2012 US Presidential Election

[AceHigh]

Always the mysterious "they" who are to blame.

A few days ago me and my friend had lunch in a café. Ordered French onion soup and a glass of water while waiting. All glass sizes were the same, as the place is not aimed at the demographic that is only interested in shoving large quantities of food in their gaping maw.

If small cup sizes are your daily problem, then I have some bad news for you: you might want to reconsider the choice of the place when eating out. Honestly you Americans really try to convince me even more that in your country you have nothing else other than McDonalds. Because seriously, whining for a government regulation to make you stop eating at the place of your choice is silly.

[Ixarku]

You guys can spend the rest of your life arguing the pros and cons of 'social engineering' and not come to any sort of agreement.  I think it's another one of those ideological things where one's view is derived from one's own personal morality.
 
Personally, I won't shed any tears if and when tobacco is completely banned.  I don't really have any problem with banning it in public places either, but banning it on a person's private property or in a business that specifically caters to clientele that use it is going too far in my opinion.  I don't have a problem with social engineering in certain instances as long as government takes a light touch with it -- incentivize people for engaging in positive behaviors rather than punishing the negative.
 
As far as tobacco goes, in the U.S. at least you're going to find more and more companies trying to control their employees to prevent its use -- there's more social engineering right there, except it's coming from the private sector.  Example:  at my company, we're required to disclose any tobacco use in anyone covered by our health insurance, and if we have tobacco users covered, we pay a penalty on our premiums.  We're also required to fill out an online 'health risk assessment' questionaire about our personal health condition, or we pay another penalty on our premiums.  That's just the beginning -- I've heard anecdotally stories of other businesses actually firing employees who use tobacco.

[Nikkoru]

I don't really have any problem with banning it in public places either, but banning it on a person's private property or in a business that specifically caters to clientele that use it is going too far in my opinion.  I don't have a problem with social engineering in certain instances as long as government takes a light touch with it -- incentivize people for engaging in positive behaviors rather than punishing the negative.
 

Except that, as I've mentioned -- no business has the right to poison its employees. Which essentially is what your saying that those owners are free to do to everyone who works for them. I don't think the connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer/COPD need be reiterated.

You can say, "Well, they can always quit" To that I'll say fuck you.

What if your employer put a gas generator next your desk or made you work in a building lined with asbestos? You'd probably be very very unhappy. But chances are you still want to work, and are willing to do so regardless because steady employment is generally a good thing. You'll probably tolerate it, or someone else will. Especially if you're working in a low-skill occupation like food services.

Like it or not the service industry does have rights, negligible though they may be, protection from lethal carcinogenics is one of them.

Now, if the owner does all the labour him or herself and wants to die with expediency, good for them.

Recreational drug use needn't be illegal, but I don't have to tolerate threats to myself or others simply to oblige users.

[Bob2004]

You guys can spend the rest of your life arguing the pros and cons of 'social engineering' and not come to any sort of agreement.  I think it's another one of those ideological things where one's view is derived from one's own personal morality.
 
Personally, I won't shed any tears if and when tobacco is completely banned.  I don't really have any problem with banning it in public places either, but banning it on a person's private property or in a business that specifically caters to clientele that use it is going too far in my opinion.  I don't have a problem with social engineering in certain instances as long as government takes a light touch with it -- incentivize people for engaging in positive behaviors rather than punishing the negative.
 
As far as tobacco goes, in the U.S. at least you're going to find more and more companies trying to control their employees to prevent its use -- there's more social engineering right there, except it's coming from the private sector.  Example:  at my company, we're required to disclose any tobacco use in anyone covered by our health insurance, and if we have tobacco users covered, we pay a penalty on our premiums.  We're also required to fill out an online 'health risk assessment' questionaire about our personal health condition, or we pay another penalty on our premiums.  That's just the beginning -- I've heard anecdotally stories of other businesses actually firing employees who use tobacco.

I actually applied for a job the other day, and one of the questions on the application form was "Are you a smoker?". I thought it was a slightly odd thing to ask, until I got to the bottom of the form, and there was a bunch of stuff about work hours, conditions etc, and it said "[Company] is a strictly non-smoking organisation, and we take the health and safety of our staff very seriously. Therefore, employees are strictly forbidden from smoking during their shift, or on or near the premises, under any circumstances." - at which point I put two and two together, and realised exactly why they were asking applicants if they were smokers: So they could immediately reject any applicants who said yes.

Also, +1 to Nikkoru's post there. I agree completely.

[AceHigh]

Except that, as I've mentioned -- no business has the right to poison its employees. Which essentially is what your saying that those owners are free to do to everyone who works for them. I don't think the connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer/COPD need be reiterated.

If you seek employment in a pub called "Cigar and whiskey", then you pretty much know what you will be dealing with on a daily basis. It's not like anyone is forced to work in places that specifically caters to smoking customers. As I said free market and it includes job market as well. Because following your logic we should close down coal mining business and a lot of other hazardous industry.

The only thing that government could demand in my opinion is some quality control from tobacco industry. Imagine if you bought cigars and cigarillos only. No more smoking paper impregnated with all kind of shit.

[Nikkoru]

Except that, as I've mentioned -- no business has the right to poison its employees. Which essentially is what your saying that those owners are free to do to everyone who works for them. I don't think the connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer/COPD need be reiterated.

If you seek employment in a pub called "Cigar and whiskey", then you pretty much know what you will be dealing with on a daily basis. It's not like anyone is forced to work in places that specifically caters to smoking customers. As I said free market and it includes job market as well. Because following your logic we should close down coal mining business and a lot of other hazardous industry.

The only thing that government could demand in my opinion is some quality control from tobacco industry. Imagine if you bought cigars and cigarillos only. No more smoking paper impregnated with all kind of shit.

Coal mining is one of the most heavily regulated and safety-conscious industries in North America. We've seen a 90% drop in cases of lung disease among miners since the 70's. Why? "social engineering" evidently. The majority of cases remaining are caused by poor adherence to regulations, and are given considerable compensation for their problems.. 

If your business strategy involves damaging your employees health -- potentially lethally -- you, the employer, are responsible for mitigating that harm as much as reasonably possible.

Either your business will simply have to find another market to sell to -- or provide full protection from the toxic materials the you expect your staff to be exposed to. This is no different than laws requiring the wearing of insulating material as an electrician or radiation suits at a nuclear plant. No one in their right mind would tell those professionals to simply accept the very plausible result of death or illness, because according to their ideology governments shouldn't be requiring private businesses to do anything so long as that worker is there voluntarily.

[AceHigh]

Hire smokers, problem fixed. There is no problem if nobody is complaining.

[buchno]

It'd be wonderful if smokers switched to snus instead, so that we wouldn't have to worry about people (including me) around them getting poisoned too.

[AceHigh]

EU banned snus with Sweden and Denmark being exception, but went even further by introducing a law to ban flavoured tobacco products in all EU countries, which hits snus producers really hard. Worst thing: there is no second hand smoking or anything like that, yet without any logic EU continues a serious witch hunt to ban this product.

Now that is some fucked up social engineering that has only the aim to force people to quit their habits.

[buchno]

I'd missed that. No wonder I never saw it anywhere in London...

[Nikkoru]

Hire smokers, problem fixed. There is no problem if nobody is complaining.

Yeah, I think confirming you're a drug user as a requirement for a job position could open its own host of issues. More to the point, being in a space with substantial second-hand smoke for long periods of time has detrimental health risks exceeding that of being a smoker.

[Burkingam]

Hire smokers, problem fixed. There is no problem if nobody is complaining.

Yeah, I think confirming you're a drug user as a requirement for a job position could open its own host of issues. More to the point, being in a space with substantial second-hand smoke for long periods of time has detrimental health risks exceeding that of being a smoker.

And it would make it that much harder to quite smoking. Which was one of my points. If it means you have to find a new job or new places to hang out, it can be enough to discourage people who want to quit. Ban it from all public places and you solve this problem.

[AceHigh]

So where would a smoker be able to smoke then? Let's review the social engineering policies: you are not allowed to smoke in public areas, but a street in a city definitely counts as a public area. Also people smoking outside also "disturb" others with smoking. In your own house or in your car? There is already an outcry "think of the children" even if you personally don't have any. In the forest? no, that's littering and in dry areas also a fire hazard. In your garden? Well great if you have one.

Some laws are in place, others are slowly but surely being pressed through the system. Very soon all those laws combined would be equal of smoking ban altogether, however until then smokers will have fewer and fewer places where they can smoke.


Here is a personal experience which made me hate anti smoking whiners:

At work there were clear rules that you can't smoke inside. That was fair, smokers went outside and sat on the benches that were in front of the cafeteria (front side of our company's building). Then non-smokers started to complain that they also wanted to sit outside during lunch and enjoy the good weather without having to second hand smoke. A short while later ash trays were removed from that spot.
Now our smoker colleagues had to take the back door to the loading area/parking lot without any benches and loud racket due to the forklifts moving containers nearby. Personally I don't care about second hand smoke especially out in open air, so I went with them during breaks to chat and hang out. Didn't take long time for many other non-smokers to go there as well because after all both those who smoked and not, were colleagues that knew each other and naturally gathered together during breaks. Guess what, not long after the complaints started pouring in again. It's like non-smokers forgot that they were the ones that joined smokers in the area designated for smoking.

I got angry seeing this shit, it didn't take many years before smokers who could once relax on the benches on the lawn now had to literally hide and take breaks separately to be able to smoke in peace. Sorry, but I hang around people that both smoke and don't, most of them I respect without judging their habits. I hate the whiny bitches that want to force everyone to adopt their lifestyle on the people who haven't done anything to deserve it. More surprising that Nikk and Burk who so often spout their tolerance crap, at the same time are so intolerant to other demographics because it suits their personal comfort.

[Burkingam]

We can draw the line to "you can smoke outside or in your house/personal places". There is no reason to slip on the slope any more than that.

