Smoking

[Danoff]

To my knowledge, smoking bans and minimum wage are both federally unconstitutional. A federal smoking ban (much like a drug ban) would require an abuse of the interstate commerce clause. Minimum wage also relies on an abuse of the interstate commerce clause. Neither is an enumerated power that the federal government has.

Here's some interesting language from the US constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's awfully broad - but laws regulating arbitrary behavior (such as smoking) fall under equal protection in my mind. Some would argue that you're harming others by smoking - and so it's a violation of human rights and not an arbitrary regulation. I would argue that there is a separate method for prosecuting someone for damaging your health - and if second hand smoke really is damaging to your health, you should have no trouble bringing someone up on charges.

Arbitrary regulation of behavior is not equal protection. Preventing people from harming each other does fall within the government's jurisdiction, but such a thing has already been provided for.

 

[Keef]

I agree, but when a private property is turned into a place of work for someone else, then different rules apply, since you are effectively turning a private place into a public one. Smoking in your own bar or shop is the most relevant example, but what about masturbation? Smoking and masturbating are both legal, and government certainly has no place legislating against masturbation on private property. But obviously, if that private property becomes a workplace i.e. a hotel, you hire domestic staff, open a bar etc., then the act of masturbation becomes illegal in areas where there are employees and/or customers. The defense of "it's my property, I can do whatever I please" is not true. As a property/business owner, you are still subject to the law and should observe the rights of your employees.

If you don't like people masturbating in your workplace, don't work there. If you don't like people masturbating while you eat dinner, don't eat there.

Society has a way of agreeing with itself. So far many people agree that public masturbation isn't exactly appropriate, and when people don't like it they tend to get away from it. But for some reason the same thing doesn't happen with smoke. It almost seems like people who don't like smoke seek it out on purpose, just so they have something to complain about. They stress me out, bro.

It should be up to the business owner, no exceptions. The business owner's decision is directly influenced my the customers' preferences. How much you wanna bet that if the customers don't like smoke the owner might make his joint no-smoking?

I'm a decent example. I hate smoke. It's an expensive, dirty, and wasteful habit. All my clean clothes smell like smoke within hours because my mom smokes quite often. But, while smoking was still legal here in Ohio, I still went to restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, etc, where smoking was prevalent. I really like me some pub burgers, man. Delicious. But I'm not about to blame everyone else for putting me amongst all the smoke. That, frankly, is stupid. I put myself in that situation, and the only person to blame is me.

 

[FoolKiller]

Quick question. This is based on something that I have legitimately run across at work as a manager. I, as a manager, and my company, as a privately owned, non traded, business cannot, by law, allow smoking because it may increase a risk of cancer in others. However, I, as a manager, and my company, as a privately owned, non traded, business also cannot, by law (according to my human resources lady) ask an employee with a diagnosed case of the flu (or any other non-quarantined disease), which is proven to be both contagious and deadly, to go home because it is at there own expense via PTO or unpaid medical leave. WTF?

As far as I am concerned all health arguments by politicians are hypocritical until I, with a heart condition, do not have to risk exposure to a potentially deadly illness.

 

[Keef]

Quick question. This is based on something that I have legitimately run across at work as a manager. I, as a manager, and my company, as a privately owned, non traded, business cannot, by law, allow smoking because it may increase a risk of cancer in others. However, I, as a manager, and my company, as a privately owned, non traded, business also cannot, by law (according to my human resources lady) ask an employee with a diagnosed case of the flu (or any other non-quarantined disease), which is proven to be both contagious and deadly, to go home because it is at there own expense via PTO or unpaid medical leave. WTF?

As far as I am concerned all health arguments by politicians are hypocritical until I, with a heart condition, do not have to risk exposure to a potentially deadly illness.

Right. It's a direct contradiction, and if you mentioned it to a politician they would undoubtedly come up with some retarded excuse that would only make sense if you popped some Politic Pills at a rave with all your buds.

Good thinking, FK. Also, I had no idea a supervisor couldn't suggest that an employee take sick time from work.

 

[FoolKiller]

Good thinking, FK. Also, I had no idea a supervisor couldn't suggest that an employee take sick time from work.

I can suggest all day, but I cannot force. I have spent better parts of days talking to one employee, face shielded, trying to convince them that they should go home. I even print out available sick time reports to show them that they can afford it.

