Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Air Up There

Smoking Airline 2006

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#41 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:28 PM

View PostThemis, on Jul 13 2006, 06:23 PM, said:

View PostG1223, on Jul 13 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

Because I have seen a business close it's smoking breakroom. Yes a business that had two breakrooms. Those employees get to go outside to smoke. Which is fine if the weather permits.  But I live in Indiana and the weather can change very fast.

We have these kind and wonderful people to whom the smell of smoke on the person's clothing is enough to  send them into rants. These rants cost a few workers their jobs.

So excuse for looking at them as bastards worthy of being put to a wall. As some of those workers were working for rent and food money.

I guess they were working for cigarette money too.

Separate rooms does not equal separate ventillation systems - though they help.  Maybe the companies were trying to encourage employees to quit to lower insurance rates.   If you've been around enough smoke to make your clothing smell during the work day, you've been around a hell of a lot of smoke and it would send me into rants if I had to be near you.  

Weather is changeable in Nashville too but there seems to be enough overhead shelter that people have no problem going outside to smoke.  

Frankly if you want to smoke badly enough to go outside in 92 degree weather with 92% humidity, or to go outside in rain or snow, you've got a really bad habit, not something you do just for pleasure.  (Some people actually like a reason to go outside during the day and escape the office or other work space.)  There's no reason why your really bad habit should affect me.  

And don't give me that crap about the effects of fossil fuels and air pollution - just because there are other things around that affect my health doesn't give any individual the "right" to do so themselves.  We can control the individual by restricting where they can smoke, i.e., not in an enclosed public space.  At least we are working on the other problems - they just will take a lot more work.  

People who talk about other health problems - obesity, alcohol, etc - overlook the fact that smoking is the only thing amongst all those red herrings that directly affects my health.  Not my insurance rates, not my tax rates, not the possibility of a traffic accident - a DIRECT effect on my health.

So keep that weed away from me.  

"Weed" on the other hand - I'm not allergic and it smells better.... :angel:

Themis

Maybe if it had a powerful lobby backing it up...

#42 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:29 PM

View PostCaesar of the Stars, on Jul 13 2006, 11:13 PM, said:

View PostThemis, on Jul 13 2006, 06:09 PM, said:

View PostCaesar of the Stars, on Jul 13 2006, 10:30 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I had to laugh at the plane separating the smokers and nonsmokers by putting them on differnet sides of the aisle.   The reasoning behind that escapes me, but it's no different than a lot of restaurants that allow smoking.  It just wafts right on over.

Yep - I sure wasn't laughing on that flight...and got one of my worst allergic colds.

Themis


I hope you didn't take offense, I'm sure your allergies are bad and a serious thing.  I was laughing at the stupidity of people who can design airplanes and run businesses but that's the best they could come up with?

Not at all!  I was laughing at the stupidity too until the cold hit!

Themis
Cats will never be extinct!

#43 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:51 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Jul 13 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Quote

G1223: Or a roof of the passanger compartment snapping off.
Please cite the last time a passenger airliner turned itself into a convertible in midair?  

1988

http://dnausers.d-n-...GOjg/280488.htm

Edited by DWF, 13 July 2006 - 06:52 PM.

The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#44 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 02:54 AM

View PostThemis, on Jul 13 2006, 04:23 PM, said:

Frankly if you want to smoke badly enough to go outside in 92 degree weather with 92% humidity, or to go outside in rain or snow, you've got a really bad habit, not something you do just for pleasure.  (Some people actually like a reason to go outside during the day and escape the office or other work space.)  There's no reason why your really bad habit should affect me.  

And don't give me that crap about the effects of fossil fuels and air pollution - just because there are other things around that affect my health doesn't give any individual the "right" to do so themselves.  We can control the individual by restricting where they can smoke, i.e., not in an enclosed public space.  At least we are working on the other problems - they just will take a lot more work.  

People who talk about other health problems - obesity, alcohol, etc - overlook the fact that smoking is the only thing amongst all those red herrings that directly affects my health.  Not my insurance rates, not my tax rates, not the possibility of a traffic accident - a DIRECT effect on my health.

thank you, Themis.

i live for the day when every individual in existence understands that smoking is a habit never to be started, so we don't have to have these round and round discussions about non-existant "rights" being trampled upon because people are too addicted to something that kills OTHERS in addition to themselves to see this.

and spare me the "Nazi" references.  fighting for better health does not make a person a Nazi.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#45 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 03:00 AM

Quote

Yup. Remember the incident and the stunning photos as well:
http://www.aloha.net...rus/picture.htm

Can't recall any cigarette related air catastrophes, but people today can't see anything but potential disaster in every nook and cranny of life. I'm as terrified as the next guy, sitting completely helpless in the flying tube of doom, but given the laundry list of things that can trigger a premature end to life on a plane, it seems ridiculous to get panicky about a few cigarettes.(especially when I'm sure there'd be extra precautions in play on a "smokers" flight) I'm starting to picture some of you wearing a helmet in the shower, to protect yourself from extreme soapdish trauma.  :Oo:

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it(at least until the t-shirts are printed up) Life has implied risk. Sheesh....I wonder what some of you would have sounded like many decades ago, when the highly hazardous prospect of wiring homes for electricity was introduced. Or the idea of letting mere civilians handle the deadly motorcar, or the highly lethal household stove.(and can you believe some maniac decided buildings could be taller than 10 stories...good heavens)

