another reason to go into medicine

[Napoleon4000]

I see. But, isn't the government for the people and their welfare, not the welfare of businesses. The government says that you can drink but can't smoke. Hipocrisy. You can give yourself liver damage, but lung cancer and emphezema are ok. I think it's ok for the government to regulate smoking in public places. Mind you this is my opinion. I do however, see where you are coming from in that where does the line end. Good point. However, I must strongly support gov't regulation of public areas. I live in Cali. so smoking in bars is illegal. It makes sense. All this research bull**** and not a single piece of legislation banning soda. The cases of type II diabetes have rise. As well as obesity. Food pyramid?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pagemmapants]

The food pyramid is BS (at least the original). Look at the bottom tier: 6-11 servings of grains per day. Look at what the food pyramid is displayed on: breads and cereals. Clever marketing strategy, though, I must say.

 

[Jon Davis]

I see. But, isn't the government for the people and their welfare, not the welfare of businesses. The government says that you can drink but can't smoke. Hipocrisy. You can give yourself liver damage, but lung cancer and emphezema are ok. I think it's ok for the government to regulate smoking in public places. Mind you this is my opinion. I do however, see where you are coming from in that where does the line end. Good point. However, I must strongly support gov't regulation of public areas. I live in Cali. so smoking in bars is illegal. It makes sense. All this research bull**** and not a single piece of legislation banning soda. The cases of type II diabetes have rise. As well as obesity. Food pyramid?

A funny think about the food pyramid. It was shown to be a completely baseless idea. Even the government now admits it is wrong. There is some new thing but whatever. Click the link below in my signature if you want to learn about the messed up gov't and the truth.

 

[DrBowtie]

I am waiting for alcohol to be banned indoors since it evaporates readily. BAM! Alcohol pollution.

If someone wants to ruin their health knowingly then so be it. There is nothing that can be done for that person. Smokers know the dangers and continue to, so let them smoke.

I don't see why a business can't choose which side of the fence they want to be on. There would be plenty of places to eat and have fun on either side of the debate. If smoking becomes so unpopular that the smoking establishments can't turn a profit anymore then by the nature of economics there will be a self imposed ban.

 

[Napoleon4000]

Just think of a restaurant as an airplane that doesn't fly, or travel really. I certainly would want to inhale another person's lack of reasoning and potentially hurt myself in the process. You and I stand on different grounds. Even at NIH (bldg 10) in Betheda, smoking is banned. I went to SFN and visited some colleagues there. The signs are still up. Again, the government telling people what to do. You can't drive on a red light, right? You can't shoot someone, right? And you can't yell fire in a movie theater or tamper with smoke alarms, right? So, why should someone be able to increase my chances, unwillingly, of having CVD or lung cancer?

 

[Shredder]

I don't see why a business can't choose which side of the fence they want to be on. There would be plenty of places to eat and have fun on either side of the debate. If smoking becomes so unpopular that the smoking establishments can't turn a profit anymore then by the nature of economics there will be a self imposed ban.

precisely, and i pointed this out on another thread where mcdonalds phased out super size due to unpopularity. i dont think they were forced to, it was just good business to do so.

napoleon, public bans i can understand, but bars are private establishments. next up: bans on what you can do in your home. Prohibition didnt work, and it was based on flawed fundamentals by overzealous bureaucrats. basically, its not within your or the govts rights to tell business owners what to do with their enterprises, which are very different from public sidewalks and plazas that everyone shares.

as for airlines--i think certain airlines should be able to position themselves as smokers' airlines. that decision should be up to them, not "federal mandates" and this and that. the only way i could understand is if smoking posed some threat to the flights safety, bc even if the passengers were willing to take on that risk, theres a chance the plane could crash and damage ppl or property on the ground. but thats a remote chance.

 

[Jon Davis]

precisely, and i pointed this out on another thread where mcdonalds phased out super size due to unpopularity. i dont think they were forced to, it was just good business to do so.

It was due to bad publicity.

 

[pagemmapants]

Speaking of stupid laws: Attempted Suicide is listed as a felony in some states.

Can I please have the right to control my own body back? Thanks.

 

[DrBowtie]

Just think of a restaurant as an airplane that doesn't fly, or travel really. I certainly would want to inhale another person's lack of reasoning and potentially hurt myself in the process. You and I stand on different grounds. Even at NIH (bldg 10) in Betheda, smoking is banned. I went to SFN and visited some colleagues there. The signs are still up. Again, the government telling people what to do. You can't drive on a red light, right? You can't shoot someone, right? And you can't yell fire in a movie theater or tamper with smoke alarms, right? So, why should someone be able to increase my chances, unwillingly, of having CVD or lung cancer?

With proper signage, I don't understand what the issue is. If a business says there is smoke within and you don't want to be exposed THEN DONT ENTER.

Where bars and clubs differ from other establishments is there purpose. People CHOOSE to go there for entertainment and meals. There is no reason why you couldn't avoid these places in your life. It is an elective decision to frequent these places unlike say a hospital.

 

[Shredder]

It was due to bad publicity.

is there a big difference between the two? if it was good business mcdonalds would have kept it, publicity be damned. but in the end it must have been hurting their bottom line, so they bended to the consumers' will, as rational businesses will always do. no govt meddling needed

by unpopular i didnt mean they werent selling well from the get go. it was only after the media smearing that mcdonalds took action on it, presumably to cut losses in that area

 

[Napoleon4000]

Medicine is great! I think it is filled with so many challenges. We stand on different points of views here. Just think, the founders of the US dealt with this issue too.

Personally, I'm against any kind of debauchery. Alcohol, smoking, all bad stuff. I wonder if society will change. Did people smoke on the starship enterprise? I wonder if Capt Piccard or Capt. Kirk ever had to put out someone's cigarrett? I know the all had the occoasional drink. I also wonder where they put all of the waste compilled on a starship like that? I wonder if they pulled a "dave mathew's band?" That is where did they dump all their waste.

 

[Shredder]

With proper signage, I don't understand what the issue is. If a business says there is smoke within and you don't want to be exposed THEN DONT ENTER.

Where bars and clubs differ from other establishments is there purpose. People CHOOSE to go there for entertainment and meals. There is no reason why you couldn't avoid these places in your life. It is an elective decision to frequent these places unlike say a hospital.

to take it to an extreme, ive seen arguments that businesses should be permitted to discriminate in employment and in clientele, based on this theory of consumer choice. gasp! i dont want to open a pandoras box to have the thought police close it though

Medicine is great! I think it is filled with so many challenges. We stand on different points of views here. Just think, the founders of the US dealt with this issue too.

Personally, I'm against any kind of debauchery. Alcohol, smoking, all bad stuff. I wonder if society will change. Did people smoke on the starship enterprise? I wonder if Capt Piccard or Capt. Kirk ever had to put out someone's cigarrett? I know the all had the occoasional drink. I also wonder where they put all of the waste compilled on a starship like that? I wonder if they pulled a "dave mathew's band?" That is where did they dump all their waste.

best star trek site ever, my friend just showed me today, funny you bring it up
http://picard.ytmnd.com/

 

[pagemmapants]

See, this is what scares me. I personally LIKE certain types of debauchery and if I harm nobody else but myself in partaking in such activities (like, oh, having a few too many margaritas like I did last night), I don't see why it should be in the power of anyone else to say that I can't. Big brother, much? Society won't change and even if we do eventually HAVE starships, you can bet your bippy the Captain will most likely have a secret stash of scotch hidden under the dash, in the grand tradition of such tipplers as Churchill and Jefferson. Indeed, those founding fathers of which you speak? HA! Jefferson was probably more debauched than Clinton, and even Our Friend, the ORIGINAL Georgie W of cherry tree fame, drank a whole lot of rum. Hitler, on the other hand, was a teetotaller and a non-smoker.

 

[DrBowtie]

to take it to an extreme, ive seen arguments that businesses should be permitted to discriminate in employment and in clientele, based on this theory of consumer choice. gasp! i dont want to open a pandoras box to have the thought police close it though
best star trek site ever, my friend just showed me today, funny you bring it up
http://picard.ytmnd.com/

As a consumer you can choose what establishments you use your dollars at. This is one of the most powerful forces in the world.

Businesses should be able to try to attract consumers.

The thing about discrimination is that for the most part it is hard to prove where you would want to use it. Hiring more attractive people for working in the front end of a restaurant. The skills necessary can't justify discrimination since you can't really be underqualified for those type of jobs.

 

[thegenius]

in austin they enacted a public smoking ban, including private bars and clubs downtown. business has since plummeted. ppl who dislike smoking/smokers/smoke think its all the rage. they dont understand the big picture. woohoo, lets outlaw other ppls rights one by one according to how we see fit. and then we can wait until its our rights' turn.

In El Paso, the smoking ban (one of the strongest in the nation) had no statistical effect on restaurant and bar revenues.

The link below suggests that your claim above is not true, however Austin Tx, is not El Paso, Tx. A 10 second search from Yahoo led me to this link. Ths study was published by the CDC. The excerpt and link are below:

Smoke-free indoor air ordinances protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke exposure, which is associated with increased risks for heart disease and lung cancer in adults and respiratory disease in children (1,2). As of January 2004, five states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New York) and 72 municipalities in the United States had passed laws that prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, restaurants, and bars (3). On January 2, 2002, El Paso, Texas (2000 population: 563,662), implemented an ordinance banning smoking in all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. The El Paso smoking ban is the strongest smoke-free indoor air ordinance in Texas and includes stipulations for enforcement of the ban by firefighting and law enforcement agencies, with fines of up to $500 for ordinance violations (4). To assess whether the El Paso smoking ban affected restaurant and bar revenues, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC analyzed sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data during the 12 years preceding and 1 year after the smoking ban was implemented. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which determined that no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities (5--8). Local public health officials can use these data to support implementation of smoke-free environments as recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (9).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

 

[Napoleon4000]

Interesting site, but nothing on my question on waste. Nice jingle. I'll never forget it and probably start to sing it while I'm working on experiments.

 

[pagemmapants]

Hiring more attractive people for working in the front end of a restaurant.

Seen the staff members at any gym in LA recently? If THAT isn't "appearance discrimination" I don't know what is.

 

[Napoleon4000]

Seilienne: Gym: working out: physically fit; not discrimination (No fat people telling me to push it!). Sorry, this is not discrimination, just prudence.

thegenius: right on!

 

[pagemmapants]

"Books don't cause cancer or emphezema."

So should we outlaw sun exposure? Artificial sweeteners? charred beef? benzene? formaldehyde? ethidium bromide? most OTC cosmetics? toilet cleaners?
Bananas are radioactive. . . are we gonna get rid of them too?

(The gym thing was just me being silly, BTW)

 

[Napoleon4000]

Napoleon and Hitler....two different people. And while I am against debauchery, I'm not a fascist. But just like Napoleon, I believe in reform for the people, education and the potential for social advancement through hard work. Napoleon became a dictator only after there were three assasination attempts on his life. He survived all of them by mere minutes. I don't like to be in the same sentence as the other guy considering that I'm Jewish. Thanks.

 

[pagemmapants]

Never said you were - never even MENTIONED Napoleon. It was just an illustration of how "debauchery" does not necessarily equate to "bad person". I personally hardly know a thing about Napoleon's history.

 

[pagemmapants]

BTW: I just want to take a "time out" to show my appreciation for being able to have legitimate intellectual arguments like this without having them turn into personal attacks. Thanks!

 

[thegenius]

As a consumer you can choose what establishments you use your dollars at. This is one of the most powerful forces in the world.

Businesses should be able to try to attract consumers.

The thing about discrimination is that for the most part it is hard to prove where you would want to use it. Hiring more attractive people for working in the front end of a restaurant. The skills necessary can't justify discrimination since you can't really be underqualified for those type of jobs.

You will not get any argument against that - but the health effects of second hand smoke (as I'm sure you know) are detectable and reproducable. Citizens and lawmakers accordingly have determined that the health effects from second hand smoke outweight the benefits you listed above.

There is a law in California that prevents parents from smoking in cars when they are transporting a child (under 6 years of age I believe, but I could be wrong with that number.) So there is further encroachment into our private lives. I also believe that California passed a law prohibiting smoking on the entire coastline. At least, last I heard it was going to be passed or it was barely defeated in the state legislature (and will likely pass the next go around.)

 

[Flopotomist]

I wanted to respond to BrettBatchelor's comments about the smoking establishments. The reason states like CA outlawed smoking had nothing to do with the health of the patrons, you are right, the patrons could choose to just go elsewhere. The law was passed to protect the employees of the bars and restaurants that were forced to work for 8+hours in smoky areas.

 

[pagemmapants]

Ah, but couldn't the employees go work elsewhere?

Personally I'm a fan of the ban in public buildings, but am still undecided re: restaurants/bars. This is an interesting dialogue.

 

[Shredder]

These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities (5--8) Local public health officials can use these data to support implementation of smoke-free environments as recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (9).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

i dont trust govt doctored spin and studies. they will always try to portray their policies in the best light. the govt will always try to propagate and expand itself, as well as its employees and their positions. also, does it account for any business closings that might have happened?

btw about the uss enterprise--picard can rule how he wants. its up to competitors to start up new enterprises (clever, i know) to woo his unhappy passengers away. also napoleon your gym reasoning can easily be extended. country club: mostly affluent heterosexuals. its not discrimination to exclude gays from employment, its just prudence. gasp, but that wouldnt be politic. same applies to race in whatever example, you get the idea. theres no difference between prudence and discrimination as its defined in this context

 

[DrBowtie]

You will not get any argument against that - but the health effects of second hand smoke (as I'm sure you know) are detectable and reproducable. Citizens and lawmakers accordingly have determined that the health effects from second hand smoke outweight the benefits you listed above.

There is a law in California that prevents parents from smoking in cars when they are transporting a child (under 6 years of age I believe, but I could be wrong with that number.) So there is further encroachment into our private lives. I also believe that California passed a law prohibiting smoking on the entire coastline. At least, last I heard it was going to be passed or it was barely defeated in the state legislature (and will likely pass the next go around.)

I agree that there is factual evidence for second hand smoke. Hence why I was saying that for private businesses they should be able to choose whether they want to allow smoking or not. This would then in turn be advertised on the outside to warn those who enter there will be smoke inside.

This way it makes all parties happy. The non-smoker will have a place to eat and the smoker will have a place to eat.

A potential problem I see with the smoking ban is that it just displaces the smokers to right outside the doorway of the bar/club thus forcing customers to walk the gauntlet to get inside.

 

[thegenius]

Speaking of stupid laws: Attempted Suicide is listed as a felony in some states.

Can I please have the right to control my own body back? Thanks.

Absolutely. As long as I (a tax payer) don't have to pay for a penny of anything cost that might result from your actions.

 

[pagemmapants]

Wouldn't expect you to! I'm fully insured.

 

[Shredder]

You will not get any argument against that - but the health effects of second hand smoke (as I'm sure you know) are detectable and reproducable. Citizens and lawmakers accordingly have determined that the health effects from second hand smoke outweight the benefits you listed above.

There is a law in California that prevents parents from smoking in cars when they are transporting a child (under 6 years of age I believe, but I could be wrong with that number.) So there is further encroachment into our private lives. I also believe that California passed a law prohibiting smoking on the entire coastline. At least, last I heard it was going to be passed or it was barely defeated in the state legislature (and will likely pass the next go around.)

i can understand protecting the kids' right to breathe clean air until they are 18 yrs old and able to escape from their parents. but bars and clubs are enclosed entities, theres no reason to prevent them from allowing smoking. if the issue is smoke spilling out of the door, they can easily construct some kind of airlock to contain that. but thats going to extremes. it still follows logically by this reasoning that if you can ban smoking that way, you should enact a number of additional bans including burgers and fries, cake, cookies, you name it. the benefits outweigh the costs

 

[thegenius]

i dont trust govt doctored spin and studies. they will always try to portray their policies in the best light. the govt will always try to propagate and expand itself, as well as its employees and their positions. also, does it account for any business closings that might have happened?

Fair enough. And I don't know if the study accounted for business closings. (I'll be honest and say I only read the abstract.)

Can you provide some impartial evidence to support your claim?

 

[Napoleon4000]

Put simply, I agree with you on not forcing people to do want they don't want to do, which includes "fun" stuff and eating the foods you like. I just don't like the fact, that after all I've learned, now I'm trying to lay off too much sugar because it causes inflammation, caffeine, etc. I want to be a model for my patients. And I also want to live a longer life without too many chronic illnesses, as I probably will suffer from AD and hypertension given my family history. It's almost as if all this education is a warning. I still debate myself often about what is right and wrong. Where is the gray area? We are obligated to do the same for others. I think banning smoking in public places is ok. I eat lots of fruit now. Drink at least 8 glasses of water. It's funny, mass media tell us that "the streets are deadly," "watch out for terrorists" but they never say, eat well and do things in moderation because we are our own worst enemy. We lock the door and think everything is ok. We are safe, and then we eat burgers, fries, pizza, soda and later in life, we wonder why we suffer. This is what I don't want. Preventive medicine is also good.

 

[Flopotomist]

Ah, but couldn't the employees go work elsewhere?

Personally I'm a fan of the ban in public buildings, but am still undecided re: restaurants/bars. This is an interesting dialogue.

By your logic, does OSHA even have a role? Should we allow companies to subject employees to lethal levels of radiation or toxic fumes without protection because they can "choose to work elsewhere?"

The economic forces operating on bars made it unfeasable for a bar to be "smoke free." What this meant was that those of us with bartending skills had NO place to work if we didn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke until the law was passed.

 

[thegenius]

I agree that there is factual evidence for second hand smoke. Hence why I was saying that for private businesses they should be able to choose whether they want to allow smoking or not. This would then in turn be advertised on the outside to warn those who enter there will be smoke inside.

This way it makes all parties happy. The non-smoker will have a place to eat and the smoker will have a place to eat.

I have no problem with that. I wonder if there are any caveats in the law to allow such an establishment.

A potential problem I see with the smoking ban is that it just displaces the smokers to right outside the doorway of the bar/club thus forcing customers to walk the gauntlet to get inside.

That is a big problem, I agree. And I also think this potentially explains why there hasn't been a statistical impact on economic revenues.

 

[Shredder]

Fair enough. And I don't know if the study accounted for business closings. (I'll be honest and say I only read the abstract.)

Can you provide some impartial evidence to support your claim?

haha...no, based on my own refutation of yours it would be impossible for me to provide anything more substantial. thats why i dont usually provide or ask for hard evidence. none of it can be take at face value, it all comes within its context and with its fine print.

in spite of evidence, even if yours is taken as true, i still feel its impinging on rights and heading down a slippery slope. and thats something that doesnt need facts and figures to contend.

 

[pagemmapants]

Good rebuttal, Flopotomist. I have no response to that.

 

[thegenius]

Wouldn't expect you to! I'm fully insured.

That's fine, but let's say that you are smoking in your car while driving, and as you take a puff your eyes wander to the ceiling of your car. You then hit a homeless man on the street and you both suffer severe injuries. Your insurance will pay for your injuries, but the government pays for the homeless man's bills.

Tax payers will have to foot the bill for your actions. I know this is an outlandish example but I chose it for that reason.

 

[pagemmapants]

I was talking about suicide. . . not smoking in my car. But then by the same logic the same homeless man incident could occur if I was fiddling with my radio. Should we outlaw radios?

 

[Shredder]

By your logic, does OSHA even have a role? Should we allow companies to subject employees to lethal levels of radiation or toxic fumes without protection because they can "choose to work elsewhere?"

The economic forces operating on bars made it unfeasable for a bar to be "smoke free." What this meant was that those of us with bartending skills had NO place to work if we didn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke until the law was passed.

i have a rebuttal. ive read that OSHA is unnecessary--employers will compete amongst each other to attract employees by offering safer workplaces. employees are just as much something to be competed for as customers.

if no bars were smoke free and employees desperately wanted that, a bold employee could turn entrepreneurial and open a smoke free bar to draw all of the best talent. something along those lines, can elaborate if needed

 

[DrBowtie]

That's fine, but let's say that you are smoking in your car while driving, and as you take a puff your eyes wander to the ceiling of your car. You then hit a homeless man on the street and you both suffer severe injuries. Your insurance will pay for your injuries, but the government pays for the homeless man's bills.

Tax payers will have to foot the bill for your actions. I know this is an outlandish example but I chose it for that reason.

It wouldn't have to be smoking to cause the negligence. It could be just daydreaming. I would have thought in that case your insurance would pay out for their bills since it was your fault.

Why the person was negligent doesn't really matter to me, just like why the person was murdered doesn't matter either. Equal punishment IMO.

 

[Shredder]

I was talking about suicide. . . not smoking in my car. But then by the same logic the same homeless man incident could occur if I was fiddling with my radio. Should we outlaw radios?

 

[pagemmapants]

if no bars were smoke free and employees desperately wanted that, a bold employee could turn entrepreneurial and open and smoke free bar to draw all of the best talent. something along those lines, can elaborate if needed

Coal miners. They didn't exactly have many other options. . .

 

[DrBowtie]

Coal miners. They didn't exactly have many other options. . .

Thats why they turned into a union.

 

[pagemmapants]

Anyway, kids, thanks for these impressively stimulating debates! To tell you the truth, I can't wait 'til I'm classmates with some of you guys so that my brain doesn't experience the same dearth of intellectual conversation that it has in undergrad. I swear, some of the *****s that the UC system lets in nowadays. . . Seriously, though - I haven't been this entertained on a Tuesday night since my cable went out and I couldn't watch House anymore. Makes me feel damn good about my future colleagues.
Goodnight, all.

 

[Shredder]

Coal miners. They didn't exactly have many other options. . .

employees place some economic value on their preferences. for example, for a coal miner to avoid black lung may be worth $10/month to him. so, if a competing coal firm opened up and offered a healthy lung environment but $9 less per hour, the coal miner presumably would take the job.

similarly if a competing bar offered $5 less per hour and the bartenders valued a smoke free environment at $6/hour, they would work at the smoke free bar. makes sense? placing values on preferences. there are always options

 

[Napoleon4000]

I just saw the movie Madagascar. Very funny! I especially liked the penguins. Has anyone else seen it?

 

[thegenius]

It wouldn't have to be smoking to cause the negligence. It could be just daydreaming. I would have thought in that case your insurance would pay out for their bills since it was your fault.

Why the person was negligent doesn't really matter to me, just like why the person was murdered doesn't matter either. Equal punishment IMO.

Yea, I gave a horrible example. Let me give another:

Say you are puffing on a cigarrette and you unknowingly blow smoke in a homeless man's face. He then contracts lung cancer and dies a month later.

The point of my argument is that people want to have unlimited cart-blanche control over their bodies but in reality there are limits on what you are allowed to do to yourself. Nobody is going to outlaw tattoing or face painting but if your actions affect others, then I think those actions can be subject to regulation.

 

[Shredder]

Thats why they turned into a union.

bleh unions are bad for markets. its the employee equivalent of a cartel

 

[DrBowtie]

I'm signing out as well. Its 3AM here and now officially my bday .
Glad no flaming occured.

 

[Flopotomist]

i have a rebuttal. ive read that OSHA is unnecessary--employers will compete amongst each other to attract employees by offering safer workplaces. employees are just as much something to be competed for as customers.

if no bars were smoke free and employees desperately wanted that, a bold employee could turn entrepreneurial and open a smoke free bar to draw all of the best talent. something along those lines, can elaborate if needed

I hesitate to try to debate with you shredder on this, because I know how entrenched you are with your "totally free market is the answer to everything" attitude. However, when employees lives are at stake, we can't rely on employers to make the moral decision for economic purposes alone. For example, what if OSHA did not exist, and hospitals no longer provided gloves? Or what if chemical plants no longer provided respirators?

I worked as a bartender, and it was my only option (where else can you make that much $$ with that schedule?) As a nonsmoker, I HATED to breath that smoky air for hours and hours, but had no choice... nonsmoking bars just didn't exist until the state intervened.