But as unused sick time gets paid back at the end of the year (at 50%) forcing them to use it would be the same as taking away 4 hours of pay.

 

[Famine]

Guess what? Operating a forklift while drunk is not driving under the influence.

Yes it is. As is riding a bicycle while drunk - requires no licence to operate that either.

He is allowed to smoke in his house, because his house is above the pub, or beside it.

Wrong.

Here's another good one for you. Man A is a plumber. He has a van which is registered to his plumbing business. He isn't allowed to smoke in it.

Edit: Fun Fact: I believe in America, or at least some states, it is illegal to live "in the Pub" as you say. (unless you meant above the pub, where an owner could burn 5000 smoke a day if he wanted)

If the pub operates on the same premises as their residence (above, below, beside, within, surrounding or any other dimension) they may not smoke at all. According to the rule of the current UK smoking ban.

It's not private, the very second you employ 1 person. That's the whole point you're missing.

You're right, you did not say that. But you did imply it, very strongly, because you reapeat like a broken record that it's "private property", and they have all these rights because of that.
And it's still not private once you employ.
It's also not private once you allow a customer inside, without a membership.

But here's the nub - no-one is forced to be there against their will. Employee or customer, they are there by choice and also by permission of the owner.

You either go into a place where you know people will smoke, or you don't. It's your choice. You either allow people to smoke on your property, or you don't. It's your choice.

No, it is not. The only way it is fundamentally foolish is if you like watching big company's rake in more and more money, while people are driven into poverty.

Not in America, no. If by that you mean some people don't do squat, then that's employer's decision to fire them in most states.

We have a whole thread on this issue - minimum wage is not only unconstitutional in the US but also anti free market.

You demand a fair wage. Why can a fair wage NOT be $1/hr? Explain why someone who does work worth $1/hr must be paid more for it to be fair.

 

[Eagle]

Anyone attempting to cite the Constitution of the United States seems to me to be wasting their time. Given the phrase Danoff cited above, I'm confused how anyone ever approved of slavery, or continues to do so.

Rights are not things which are simply dictated at one point in history and held forever - rights change in response to the evolution of society. The French Conseil Constitutionnel last week ruled that Internet access is now a fundamental human right encompassed in free speech and cannot be stripped without court mandate (which was what the Three Strikes law was attempting to create for anyone who missed it).

The simple fact the mighty Constitution has 27 amendments thus far through history is proof of that.

I think anyone arguing for continuing to allow smoking simply on the basis of financial reasons is misguided. Cigarettes create a gigantic revenue stream for government, and a recent study has shown that, since smokers die younger, their health care costs are actually less than those of non-smokers (I didn't read the actual text of this study however and I'm suspicious as to whether they accounted for the cost of passive smokers in their tallying) over the course of their lives. This does not justify smoking. The slave trade generated revenue for those running it, and the slaves themselves went on to generate revenue for those who purchased and used them. But, in time, we realised this act was barbaric and unfair, and outlawed it. Would we argue that we should overlook the humanitarian cost of their endeavours simply because it would mean they were out of work? Am I suggesting that the two scenarios are congruous? No, they differ by orders of magnitude, but I feel they're analogous.

Likewise, large scale wars drive huge increases in production and create huge profits for companies and employers (Halliburton and Blackwater obviously jump to mind, but Lockheed Martin are right there too), but is anyone suggesting that waging eternal war is a great way to keep an economy going? And to anyone who actually is, do you really think that's the moral solution?

The supposed wonder of a free market is that it will account for the goings of such industries. If the cigarette industry shut tomorrow, it would mean a huge social and economical impact, but would it be something from which we could not recover? Would the jobs and the money lost simply be gone for all of time? Would the scientists and marketers and engineers not just find new jobs? Is it more unfair to make an asthmatic seek a different job because of the personal whim of the owner, or to make a Big Tobacco employee seek a different job because their product kills people?

It seems to me that debating smoking purely on the merits of money and jobs overlooks the fact that the companies involved produce a product that will go on to kill a full 30% of users and an unknown number of non-users. I don't think the debate should be about jobs and the economy as much as health. Someone like Famine may correct me, but I don't believe the toxic chemicals and carcinogens in cigarette smoke simply wash out of the air with the next rain. The percentage they contribute to overall pollution may be tiny, but it's there, and I can see far less reason for it's continued existence than petroleum.

In short I believe governments have a responsibility to protect the health of those within their borders as well as possible. I think the factories near to Famine polluting his air should be subject to prosecution and sanctions if they're indeed breaking the law, and if they're not but what they do is posing a genuine health hazard, then the law needs to be changed and the businesses brought into line with that. I think there should be grace periods to allow for the changeover, but I do think it should happen - and if they can't sustain that, then capitalism says they lose.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nice post Eagle 👍

If you don't like people masturbating in your workplace, don't work there.

Rubbish, and you've emphasised my point brilliantly. I have a right to expect that my employer cannot (and not merely will not) allow such things to be tolerated at work. Indeed, the law prevents my employer from being able to do so. In the case of permitting smoking, it used to be up to the business owner, but now it is not and I'm happy with that - the law is there to protect my right to work free from harassment or the requirment to take unnecessary health risks.

It should be up to the business owner, no exceptions.

No business owner has the right to force an employee to undergo or tolerate illegal activities or undertake any activity that infringes the rights of their employees.

 

[Famine]

I have a right to expect that my employer cannot (and not merely will not) allow such things to be tolerated at work. Indeed, the law prevents my employer from being able to do so. In the case of permitting smoking, it used to be up to the business owner, but now it is not and I'm happy with that - the law is there to protect my right to work free from harassment or the requirment to take unnecessary health risks.

Now the question naturally follows - if working in a smokey environment is an unnecessary health risk you have to accept, logically, that breathing in any smoke is a health risk.

And that would mean that any smoker who allows their smoke to be breathed in by a second person is committing an assault - they're deliberately undertaking an activity which poses a risk to another person's health (in fact you can stretch it yet further - if that person contracts a smoking related disease which leads to their demise, they've committed manslaughter/2nd degree murder).

So why is smoking legal at all?

 

[TrievelA7X]

Eh? I work in a supermarket and with pallet jacks. No-one would ever call it a Fork Lift. My dad is Manager of a warehouse for Nickel refinery, and they have pallet jacks there aswell. But they also call a Fork Lift, a Fork lift. You know, big thing you drive with forks at the front that lift. I spent a several hours of work experience in that warehouse and never heard anything of the contrary.

Well, I worked in four (4), and 3 of them called them forklifts. Wanna know why? Because they have forks and they can lift them.

Quick question. This is based on something that I have legitimately run across at work as a manager. I, as a manager, and my company, as a privately owned, non traded, business cannot, by law, allow smoking because it may increase a risk of cancer in others. However, I, as a manager, and my company, as a privately owned, non traded, business also cannot, by law (according to my human resources lady) ask an employee with a diagnosed case of the flu (or any other non-quarantined disease), which is proven to be both contagious and deadly, to go home because it is at there own expense via PTO or unpaid medical leave. WTF?

It may depend on your state, but I'd say your HR lady is wrong. She certainly is if your in any kind of food industry. (certainly in any "at will" states)

Yes it is. As is riding a bicycle while drunk - requires no licence to operate that either.

in a warehouse? are you sure? By your standpoint, it should be legal, because it's private property.

Wrong.
Here's another good one for you. Man A is a plumber. He has a van which is registered to his plumbing business. He isn't allowed to smoke in it.

Has someone been cited for this yet? (if it's true)

If the pub operates on the same premises as their residence (above, below, beside, within, surrounding or any other dimension) they may not smoke at all. According to the rule of the current UK smoking ban.

I said American, so why say UK? but either way, assuming that true for both America & the UK, has anyone been cited for it? Or are you griping about a technicallity that is not enforced? In 3 states "death by firing squad" is still legal. In others, it's illegal to drive at night without a lantern attached to the front of your vehicle. So what?

But here's the nub - no-one is forced to be there against their will. Employee or customer, they are there by choice and also by permission of the owner.
You either go into a place where you know people will smoke, or you don't. It's your choice. You either allow people to smoke on your property, or you don't. It's your choice.

I agree with you about the pubs, etc. Why are you still arguing me over that?

We have a whole thread on this issue - minimum wage is not only unconstitutional in the US but also anti free market.

Lots of things are unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it's right. Last I checked, fallible men made that constitution, no?

You demand a fair wage. Why can a fair wage NOT be $1/hr? Explain why someone who does work worth $1/hr must be paid more for it to be fair.

