live in a lie ******. Die of cancer, emphazima, bronchitas, heart disease, emphysema...shall I go on?
Why the hell would you even question such compassionate laws to increase general overall public health.
Someone forgot to take his medicine.
Public health is a bit oxymoronic to me. These are "health" issues that are generated in heavily polluted cities.
Okay, if smoking is a big deal, perhaps they should ban huge SUV's with the 8, 10, 12 cylinder gas engines in heavily polluted cities for dumping more cancerous chemicals in one day than a smoker will his whole life. That is a REAL public health issue.
Quote:
Okay, if smoking is a big deal, perhaps they should ban huge SUV's with the 8, 10, 12 cylinder gas engines in heavily polluted cities for dumping more cancerous chemicals in one day than a smoker will his whole life. That is a REAL public health issue.
you make a good point, now give me validation that people are dropping dead from car exhaust and I'll support your issue.
fishermanbmr wrote:
Quote:
Okay, if smoking is a big deal, perhaps they should ban huge SUV's with the 8, 10, 12 cylinder gas engines in heavily polluted cities for dumping more cancerous chemicals in one day than a smoker will his whole life. That is a REAL public health issue.
you make a good point, now give me validation that people are dropping dead from car exhaust and I'll support your issue.
Mechanical Assisted Suicide.
Nuff' Said.
Quote:
Mechanical Assisted Suicide.
Nuff' Said.
Nuff' Said.
lol um...ok dude u win
The woman I work with is older and she's still bitter that we're not allowed to smoke in the building at work. So don't even get her started on non-smoking bars.
fishermanbmr wrote:
Quote:
Okay, if smoking is a big deal, perhaps they should ban huge SUV's with the 8, 10, 12 cylinder gas engines in heavily polluted cities for dumping more cancerous chemicals in one day than a smoker will his whole life. That is a REAL public health issue.
you make a good point, now give me validation that people are dropping dead from car exhaust and I'll support your issue.
Hehe. More to the point. Give me validation that people are dropping dead from second hand smoke.
The problem with the issue is that it's prone to hijacking based on political goals.
Fact: Some 50,000 people every year die from various heart/lung disease, but do not smoke.
Fact: Second hand smoke does contain some carcinogens that could result in those heart/lung conditions.
Conclusion sold to public: 50,000 people every year die from second hand smoke.
Problem: There are dozens of other sources of carcinogens that we breath every day that could just as easily be causing that 50,000 to die. Car exhaust contains most of the same exact harmful chemicals that second hand smoke does, and the average person is exposed to it far more often then second hand smoke. Same deal with anyone working around any of a number of chemicals. Construction work, mining, agriculture work... all cause exposure to harmful chemicals, which may not be off the chart at any given time (just as second hand smoke isnt), but over years may result in harm.
Heck. You live in an area with power plant (as most of us do). There are some substanes put into the air as a result. What about manufacturing plants? Paper mills? We can clearly understand the idea of car exhaust being bad for us, but car exhaust accounts for something like 10% of the total air pollution in the country. The bulk of it is produced by industry. How much of that can cause some people to develop heart/lung problems?
But we focus on second hand smoke? Why? Because there's money in it. If you can convince the public that it's the primary cause of those 50,000 dead a year, it makes it easier to sue tobacco companies for damages, and the people pushing the anti-smoking issue in the first place make lots and lots of money via donations to their cause, and lawsuit settlements. We attack smoking, not because it can actually be shown to cause even a significant number of those deaths, but because it's the easiest one to attack.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 272
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Finally. no smoking!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC