Bangor makes it illegal to smoke in cars w/kids present

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Gilby

But does it actually lower the health risks of the child? They are still going to be exposed to second hand smoke in the home and other places their parents smoke.

If breathing secondhand smoke is bad for you, breathing less of it is probably less bad for you. But I'm not a doctor. I also believe that a car is one of the worst places to be confined with a smoker due to the much smaller air volume. So in one way it's probably better than a ban in the home, though less time is hopefully spent in the car. Other examples of small spaces are usually already banned, such as elevators, airplanes, mass transit vehicles, etc.

Children will still be exposed to adults' secondhand smoke outside of the car, it's true. A side effect of this law may be a greater incentive for the adults to quit. But in any case, kids are being protected by the concentrated secondhand smoke in the car environment.

Why would this law get someone to comply when just knowing the effects does not? Are the people that would not comply with the law the same people that would not stop smoking for their kids benefit to begin with?

Yes. Don't you know any smokers? I haven't talked to a single smoker in my life (after teen-hood) that didn't agree smoking was bad for them and that they should quit. Ask *them* why. Obviously it's a problem, and while the better solution is to get everyone to quit (ban smoking, period), something needs to be done in the short-term to protect the non-smokers.

A full smoking ban, or criminalization of tobacco products, would be something almost everybody could agree is a rights violation. They might still be in favor but they'd at least agree to that. But it's not going to happen in the near future. As long as we have to be surrounded by nicotine addicts, we are gradually asserting our right to not be affected by their unhealthy fumes.

No, their rights have not been preserved. The difference is that you are saying that their right is only to smoke, and I am saying that their right is to smoke in an environment where all people have choosen that smoking environment.

I think we agree there. Somewhere along the line I have to admit to sliding over the line to saying "F**k smokers' right to smoke where they want, the rest of us come first." But your quote above does not apply to a car with kids in it. Though the parent can "choose" to make secondhand smokers of their kids, it is generally agreed that nobody should smoke until they're old enough to take responsibility for their choice to do so. Something like that.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Yes, I think we are all missing the point, why are these people being forced to work in these conditions?

Good question. That goes into the murky world of labor laws. Jacquie knows quite a bit about these, being an employer of many. Suffice it to say that at some point we agreed to preserve the health of people in the workplace. In CA there are other laws, such as having warnings in odd places about chemicals being used in a given area, or building. Big warning signs on gas pumps about the nasties in the fumes surrounding the gas, etc.

For the most part, nobody is ever "forced" to work, anywhere or any time. But they do need to work to eat, so people do what they can. This is one of those situations where we, as a society, say "People shouldn't have to work under those conditions." If we say it because of health insurance costs, or other financial reasons, I still don't have a problem with the reason why.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by ivan

So, you're pretty much a fascist?

How is wanting to protect your body make you a fascist? If you want to turn your lungs into blackened mush, do it on your own time, in your own home. Far away from me. Does it make me a fascist that I support reckless-driving laws? It takes away their right to swerve around the road, but it keeps me alive. I don't see how that's any different than smoking bans. It's the same basic argument.

[cathwood]

It seems like both of our governments are disinclined to let people stew in their own juices (so to speak). I personally think that the taking of all drugs should be decriminalised - thus increasing the amount of drug takers but reducing the amount of 'drug crimes' have many innocent victims. I think it is ridiculous that 'drugs' are criminalised whereas two of the most addictive drugs - nicotine and alcohol - are not. In the meantime the laws around the taking of them are tinkered about with - in the UK smoking in public places like pubs will be banned, recently the age the people can buy cigarettes was increased from 16 to 18 (to reduce the amount of 13 year olds buying cigarettes!). I say, do it properly, make smoking illegal.

We are so confused in our attitude towards mind altering substances.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

For the most part, nobody is ever "forced" to work, anywhere or any time. But they do need to work to eat, so people do what they can. This is one of those situations where we, as a society, say "People shouldn't have to work under those conditions."

And in my opinion, I think government should be working to fix that problem, instead of the consequences of having no other choice of employment. The problem being that the job market isn't that good or that these people are not skilled enough to get a better job. It's also my opinion that the government is who caused this problem to begin with.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

If we say it because of health insurance costs, or other financial reasons, I still don't have a problem with the reason why.

These costs, I assume, are because you are paying for it? Through taxes and other government forced monetary policy. Obviously, I can make this totally drift off topic, but what if there was no cost to you or anyone that chose not to pay? That the cost was born by those that choose to smoke, or by those that voluntarily fund efficient programs to help these people?

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Gilby

I think government should be working to fix that problem, instead of the consequences of having no other choice of employment.

Do what you will with the problems of government and society, but you won't be able to do away with many jobs in the service industry. Those jobs will always exist and there will always be people willing to work them. We still have to address the concerns of those people ...and that includes protecting the air they have to breathe.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by cathwood

I personally think that the taking of all drugs should be decriminalised - thus increasing the amount of drug takers but reducing the amount of 'drug crimes' have many innocent victims. I think it is ridiculous that 'drugs' are criminalised whereas two of the most addictive drugs - nicotine and alcohol - are not.

Over here we tried making alcohol illegal -- prohibition -- around the 1920s. Horrible failure. Society at large wasn't willing to give it up, so you had the development of industries just like what we have today for drug users. Production, distribution, sales, etc., with no taxes being collected by THE MAN.

I think tobacco may eventually be done away with, but it will take a long time. The cigarette lobby has suffered lots of serious blows lately, but it's a whole new question to make tobacco companies switch to other crops, etc.

I rather favor John Childs' ideas on legalizing illegal drugs. They sound great written down, and in some ways I think it could work. It would certainly take a huge load off our prisons. But on the other hand, I watch shows on TV like Intervention. This is where we follow the life of an addict, and their family, and then watch the scene where the family brings in a specialist and tries to get the addict to agree to go to a clinic and make serious effort at getting clean. Some of them refuse to go, while others do go, but don't last very long. Legalizing the drugs that do this would seem to greatly increase these problems.

If you're saying "so what, let them be addicts" that's only the beginning of the problem. They don't work. They run up massive debts. They may turn to other crimes to pay for their "habits." Nothing that doesn't already happen to a lot of people, but it would happen on a much larger scale. I don't think it's a solution either.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Gilby

The problem being that the job market isn't that good or that these people are not skilled enough to get a better job.

The problem isn't "these people." The problem is that even if "these people" get PHDs, someone will still have to do the jobs they left. Food and drinks will not serve themselves (in the near future).

These costs, I assume, are because you are paying for it? Through taxes and other government forced monetary policy.

Whether you have health insurance or not, unless you have no insurance and also pay no taxes, peoples' choice to smoke and not quit are costing you. If you aren't paying taxes, they're costing the rest of us. Changing the structure of health insurance would approach part of the problem from a different direction, but is also basically getting us off-topic. People are still smoking now.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Do what you will with the problems of government and society, but you won't be able to do away with many jobs in the service industry. Those jobs will always exist and there will always be people willing to work them. We still have to address the concerns of those people ...and that includes protecting the air they have to breathe.

I don't think you understand how a market works. If the economy was good and there were many jobs available to each person, the person is going to choose a job that has the best conditions for them. If the smoke issue is big for them, they will not choose that environment over the other available options. In order for a business to hire people to fill these positions, that company will have to give more benefits, such as more pay, better hours, and get this, even changing the working environment. Whether, it's just better ventilation, more restricted smoking zones or voluntary banning of smoking, the business will be required to make the environment better to compete for these workers.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Gilby

If the smoke issue is big for them, they will not choose that environment over the other available options.

I don't think you understand my point. As long as there is an "option" that includes a smoky environment, there will be a hazardous environment in which someone will have to work. Those jobs won't go unstaffed... there will always be someone desparate enough to take whatever work is available.

The question stands, do you care enough about those who are lowest on the totem pole to give them safe working conditions?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by maestro8

I don't think you understand my point. As long as there is an "option" that includes a smoky environment, there will be a hazardous environment in which someone will have to work. Those jobs won't go unstaffed... there will always be someone desparate enough to take whatever work is available.

I understand what you are saying, but you are ignoring how a market works. If there are two jobs available, one with a smokey environment, and one without, and then there is only one employee available, what do you think is going to happen? Your argument says that every job has to be filled, so are they going to clone this person? Unlikely. The employee will choose the non-smokey one. They would only choose the smokey one if other conditions resulted in a better benefit to them. If the employer can't compete and must have that employee to succeed, they will have to close their business or make changes.

Originally Posted by maestro8

The question stands, do you care enough about those who are lowest on the totem pole to give them safe working conditions?

Yeah, I could hire them, but the government took their paycheck. Many other businesses, big and small, face the same situation, so the job market does look bad. If a business could keep their revenues, they could spend that money to create jobs better than any high overhead government can.

But that wasn't your question. Your question implies that we can magically wave a wand and eliminate all the problems of the world. We can't. It takes work and knowledge to make progress at eliminating the problems of the world. Not laws that take people's rights away from them. I respect people's right to choose a job that may be hazardous to them, such as being a truck driver, timber cutter, roofer, farmer, policeman, fireman, etc.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Gilby

If there are two jobs available, one with a smokey environment, and one without, and then there is only one employee available, what do you think is going to happen?

You're asking a loaded question... no fair!

In the unskilled labor market, there's never only one employee available.

Originally Posted by Bilby

Your argument says that every job has to be filled, so are they going to clone this person? Unlikely.... If the employer can't compete and must have that employee to succeed, they will have to close their business or make changes.

In the unskilled labor market, anybody with a pulse, half a brain, and a couple functional limbs will fill most positions... it doesn't take an Einstien to bus tables. I dunno about your neck of the woods, but where I live there are always more people looking for work than there are jobs.

Ferchrissakes, there are people working under the table in far more hazardous conditions (farming, meat packing, construction, etc.) than in the food / liquor service industry... if these people had a chance to do work where their biggest worry is breathing second hand smoke, I'm sure they'd make the switch.

I'd say it's safe to assume every job will be filled. Again, I state: if we can reasonably mitigate workplace hazards, let's do it! We can't keep construction workers from climbing ladders but we can certainly keep servers from having to breathe smoke.

Originally Posted by Schmilby

It takes work and knowledge to make progress at eliminating the problems of the world. Not laws that take people's rights away from them.

We're not talking about making smoking illegal altogether. That would be taking someone's right away. We don't have the right to drive where others walk (i.e. on the sidewalk), so why should we give people the right to smoke where others work?

Answer me that last one and I'll be happy. Aww, hell, who am I kidding, you'll never get the sand out of my vag*na when it comes to the smoking issue

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Aww, hell, who am I kidding, you'll never get the sand out of my vag*na when it comes to the smoking issue

Ouch! Reminder: Never ride your unicycle to the beach!

Uh huh, I speak from experience. A basic shower at the top of the beach won't do it. If you've been seriously playing in the water, a unicycle ride after that is not going to be the greatest...

I understand Gilby's concept. It just doesn't apply to the world we live in. I think we have too many laws, and too many taxes also. This one little law, I like it because I'm a non-smoker. I also like it because it's good for peoples' health. If it improves health, long-term or short-term, I consider it a good thing.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by maestro8

In the unskilled labor market, there's never only one employee available.

Yes, the problem of us not being able to produce skilled labor in our education system is a problem. It should be addressed before any restrictions of people's rights. In fact educating them would help fight the war on tobacco and not infringe on people's rights in the process.

Originally Posted by maestro8

Ferchrissakes, there are people working under the table in far more hazardous conditions (farming, meat packing, construction, etc.) than in the food / liquor service industry... if these people had a chance to do work where their biggest worry is breathing second hand smoke, I'm sure they'd make the switch.

Yup, and government is talking about increasing the incentive for even more people to go under the table like this.

Originally Posted by maestro8

I'd say it's safe to assume every job will be filled. Again, I state: if we can reasonably mitigate workplace hazards, let's do it! We can't keep construction workers from climbing ladders but we can certainly keep servers from having to breathe smoke.

Our definition of reasonable is different. Short term, smoking bans may be more effective. Long term, they decrease our rights even more. The US is heading towards fascism as it slowly takes away more and more of our rights. Long term, the smoking problem would've improved anyways.

Originally Posted by maestro8

We're not talking about making smoking illegal altogether. That would be taking someone's right away. We don't have the right to drive where others walk (i.e. on the sidewalk), so why should we give people the right to smoke where others work?

Because everyone involved has agreed to it. It's their right to do so. It should not be the right of government to tell people that they can't do something with other consenting individuals.

Like I have said before, I'd prefer the sidewalk-like solution, where you have separate areas where you can smoke, and separate areas where you can't. I never advocated smoking in a designated non-smoking section as your comparison implies. It's up to the property owners to declare what's allowed in whatever areas they set up.

Government should focus on the real problems. What is preventing the job market from not having more skilled and unskilled jobs, so that people have more choice? What is preventing people from becoming skilled laborers? Hopefully the government will have a mirror in front of them when they try to figure out the problems causing this.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I understand Gilby's concept. It just doesn't apply to the world we live in.

That leaves much unsaid. I'm curious, if you think it's flawed and impossible, or if you think it's too hard to realistically accomplish.