If you're thinking nobody in America would work for it, you're wrong. some people would do it, just for a few bucks. Most cases would be people making 3-5$ an hour, which is not enough money to survive on here. But people would do it, because it would be all that was available. Thus driving people into poverty.
You seem to think employer's should be allowed to do whatever they please. Would it be okay if your wife came home, and told you her boss forced her to have sex with him, so she could keep her job? Not rape, just "I'll fire you if you don't" (keep in mind that's only illegal because the government dictated what employers can't do on their "private" property.)
You should read eagle's post again. And then again.

 

[Eagle]

So why is smoking legal at all?

The $146 billion dollar question - and that figure (which I believe represents the size of the tobacco industry in 2007, but that's from my own extrapolations) may very well be the answer. It's a giant revenue stream, something incredibly ingrained in our conciousness, that millions and millions of people around the world are addicted to (some seemingly incurably), and a subject where Goliath is willing to spend what it takes to stay in the game. Regardless of the major lawsuits of the late 90s, the world is still ripe with 'scientific' misinformation and propaganda that was paid for by tobacco companies, who continue to fund 'independent' institutes to promote their agenda. The mere fact they spent $308 million US over the last 12 years attempting to defeat the bill that re-started this thread is proof of their intentions.

According to a Philip Morris memo from 1992, smokers working in environments with a smoking ban had an 84% higher quit rate than average - that seems like something we would want to encourage.

As for criminal proceedings, as you yourself have said earlier in the thread Famine, cancer (and the other afflictions associated with smoking) are incredibly hard to conclusively diagnose as having come from one particular source. Sadly, we don't live in the world of House where one magical moment determines everything that follows in abstraction. But I would think in the case of a child, who had been exposed consistently, without consent, for numerous years and consequently contracted an associated affliction, a case could indeed be made.

 

[Famine]

Eagle - indeed. So the further question from that is... if it can't be categorised as a specific assault from a specific health risk in a public setting, why is there leap to it being a specific health risk in a private setting - sufficient enough to make a law about it?

in a warehouse? are you sure? By your standpoint, it should be legal, because it's private property.

By yours it shouldn't be legal to ride a bicycle drunk anywhere, because private property with more than one person able to access it is no longer private and should be governed by more oppressive laws than actual public spaces...

Has someone been cited for this yet? (if it's true)

Yep.

There's even a case ongoing (last I was aware) where a couple are suing their next door neighbours for smoking in their own house and garden because the smell permeates theirs.

I said American, so why say UK?

We actually have a nationwide smoking ban.

but either way, assuming that true for both America & the UK, has anyone been cited for it?

Yep.

I agree with you about the pubs, etc. Why are you still arguing me over that?

Do you?

You agree that publicans should be permitted to say whether or not they will allow any legal pastime on their own property?

Lots of things are unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it's right.

... yeeeeeees?

If you're thinking nobody in America would work for it, you're wrong.

I'm not thinking that at all. I'm asking you to justify the opinion that $1/hr for work worth $1/hr cannot be a "fair wage" to which you have the "right".

You seem to think employer's should be allowed to do whatever they please.

I'm pretty sure that I don't. I'm fairly sure you've just made that up, for some reason.

I think that private property should not be subject to specific laws which do not also apply to public property...

Would it be okay if your wife came home, and told you her boss forced her to have sex with him, so she could keep her job? Not rape

That IS rape. Forcing someone to have sex with them under duress? The definition of rape.


If something is perfectly legal in a public setting there is no reason to make it illegal in private. So long as people are aware of what is contained within so they can make a personal judgement call, I have no problem with anything publicly legal taking place in a private setting.

 

[Eagle]

Eagle - indeed. So the further question from that is... if it can't be categorised as a specific assault from a specific health risk in a public setting, why is there leap to it being a specific health risk in a private setting - sufficient enough to make a law about it?

I'm not sure why private property is back on the table - personally I don't see a distinction, but you keep citing the publican example so I guess I'll address that.

The publican owns a private property, he lives there, and he opens a bar there - why does it instantly mean he can't do, in what is still technically his private setting, things he used to be able to do? For the same reason that whilst no one conducts inspections of your house to verify that your food was prepared under sanitary conditions, if you operate a public restaurant out of your kitchen, you're subject to health codes designed to protect the public from being poisoned. I don't see a distinction between food poisoning and smoking in that circumstance.

As for being able to establish smoking as a health risk in a general public setting, well, whilst you can't sue Earth for having a level of background radiation, you can sue the nuclear power plant operators if they screw up and create another Chernobyl. So the government creates laws to control how the power station manages its radioactive material to avoid exposure to the public - so why not the same sort of restrictions for smoking?

I realise that, judging by what you've said of the UK laws, and based on our laws in Australia, that's essentially what you have. But in the same way that radiation is pervasive, and just because you only play with it on your private property doesn't guarantee it won't affect others, I don't see why smoking should get special dispensation.

 

[Keef]

Rubbish, and you've emphasised my point brilliantly. I have a right to expect that my employer cannot (and not merely will not) allow such things to be tolerated at work. Indeed, the law prevents my employer from being able to do so. In the case of permitting smoking, it used to be up to the business owner, but now it is not and I'm happy with that - the law is there to protect my right to work free from harassment or the requirment to take unnecessary health risks.

So, your right to work free from harassment, which you already had, is protected by law, but you (or, smokers) lost their right to choose where to smoke. You didn't gain anything, but you did lose something. Whereas you used to have the freedom to choose where to work (which might include working for an employer who chose to disallow smoking), you decided to ignore that freedom and take somebody else's freedom, because their breath is stinky. Government - 1, Citizens - 0.

No business owner has the right to force an employee to undergo or tolerate illegal activities or undertake any activity that infringes the rights of their employees.

Of course, that's common sense. But nobody is forced to work anywhere. And since working anywhere is the choice of the employee, that means they are not forced to do anything at all, including "any activity that infringes the rights of [the] employees".

So long as people are aware of what is contained within so they can make a personal judgement call, I have no problem with anything publicly legal taking place in a private setting.

Perfectly reasonable and agreeable.

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure why private property is back on the table - personally I don't see a distinction, but you keep citing the publican example so I guess I'll address that.

The publican owns a private property, he lives there, and he opens a bar there - why does it instantly mean he can't do, in what is still technically his private setting, things he used to be able to do? For the same reason that whilst no one conducts inspections of your house to verify that your food was prepared under sanitary conditions, if you operate a public restaurant out of your kitchen, you're subject to health codes designed to protect the public from being poisoned. I don't see a distinction between food poisoning and smoking in that circumstance.

There is a clear distinction - providing a service.

If you're providing food to somebody - particularly for a price, though not necessarily - you should be responsible for providing it in a satisfactory condition. It shouldn't kill them and it should look like the picture on the menu. There are branches of government (in the US and the UK - and I'd wager probably Australia too) that deal with products being satisfactory.

No restaurant, pub or any business of which I am aware rents the air out to you, charging a fee on the door before you enter.

As for being able to establish smoking as a health risk in a general public setting, well, whilst you can't sue Earth for having a level of background radiation, you can sue the nuclear power plant operators if they screw up and create another Chernobyl. So the government creates laws to control how the power station manages its radioactive material to avoid exposure to the public - so why not the same sort of restrictions for smoking?

Now... I hate to get technical on you here but, under current UK laws regarding radioactive waste, if you scoop up a handful of soil and take it into the site of a nuclear power station you will not be allowed to take it back out again. Even if it's from just outside the fence and it's moved, horizontal, just 2 inches. Once it's in it can't come out again - the level of background radiation in the UK would class that soil as medium-level radioactive waste if it left a power station and must be treated as such.

Fun fact

That aside, I can tell you with a pretty sharp figure exactly what amount of radiation poses a risk to you. But I don't have any such figure for cigarette smoke. And to carry the analogy yet further, no-one has ever been classed as "murdered" through cigarette smoke inhalation from a second party - compare to Alexander Litvinenko who was murdered by ingestion of a radioactive isotope in the UK in 2006.


In fact we have similar margins and regulations for all known toxins and toxic emissions like radiation, oxides of carbon, oxides of sulphur, oxides of nitrogen, oxides of oxygen () and all other things beside. This is why the two HUGE industries near me have a maximum permitted emissions level for each - yet they still lower my life expectancy by about the same as a 20 year smoking habit (and thank Xenu I don't work there!) even at this distance. But we don't have a definitive "this much cigarette smoke is definitely hazardous to your health".

So your question as to why cigarette smoke should be treated differently from any other hazardous emission? Well firstly, quite - businesses can emit all kinds of toxic fumes but no-one can ever smoke there which, to me, seems like it is treated differently. But secondly we have no definitive level at which cigarette smoke becomes hazardous whereas we do for everything else...

 

[FoolKiller]

Anyone attempting to cite the Constitution of the United States seems to me to be wasting their time. Given the phrase Danoff cited above, I'm confused how anyone ever approved of slavery, or continues to do so.

I'll start here. Slavery was left off from being directly addressed due to the fact that goal was to unify the colonies in opposition to British rule. To succeed they needed to have a working relationship as one whole to trade and transport supplies with each other. As slavery was still a heavily debated topic at the time adding it into the mix would have prevented the US from ever forming. Add into that the fact that when the Constitution was written and signed the most vocal opponents, Jefferson (ironic), Adams, and Franklin were in Europe on diplomatic missions.

Rights are not things which are simply dictated at one point in history and held forever - rights change in response to the evolution of society.

So, you are going to tell me that the Bill of Rights has zero real meaning? Are you one of these people who think that the Constitution is a living breathing document subject to change and that the Rights laid out in the first 10 amendments are subject to the whims of the time? If you are then the Constitution has no meaning and the United States existence is merely an experiment in freedom. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States itself were all conceived on the notion of principles that led to limited government, personal liberties, and a free market. If those principles are subject to change (which principles do not change, values do) the the whole existence of the United States and any government modeled after it is unimportant. Freedom and liberty as a way of life is not important.

No, sir, the founding principles behind the Constitution do not change. We have ignored it surely, but the principles still exist and I will stand here today and say that nothing our government does can change those principals. The difference between a legal right and a human right are undeniable.

Personally, I find that the fourth amendment defends the property rights of a business owner as I find that preventing legal activities is unreasonable and should not be a justifiable means to allow search and seizure.

The simple fact the mighty Constitution has 27 amendments thus far through history is proof of that.

But it is the first ten of those that lay out specific rights. The Constitution itself limits government. Most of the amendments also limit government. Heck, one amendment is limiting government by repealing an amendment that removed a right. The Constitution does much more to limit government than anything else and it is only in the latter half of this country's history that attempts to make it give government more power has happened. A time period in which any Constitutional defender has complained about.

It may depend on your state, but I'd say your HR lady is wrong. She certainly is if your in any kind of food industry. (certainly in any "at will" states)

I do not work in the food industry. I work in an office. However, when I was in college I worked part time at Meijer in their Deli/Grill area and if someone came in sick my supervisor could only make them wash dishes or wipe down tables all day. I asked and he said that he could not send them home, but at that time he made it sound like a union issue, not a legal one.

All I know is that I have yet to be in a job where we could force an hourly employee to go home due to illness without comping them the time.

 

[Sureboss]

Contagious illnesses in food, beverage and hotelier industries:

Okay, I'll try and answer this, done enough about Health and Safety/Food Hygiene to know this, but it is late.

There are two people in this: Employee and Employer.

Until the employer tells their supervisor that they are ill, they are responsible for anything which relates to their illness. Once a supervisor has been told it is their responsibility to send them home, which they must do, as the law states. (UK law, probably the same in the States on this and European law too). Once the employee has told their supervisor the employee is no longer responsible for anything caused by their illness.

Needless to say the provision of food, beverage and hotels (think bed linens, etc) is a very high risk industry. Carelessness can result in deaths or serious illnesses.

[story]

At the Fat Duck (Heston Blumenthal's restaurant) about 500 diners (iirc) were taken ill and I've heard that it was caused because he put raw kidney beans into liquid hydrogen, which failed to kill the bacteria in the raw kidney beans and thus people got taken ill.

[/story]

Any other questions on this, ask.

As for whether it is paid or not, I'm not totally sure, though this is where it probably differs between here and the UK. I think it might depend upon the "kindness" of the business (most will have a policy on this, I'll ask my boss tomorrow) but it in no way impacts upon their responsibility to send the employee home if they pose a risk to the hazardous service.

 

[Danoff]

Anyone attempting to cite the Constitution of the United States seems to me to be wasting their time. Given the phrase Danoff cited above, I'm confused how anyone ever approved of slavery, or continues to do so.

Yes, the constitution was not perfect when it was written (the people writing it attempted to make this point abundantly clear). The Amendment that I cited was written after the American civil war - so you can see why it was needed.

Rights are not things which are simply dictated at one point in history and held forever - rights change in response to the evolution of society.

Rights have been dictated forever and will be dictated forever. They are derived objectively from logic, and do not change at any point in response to anything. Least of all subjective valuation of society.

Just because the US hasn't always observed human rights doesn't invalidate the concept, and it doesn't prevent me from citing areas where the US does properly identify and uphold human rights.

I see smoking bans on private property as a direct violation of objective human rights - and it always will be. Much as slavery always was and always will be a violation of human rights. I have outlined the reasoning (which I did not invent) that I use as the basis for this conclusion.

 

[Famine]

[story]

At the Fat Duck (Heston Blumenthal's restaurant) about 500 diners (iirc) were taken ill and I've heard that it was caused because he put raw kidney beans into liquid hydrogen, which failed to kill the bacteria in the raw kidney beans and thus people got taken ill.

[/story]

It was an outbreak of norovirus from a contagious diner - Blumenthal was cleared of responsibility...


Also, raw kidney beans? They contain ricin. I wouldn't touch that with a 93 million mile long pole.

 

[Sureboss]

Ah, I'll take that story as a chef talking balls then.

 

[TrievelA7X]

By yours it shouldn't be legal to ride a bicycle drunk anywhere, because private property with more than one person able to access it is no longer private and should be governed by more oppressive laws than actual public spaces...

Did I say that?
I said if you employ one person.
Double check your references, I never said private property with "more than one person able to access", or anything of the sort.

Yep.

There's even a case ongoing (last I was aware) where a couple are suing their next door neighbours for smoking in their own house and garden because the smell permeates theirs.

That would not be a case of a pub owner smoking above his pub. And until they win, a lawsuit means virtually nothing.
Someone "sued" McDonald's for serving hot coffee. It made national news, but did they win? I never heard they did, so I can't credit it.

We actually have a nationwide smoking ban.

True, as does my state.(statewide) But you used UK law in retort to my statement of American law.

Do you?

You agree that publicans should be permitted to say whether or not they will allow any legal pastime on their own property?

Anything legal I can think of, but you may have a trick up your sleeve. I believe anyplace that is serving customers, be it a grocery store, tobacco shop, pub, bar & grill, retaurant, etc. should be allowed to decide, based on their own interpretations of customer demands.
It is the workplace that there is simply no need for that potential health risk. And I believe it is the employers responsibillity to ensure the health of their workers while they are at work, as much as they can. This does not mean saw operators will never lose a finger, but that the employer should be responsible for taking all possible precautions, and smoking inside is no different.
The only exception - would be if the workplae has a fully ventillated smoking room. That is not a health risk, provided employees don't have any need to walk in or through it.

Lots of things are uconstitutional, that doesn't make it right

... yeeeeeees?

I meant constitutional. As someone else posted, wasn't slavery allowed by the constitution at one point or no?

I'm not thinking that at all. I'm asking you to justify the opinion that $1/hr for work worth $1/hr cannot be a "fair wage" to which you have the "right".

Because it's 2009. Not everyone can just go farm the land, we need to be able to work for a living, and 1$ an hour doesn't cut it. Basically, workplaces made this necessary by underpaying, hence taking advantage of people.

m pretty sure that I don't. I'm fairly sure you've just made that up, for some reason.

I think that private property should not be subject to specific laws which do not also apply to public property...

Before you get upset now, remember that you did this same thing, as I quoted at the top of this post.
The fundamental misunderstanding here, is that as far as law is concerned, a workplace is not "private property" the way a person's home is. There is an established difference.

That IS rape. Forcing someone to have sex with them under duress? The definition of rape

.I guess that depends on your definition of rape. In an argument where you are already questioning the law, it is illogical to use other law as guideline. Such as your definition of rape above. Unless your using contradictory law as guideline, which is not the case here.

If something is perfectly legal in a public setting there is no reason to make it illegal in private. So long as people are aware of what is contained within so they can make a personal judgement call, I have no problem with anything publicly legal taking place in a private setting.

I agree, except that other than the workplace, and places where customers are present, "public" pretty much means outside, doesn't it?

If you check up on OSHA law, you'll find the "right to know" act, where employers are required to inform employees of all potentially hazardous materials in the workplace. You'll also find laws the require certain training, or restrictions as to what employers must do to protect their employees. Like I said earlier, by law, you must certify, and test employees before they may operate certain powered equipment, do you think that this is also out-of-bounds?
The fact is, over the past, employers have brought these actions on themselves, by simply not giving a crap who they hurt, or what damages they cause. Their irresponsible actions destroyed lives, wrecked homes, and now they are simply paying the cost.
No sir, you won't find 1 ounce of sorrow in me for employers, they always have, and always will do whatever it takes to save a buck, whether it's following the law, or finding a way around it.

