Members georgestrings Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nope ... you must wear a helmet because statistically the general population will have to pay for a lifetime of hospitalization for your sorry ass when you crash and become a vegetable. I don't really care whether you do or not. I understand the logic and it's just a where you draw the line question. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is - and I'm not taking issue with you personally, Don(as I think we're on the same page here) - is that where exactly is the "good of the general population" line drawn??? For example, statistics also CLEARLY show that "public burdon" costs are FAR higher for smoking related illnesses and being over-weight than they are for motorcyle rider injuries... So, if the "public burdon" is really such a concern, shouldn't there be an outright ban on smoking, and controls in place to FORCE over-weight people to eat less/healthier??? I'm not saying I want ANY of those measures in place, but doesn't that make as much sense as helmet laws for motorcyclists??? I'm a non-smoker, and absolutely hate cigarettes - but I also don't agree with the government making laws like the smoking bans... I will admit that I do prefer the smoke-free environments we currently enjoy - but don't like how it got to be that way... The erosion of freedoms in our great nation makes me want to hurl... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members monthlymixcd Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Deleted... just trying to make a point that we SHOULDN'T go there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted July 30, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 I guess if I don't like the erosion of my personal freedom in this state in-which I currently reside, I could move to someplace else where freedom is less of a catch phrase than it is in this state. Oh, that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted July 30, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 FYI.....Let's be mindful that political and religious discussion is right out here. I'm allowing this line of discussion because so far it's only been about issues that impact us as live sound providers, and hasn't degenerated into a Left/Right or smoker/nonsmoker brew-ha-ha. Let's keep it civil, friendly, and reasonably on a live-sound issue topic, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted July 30, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Hey, I have an idea... let's explode this thread into a 50-pager by having everyone start listing their friends and family that have died as a direct or indirect result of smoking! I'll go first:My dad was a pack-a-day smoker... died in 1995. A small lung cancer metastasized to his brain and he was dead within 23 days of diagnosis.Next... I'm very sorry about your dad. We only get one. But the thread can not go here. I don't want to quash your discussion of this. If you create a thread in Open Jam, or Political Party, where I believe it is allowed, I'll be happy to let you post a link to that thread here so anyone else who wants to participate can find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boomerweps Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 In Pennsylvania, they passed the no smoking in resturants, clubs and bars law last year. Now they have rethought that and IF the bar doesn't have a certain percentage of it's sales in food, smoking may be allowed. Again because the loss of revenues and TAXES. Before that the only exception was a private club not open to the general public that had been in existance for over a year previous. And even there, ANY event that allows those under 21 years must be made non-smoking for the event. When will these idiot politicians figure it out that you CANNOT count on huge windfalls from tobacco (SIN) taxes while at the same time doing everything they can to stop people from using tobacco. Oh, and on the helmet laws side issue: In PA we now can ride without helmets. BUT don't get caught without wearing your seatbelt in a vehicle. Big fine. I think it was insurance lobbying there. You will likely survive and cost more medical fee $$$ if you wear a helmet vs. no fees from your vehicle insurance except for totalling the bike if you don't wear one. In an enclosed vehicle accident without a seatbelt, medical costs increase. It's all about profiteering. Boomerweps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Its an easy fix - cater for both - have the smokers smoke outside or in a designated area away from all the other patrons that dont want any part of it.Oh wait...thats what they DID do. And it's working nicely. Well yea. Allow smoking bars where patrions can go who smoke, and all the other folks who don't want any part of it just don't go to that bar. Oh wait... that's what they DID do, and it worked nicely. In this area we had quite a few non-smoking bars, that did a brisk business. And these non-smoking bars rarely if ever had a pack of smokers congregated at the front door... cause smokers just didn't go there... cause they'd rather go to a smoking bar. Now, with the smoking ban in all bars, all the bars are smoking bars as far as I'm concerned because of the pack of smokers at the front door of all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Other side of the coin: First and foremost, driving a motor vehicle of any kind is a privilege, not a right. SO your personal freedom is not being impinged by the state requiring you to wear a helmet. No more so than requiring you to pass a test that shows you have a modicum of skill to operate said vehicle. No more so than requiring you to keep to the right while on a road. Or signal for turns. Etc. etc.Whether a helmet is a positive factor here is another debate for another time, but is a worthy counter to my point. I agree, operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right. The government can and should require those measures that result in safe operation of vehicles on public roads. Therefore, anything involved with the vehicle that isn't required for the proper function of the vehicle and poses the possibility for unsafe operation of the vehicle by possibly distracting the driver should not be allowed... i.e.: Radio, GPS system, cell phone usage while driving, other gadgets, etc... There's no doubt that helmets can and do reduce accident related head injuries... so why not make helmets manditory for all occupants of all vehicles, including cars, busses, trains, airplanes, boats, etc...? And yes, helmets can and do reduce accident related head injuries, but have any studies been done to show what amount if any that helmets increase accident rates because the operator is more encumbered (can't see or