- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I’m about tired of the smoking bans in bars
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:09 am to FightnBobLafollette
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:09 am to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
Moronic. People get killed on the job and thhey didn’t make poor choices.
Name a single person who got killed by 2nd hand smoke because they were forced to work in a bar that permitted smoking.
^^^Read all of the above and think before you respond
1
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:09 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
huffing paint thinner is already illegal in many states.
I know, can you believe big government telling us what we can or can't do with our own paint thinner? This is America, damnit. If I want to legally purchase paint thinner and go to a bar that's ok with me breathing in that sweet, sweet nectar, they should be able to let me.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:15 am to AbitaFan08
quote:
I know, can you believe big government telling us what we can or can't do with our own paint thinner? This is America, damnit. If I want to legally purchase paint thinner and go to a bar that's ok with me breathing in that sweet, sweet nectar, they should be able to let me.
This is probably going to hurt your delicate little feelings, but I don't believe the government should have any right to restrict what any person does in the privacy of their own home provided that they are not harming another human being or animals. Up to and including currently illegal drugs and paint thinner.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:15 am to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
You refuse to accept that employees have the legal right to a safe environment.
You are so confused, and that is ok.
There is a fundamental difference between a "safe work environment" (of which absolutely none exists) and the employers conveyance of risk and providing of necessary safety protocols , engineering controls, PPE, etc.
No work place is "safe". Life is not "safe". Everything is risk. It is all about how we convey and respond to those risks, especially when discussing in legal contexts.
Employers need to tell employees the risks associated with each job. In such a case, we are talking about smoking. If a business does allow smoking, then perhaps a superior ventilation code should be established and enforced for those businesses and workers. On a more extreme side, employers could provided forced air breathing respirators during shifts. Finally, the prospective employer could just make a conscious decision that the potential adverse health effects outside the advantage of working at this establishment.
Hope that helps you out a little bit.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:17 am to Vols&Shaft83
Why would that hurt my feelings? Though delicate and little they be.
Like miniature Faberge eggs, my feelings.
Like miniature Faberge eggs, my feelings.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:18 am to AbitaFan08
quote:are you really igorning the intended use argument?
AbitaFan08
I really hope you aren't an attorney
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:18 am to fr33manator
quote:
An establishment should be able to set it’s own rules. Not have the state force them down its throat
You may be surprised to know that a lot of business owners are happy with the smoking ban, despite what they may tell their customers.
Cigarette smoke causes havoc on HVAC systems, producing build-up in the duct work. Back in the day, bar owners would have to spend big money on commercial air filtration systems. The odor seeps into the furniture and walls, and stains everything yellow.
I used to work in a restaurant way back in the day that had a “smoking section” and the smoke would literally peel the wallpaper off the wall.
Business owners didn’t allow smoking back in the day because they were excited to take on the burden of owning a smoke-filled establishment; they allowed it because the market dictated that people liked to smoke while drinking and if they didn’t allow it too, they would potentially lose a portion of their client base.
Less people are smoking these days and I’d bet if the ban was lifted, you would not see as many bars allow it back.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:22 am to Box Geauxrilla
quote:and this should be allowed to continue until laws on the use of tobacco dictate otherwise
the market dictated
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:22 am to Rouge
Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:23 am to Rouge
quote:
There is a fundamental difference between a "safe work environment" (of which absolutely none exists) and the employers conveyance of risk and providing of necessary safety protocols , engineering controls, PPE, etc.
No work place is "safe". Life is not "safe". Everything is risk. It is all about how we convey and respond to those risks, especially when discussing in legal contexts.
Someone is on the safety committee at their place of employment
. You're absolutely right btw
Posted on 7/20/19 at 9:24 am to FightnBobLafollette
quote:
Moronic. People get killed on the job and thhey didn’t make poor choices.
If you hate smoke, don't work in a smoking environment.
Aint choices grand? And the gubmint doesn't even need to protect you...
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:08 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Need more bans IMO - I don't want you giving me lung cancer, or having to smell that god awful smell
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:11 am to TigerTatorTots
quote:
I don't want you giving me lung cancer,
Go elsewhere. quote:
The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance."
Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute's Screening and Prevention Board, and he said the study merely confirms what many researchers already believed.
"What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great," he said. "While that's good news, it shouldn't stop anyone from saying, "I don't want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking.
Forbes
This post was edited on 7/20/19 at 10:22 am
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:19 am to Jake88
I don’t know why that concept is so hard for a lot of them to understand. They need daddy government to make all the decisions for them I guess.
This post was edited on 7/20/19 at 10:32 am
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:20 am to fr33manator
quote:
I’m saying that if there is a legal product, to buy from any convenience or grocer, then why shouldn’t it be up to the discretion of the bar whether they allow it or not? I mean they are selling alcohol, children aren’t allowed. So why shouldn’t a bar owner choose to have a smoking or non smoking establishment?
Alcohol is a legal product to buy and I can't walk around outside in Chicago drinking it.
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:21 am to fr33manator
quote:
And alcohol contributes to cirhossis of the liver, heart disease, etc.
Right, but me drinking alcohol doesn't affect your liver. See the difference?
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:23 am to LSU Delts
quote:
Never understood how the government can tell private businesses what they can and can't do inside their establishment.
This line always makes me laugh. You think the government doesn't have a shitload of laws that govern how businesses have to be run?
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:24 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Alcohol is a legal product to buy and I can't walk around outside in Chicago drinking it.
So one stupid law justifies another?
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:25 am to InwardJim
quote:
Wrong. It should be a owner/management policy not government mandated...if you don't like it then don't work there.
So would you say the same for all the oil rigs in the gulf? Zero safety standards and let the employees pay the price to find out which is safe and which is not?
Posted on 7/20/19 at 10:31 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
It’s a shame that the government “needs” to get involved at all.
But if we dont have the government to protect us from drugs, smoking, alcohol, sex traffickers, and deviants who will?
The folks who favor smoking in bars seem to think they know whats best for them and we all know they need govt to protect them.
This post was edited on 7/20/19 at 10:34 am
Page 5 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News