 

[Sureboss]

There is only one definition of rape.

 

[Famine]

He won't admit that a fair wage for $1/hr of work is $1/hr. I very much doubt he'll accept that forcing a person to have sex under any circumstance is rape.

 

[Sureboss]

$1/hr sounds about right for my ex...

 

[Duke]

Because it's 2009. Not everyone can just go farm the land, we need to be able to work for a living, and 1$ an hour doesn't cut it. Basically, workplaces made this necessary by underpaying, hence taking advantage of people.

LOL wut?

 

[Danoff]

Employers should be allowed to not pay someone for not having sex with them (provided that it was part of their employment contract). It's called prostitution, and it should be legal. Now, there's a guy at my house right now doing some repairs (ie: I'm employing him). I've signed a contract with him that says I'll pay the better part of $400 for the work that he has itemized. If, after signing the contract (which I just signed), I told him that I wouldn't pay him for the work unless he had sex with me, he could justifiably sue me.

 

[Lucas]

LOL wut?

Where's Duke?! What have you done to him?!

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, Obama signed the new bill into law. In the process he cited his own weakness and basically continued the idea that people are too stupid to know the warnings on their own.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-22-antismoking-bill_N.htm?csp=34

Obama cites struggle to quit as he signs anti-smoking bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama cited his own long struggle to quit the cigarettes he got hooked on as a teenager as he signed the nation's strongest-ever anti-smoking bill Monday and praised it for providing critically needed protections for kids.

"The decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of tobacco has emerged victorious," Obama said at a signing ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.

The bill marks the latest legislative victory for Obama's first five months. Among his other successes: a $787 billion economic stimulus bill, legislation to expand a state program providing children's health insurance and a bill making it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination.

The president has frequently spoken, in the White House and on the campaign trail, of his own struggles to quit smoking. He brought it up during Monday's ceremony while criticizing the tobacco industry for marketing its products to young people.

Obama said almost 90% of people who smoke began at age 18 or younger, snared in a dangerous and hard-to-kick habit.

"I know — I was one of these teenagers," Obama said. "So I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."

Before dozens of invited guests, including children from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the president signed legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

Obama accused the tobacco industry of targeting young people, exposing them to a "constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn and where they play. Most insidiously, they are offered products with flavorings that mask the taste of tobacco and make it even more tempting."

The new law bans candy and fruit flavors in tobacco products, and it limits advertising that could attract young people.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act also allows the FDA to lower the amount of addiction-causing nicotine in tobacco products and block misleading labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright.

"It is a law that will save American lives," Obama said.

Anti-smoking advocates looked forward to the bill after years of attempts to control an industry so fundamental to the U.S. that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the Capitol.

Opponents from tobacco-growing states such as top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA had proved through a series of food safety failures that it was not up to the job of regulation. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or to prevent others from starting, lawmakers should ensure that people have other options, like smokeless tobacco.

As president, George W. Bush opposed the legislation and threatened a veto after it passed the House last year. The Obama administration, by contrast, issued a statement declaring strong support for the measure.

Dear Mr. President,

I understand that you suffer from a vice and are too weak to stop, but that does not give you the right to accuse the American people of being too ignorant to know the dangers of smoking, or to assume that your new law will actually help people get a stronger will power. If you feel that only the force of law can help you stop then I believe you have a personal issue and not one that should be used as a justification for affecting millions of people's lives. Some Americans don't want your "help."

PS. Show me someone who actually thinks "Light" means "Healthy" and I will show you an idiot.

 

[Touring Mars]

Gosh, does every decision Obama makes have to be about stomping on human rights? Big Tobacco has had this coming from the day they decided that targeting the young was a good idea, to the day they decided to ignore/cover-up their own evidence that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Tough titty to them is all I can say. Yes, I don't think that it's a great day for consumer freedoms, but at the same time this law will ultimately do alot more good than harm in my opinion. To misrepresent this as a personal issue for Obama is to misunderstand the point completely.

 

[Danoff]

Gosh, does every decision Obama makes have to be about stomping on human rights?

Just about.

...but at the same time this law will ultimately do alot more good than harm in my opinion.

Banning all cars would save lives too.