hear as well... or operates the bike less safely because they feel safer with the helmet)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ezstep Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Oh, the laws that are passed to protect us from ourselves! BTW: I always wear a helmet - in every state - even though it is not required in every state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 There's an issue of basic fairness in the workplace. It would be unfair to ban smoking in SOME public places, but not others. Why should bartenders be subjected to non-stop smoke, but not the register attendant in Home Depot? The answer I'm invariably given is, "well, nobody is holding a gun to the bartender's head. He can go somewhere else." Hmm. True. But bartender's have a different skillset than the Home Depot cashier. Different pay scale too. Where's a bartender going to work and not be subjected to smoke, if bars allow smoking? That's a tricky one. Same could be said for subjecting the bartender to loud music. I guess the bartender could wear a respirator, and ear plugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted July 30, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 I agree, operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right. The government can and should require those measures that result in safe operation of vehicles on public roads. Therefore, anything involved with the vehicle that isn't required for the proper function of the vehicle and poses the possibility for unsafe operation of the vehicle by possibly distracting the driver should not be allowed... i.e.: Radio, GPS system, cell phone usage while driving, other gadgets, etc... There's no doubt that helmets can and do reduce accident related head injuries... so why not make helmets manditory for all occupants of all vehicles, including cars, busses, trains, airplanes, boats, etc...? And yes, helmets can and do reduce accident related head injuries, but have any studies been done to show what amount if any that helmets increase accident rates because the operator is more encumbered (can't see or hear as well... or operates the bike less safely because they feel safer with the helmet)? I'm not aware of any published studies on that, but I've seen a lot of people ask that. The trouble is...and I know you can appreciate this one...it's damned near impossible to really test and measure the safety or efficacy of a helmet due to the infinite variety of injuries possible to a body moving outside. In a NASCAR driver's seat, the variables are greatly limited due to the standardized interior, the maximum speed possible, the position of a driver in his/her seat with a standard harness, etc. With a cycle, you're out in the world, and any damn thing can happen. Do you optimize for a 40mph crash into a concrete surface, or a 77mph slide on tar-and-chip? I know from my personal bike crash experience that a helmet saved me from some form of head injury. How much I don't know. But it convinced me then and I remain convinced to wear a helmet. Helmets for all drivers of all vehicles?? Look at the pushback against seatbelts, airbags, even ABS braking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 My point was if the non-jews had stood up and said enough then maybe, just maybe the world wouldn't have had to get involved. But since they weren't arresting and killing the non-Jews (just for the sake of argument) they did nothing.There's the old saying about the German people of the time. I'll paraphrase.When they came for the Jews I did nothing.When they came for the Slavs I did nothing.When they came for the sick and mentally ill I did nothing.Then they came for me. Well stated. For clarification, I was not referring specifically to Jews but to those that were not Aryan. That includes everybody except Aryan, had it continued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jwlussow Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Let's talk about the real problem.... I work in an office building. The smokers are allowed to take a 5 or 10 minute break every hour to smoke a cigarette. Probably a good hour or more of an 8 hour day is spent outside smoking. If I, as a non-smoker, decided to take the same amount of "break time", I would be fired in a heartbeat. That kind of bugs me, at least until the weather breaks and they stand outside in the rain and snow.... I've often wondered about the bartenders that have to deal with the sound of live music while trying to hear the drink order...weekend after weekend after weekend.... My hearing is gone and I've never abused my ears to the extent that some of those guys do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasps Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 There's a flip-side to everything. I'll offer one possibility. And preface it by saying I'm not really decided about these issues.There's an issue of basic fairness in the workplace. It would be unfair to ban smoking in SOME public places, but not others. Why should bartenders be subjected to non-stop smoke, but not the register attendant in Home Depot? The answer I'm invariably given is, "well, nobody is holding a gun to the bartender's head. He can go somewhere else." Hmm. True. But bartender's have a different skillset than the Home Depot cashier. Different pay scale too. Where's a bartender going to work and not be subjected to smoke, if bars allow smoking? That's a tricky one. "Basic fairness" in the workplace is kind of a red herring. First, because someone or something has to decide and enforce what "fairness" is. Smoking is an issue that has many implications, in terms of health AND liberty. I do think that there is a place for "no smoking" mandates in some circumstances such as government buildings and land, for instance. IMO: The answer for the most part, however, is: let the marketplace decide. The idea is to let the interested parties decide freely, without compulsion. What happens is that no party is hurt and there is increased economic value. If the bartender in your example doesn't wish to be subjected to smoke, there are many possibilities: 1. Start a non-smoking bar and reap the financial benefits from an unserviced market2. Choose a different occupation3. Deal with the economic and health consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasps Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Let's talk about the real problem....I work in an office building. The smokers are allowed to take a 5 or 10 minute break every hour to smoke a cigarette. Probably a good hour or more of an 8 hour day is spent outside smoking. If I, as a non-smoker, decided to take the same amount of "break time", I would be fired in a heartbeat. That kind of bugs me, at least until the weather breaks and they stand outside in the rain and snow.... Why don't you ask your management about this? Seems to me like any manager looking for a way to maximize profits would find that an hour of each day for smoke breaks on company time would be detrimental, especially in these days. If they don't see the economic motivation for a policy change, and you feel shortchanged because you don't reap the "benefit" of smoke breaks you could start smoking or find a different job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Let's talk about the real problem.... I work in an office building. The smokers are allowed to take a 5 or 10 minute break every hour to smoke a cigarette. Probably a good hour or more of an 8 hour day is spent outside smoking. If I, as a non-smoker, decided to take the same amount of "break time", I would be fired in a heartbeat. That kind of bugs me, at least until the weather breaks and they stand outside in the rain and snow.... Yup. At my first 8-5 job, every hour the smokers (being at least 1/2 the labor force) got a 10 minute break to go out, light up, and socialize. Us non-smokers got no such break... but rather were expected to stay at our punch presses and welding stations, AND take up the slack for the smokers out on break. Not only that, but I never got invited to the social occasions or was privy to the other developments hatched out in the alley during the smoke break (including up-coming openings within the company and the possibility to apply for those openings)... cause I wasn't there. One day when the smoke break whistle blew, I put down my welding stinger, took off my helmet and went out with the smoke break crew. The shift foreman saw me sitting down, listening to the chatter, took a drag on his Camel and said: "I didn't know you're a smoker!" I said: "I'm not, I just decided to come out for a break with the smokers and get a big ole drink of water (cause it's about 110 deg F at my welding bench and there's not a breath of fresh air in there)." He said: "Light up or get back to work." I got back to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 I know from my personal bike crash experience that a helmet saved me from some form of head injury. How much I don't know. Not enough (I can't believe you throwing out a straight line like that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rezrover Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's been in the works for a while now in South Dakota to ban smoking in bars and it was supposed to happen July 1st but there was a petition saying it's something that should be voted on. So, everything is pending... As an ex smoker of almost 2 years, I could care less. The only real issue, the law makers say, is how unenforceable the law will be during the Sturgis bike rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's been in the works for a while now in South Dakota to ban smoking in bars and it was supposed to happen July 1st but there was a petition saying it's something that should be voted on. So, everything is pending... As an ex smoker of almost 2 years, I could care less. The only real issue, the law makers say, is how unenforceable the law will be during the Sturgis bike rally. Humm... I wonder: In the next-door state of Idaho, smoking is allowed in bars, except in Moscow, Idaho since Moscow just passed a law prohibiting smoking in bars in their town. So, if a city or town can pass a law to ban smoking in bars, contradicting state law which allows smoking in bars, then could a city or town pass a law to allow smoking in bars regardless of the state law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rezrover Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 When I lived in Minnesota, the last call time for bars was 1:00am. Since Wisconsin was only 15 miles away from the Twin Cities, there was a rush to get over there for the "extra" hour of drinking time. To battle the loss of revenue and bring down DUI numbers and other alcohol related incidents; the state of Minnesota pass a law that bars could stay open to 2:00am but gave the city governments the right to keep things as they are or switch to the new time if the businesses could justify the later close time. So, not every bar in Minnesota gets to stay open till 2:00 am, at the discretion of city or town it's located. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members monthlymixcd Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Humm... I wonder: /// ... regardless of the state law? There are a plethora of instances where local ordinances/state laws are more stringent than state/federal laws respectively. That's fine... being less stringent is not allowed in most cases. The legalization of Pot in certain areas of CA is probably the exception to the rule right now... let's see where that goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Axisplayer Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 In Virginia, some cities tried to regulate public smoking. The state told them they could not do that without approval from the state legislature. One city had already passed the law and it had to be stricken. Recently Virginia passed a law to restrict public smoking just like you guys have, but at least in this case the state didn't let the city be more restrictive without state sanction. I am not sure that other states would be the same since it has a lot to do with how the state is structured. Virginia is a Commonwealth and I am sure that comes into play. You would need a legal opinion to know, and I am not an attorney...thank goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry007 Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wow, I need to remember to never start reading on the last page of a new thread... Now I gotta go a back and see how things progressed from "smoking" to "Jews" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoadRanger Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wow, I need to remember to never start reading on the last page of a new thread... Now I gotta go a back and see how things progressed from "smoking" to "Jews" Damn, did Mel Gibson sneak in here under an alias again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jwlussow Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Why don't you ask your management about this? Seems to me like any manager looking for a way to maximize profits would find that an hour of each day for smoke breaks on company time would be detrimental, especially in these days. If they don't see the economic motivation for a policy change, and you feel shortchanged because you don't reap the "benefit" of smoke breaks you could start smoking or find a different job. Management is out smoking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.