I already told you, I was against this law at first. The reason I changed my mind isn't because it suits my personal comfort though I do appreciate not having to endure the smell. What actually made me change is that as a result of the law a significant percentage of the population stopped to smoke.

And could you give me an example of a specific pro-tolerance speech I have made which you think is inconsistent with a tobacco ban in public places?

[Ixarku]

Except that, as I've mentioned -- no business has the right to poison its employees. Which essentially is what your saying that those owners are free to do to everyone who works for them. I don't think the connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer/COPD need be reiterated.

If you seek employment in a pub called "Cigar and whiskey", then you pretty much know what you will be dealing with on a daily basis. It's not like anyone is forced to work in places that specifically caters to smoking customers. As I said free market and it includes job market as well.

I agree with Ace.  As I've said before, I completely despise smoking but if a business wants to cater to a specific demographic -- smokers in this case -- and as long as full disclosure of this is provided to prospective employees & customers, I've got no problem with it.  If, hypothetically, it were legal to smoke in such environments, personally I'd never under any circumstances work there or frequent the place as a customer.  But I know a few smokers who wouldn't mind being there.
 
It's about personal freedom -- if society considers the practice legal enough to allow it at all, then it should be allowed in conditions where like-minded individuals are allowed to gather provided that they do not infringe on the rights of others.  OTOH, if a society chooses to ban tobacco altogether, I'm not going to complain about it.  I'm not arguing in favor of tobacco -- smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit with absolutely no health benefit whatsoever, and I'd gladly vote to ban it completely.  But as long as it's legal, smokers should be allowed some opportunity to practice their hobby in a fashion that doesn't impinge on the health or rights of unwilling bystanders.  The key is designating areas where smokers are isolated from non-smokers, and in providing full disclosure to anyone before they enter such a location.  Nobody is forced to work at a bar that allows smoking -- employees choose to be there, and someone applying for a job at such a place has a right to know what they're getting into before they accept a such a job.
 
Of course, I'm perfectly fine with other forms of social engineering designed to discourage smoking -- high taxes on tobacco, penalties on health insurance premiums for smokers, etc.  And I wouldn't object to positive incentives, such as tax breaks or other subsidies to people who engage in healthy behavior -- buying fresh vegetables, paying for a gym membership, etc.

[Burkingam]

The thing is, here at least, before the tobacco ban EVERY places allowed tobacco. If you only want a few specialized places to allow it, then I guess you'd need to establish a licence system who only allow a limited number of establishments to accept smoker provided that they pay for an expensive licence. If the licence is too cheap, then it'd give them a competitive advantage over other establishments and you want the places who accept smokers to be the minority so you can't give too many licences. At the end I think banning it from public places altogether is simpler though.

[AceHigh]

Are you trying to convince me that there are establishments that cater to small demographics like gay bars and vegan restaurants and at the same time nobody would take the business opportunity to cater to large demographic like non-smoking population? Don't make me laugh, if this is how it looks from your perspective, then you must be living in an overwhelming smoker majority population or just happen to want to go to places traditionally catering for smokers.

[Burkingam]

Sure, Acehigh the best way to help people quit smoking is to marginalize non-smokers and make sure the only smoke free establishments out there are a few specialize places about as rare as gay bars and vegan restaurants.

I'm sure there was a few restaurants banning smoking but lets just say I have never heard of such a place.

edi: you don't seam to be aware of Hotelling's law AceHigh. Here, watch TED's video about it.

[jaybug]

There you go again. First thing after winning the election is step to the left and talk about unimportant shit that provides no jobs, no taxes, and somehow it is someone else's fault. How does that make you better than Todd Akin? Oh, right, you kept your mouth shut until after the election.

Oh, and that 47% number is actually low. Social Security recipients are included. This is what all those entitlements means. And those are the driving force of the federal budget.

And why should I care? It isn't as if the retirement age wasn't kept the same for when I retire.

How about this: Social Security currently takes in more than it pays out, what if we designed the federal budget to reflect that? Meaning, congress doesn't spend any Social Security, or Medicare money that are currently taken out of payroll checks. See what happens to everything else all of a sudden.

[Ixarku]

The thing is, here at least, before the tobacco ban EVERY places allowed tobacco. If you only want a few specialized places to allow it, then I guess you'd need to establish a licence system who only allow a limited number of establishments to accept smoker provided that they pay for an expensive licence. If the licence is too cheap, then it'd give them a competitive advantage over other establishments and you want the places who accept smokers to be the minority so you can't give too many licences. At the end I think banning it from public places altogether is simpler though.

I have no problem with a license system for bars or restaurants that allow smoking.  Establishments that serve alcohol already have to have liquor licenses, at least in the state of Florida, so it's not like it'd be much of a stretch.  The logistics are solveable, the rest is just details.  And local municipalities or counties should have the discretion to decide how many licenses to issue, so if one county wants to promote a non-smoking environment, they can choose not to issue any licenses at all, or very few.  The point is to allow communities to decide for themselves.