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 14 July 2006 - 03:01 AM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#46 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 03:25 AM

Quote

So with their friends the insurnace companies the Smoke Nazi's are not going to be happy till they are in my house looking to make sure I am safe from smoke and that 10 years from now the new home owner moving in here is not going to flop dead from the smoke from that cigar I had in 2001.
All the faux outrage aside, the term "Smoke Nazi" became completely appropriate the second government began dictating policy to privately owned businesses. And the "safe working environment" rhetoric is nothing more than a canard, raised by folks who believe the "employer/employee" dynamic is inherently exploitative right from jump. Freedom of "choice" suggests a choice to manage/frequent/work for, any establishment you like...regardless of what the risk factors happen to be. When you start telling people they do this under threat of legal action(for their own good of course) you better be prepared for some unpleasant comparisons to be drawn.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#47 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 06:10 AM

View PostG1223, on Jul 13 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

Because I have seen a business close it's smoking breakroom. Yes a business that had two breakrooms. Those employees get to go outside to smoke. Which is fine if the weather permits.  But I live in Indiana and the weather can change very fast.

I've seen several businesses where employees couldn't smoke indoors, but did anyway, setting the building on fire and putting the company out of business.

Just yesterday I saw a guy smoking in an open area that is clearly marked as "no smoking". I'm always surprised when smokers try to justify their habit as something that others should have to cater to.

#48 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 06:14 AM

View Postscherzo, on Jul 14 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

All the faux outrage aside, the term "Smoke Nazi" became completely appropriate the second government began dictating policy to privately owned businesses.

Utter nonsense. Were there "shirt nazis" when the government said that you had to wear shirts and shoes in a restaurant? Were there "germ nazis" when health inspectors said that you couldn't leave meat out on a counter and that counters had to be wiped clean in a restaurant?

Of course not. Government has been involved in business for years. It's nothing new.

Quote

And the "safe working environment" rhetoric is nothing more than a canard, raised by folks who believe the "employer/employee" dynamic is inherently exploitative right from jump.

Tell that to the non-smoking waitresses who developed lung cancer after years of working at a smoking restaurant.

#49 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 09:03 AM

Two years ago I advised my neighbors to hold out for a nonsmoking tenant.  I pointed out what smoke would do to the interior of their future home.  At least they got a good cleaning deposit, but it still won't cover all the damage.  The tenant moved out two weeks ago, hopeful of getting his deposit back before they had a chance to inspect, and that didn't set off any warnings, but the reports from the cleaning crew sure did.  They came out yesterday and discovered that not only did the guy not follow the no smoking in the house rule, but that cleaning will not be enough.  A total repainting and recarpeting will have to be done.  The walls and the a/c vents are covered in disgusting, smelly yellow gunk.  

Their next tenant will be a nonsmoker.   :)  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#50 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 10:46 AM

Quote

LOTS: As for those that set themselves on fire...As harsh as this is to say...they were stupid enough to fall asleep with a lit cigarette, they deserve what they got.
Oh I agree on this one and just hope no one else gets hurt or loses property because of their carelessness.  That said at 30,000 feet the person who sets himself or herself afire or the area around them afire is going to take everyone in the air with them along with whoever that plane crashed down on.

Quote

DWF: 1988
Thanks.  Structural failures on airliners are a pretty rare occurrence otherwise I’d be taking the train more often. ;)

Quote

Broph: Just yesterday I saw a guy smoking in an open area that is clearly marked as "no smoking".
A friend of mine helps run a small airfield operation.  They do a annual community festival at the airport.  Every year they have to chase away people who are smoking over the avgas bunkers despite the countless signs and warnings about explosion hazards.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#51 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:06 PM

Quote

Utter nonsense.
Nah I'll pass...you've uttered more than enough for both of us. :humble:

Quote

Were there "shirt nazis" when the government said that you had to wear shirts and shoes in a restaurant? Were there "germ nazis" when health inspectors said that you couldn't leave meat out on a counter and that counters had to be wiped clean in a restaurant?

Of course not. Government has been involved in business for years. It's nothing new.
Who's arguing in favor of anarchy? Tell me what the individual issue is, and I'll tell you when people are behaving like fanatics. I can give you a hint though. If the very idea of people sitting down and enjoying an evening out at a smoke filled club or restaurant makes you angry, consider exercising your underrated freedom not to be there, before preparing a lecture.

And you know what...I hate cigarettes. Wish they'd never been invented. I get depressed when I see attractive women break ‘em out and start puffing. But the simple fact is, I'm not willing to take it to the next level and be deliberately insulting, or even worse...pump a fist for further government encroachment on freedom.

Quote

And the "safe working environment" rhetoric is nothing more than a canard, raised by folks who believe the "employer/employee" dynamic is inherently exploitative right from jump.

Tell that to the non-smoking waitresses who developed lung cancer after years of working at a smoking restaurant.
According to the bureau of labor statistics lumbermen, fishermen and commercial pilots rack up the most actual on-the-job fatalities during an average year. So I'm going to make 2 assumptions here: 1) The people performing each of these tasks understand the inherent risk involved. 2) Government requirement for a "safe working environment" does not prevent people from taking on these jobs. And before you begin explaining that these jobs NEED to be done, and cigarettes don't NEED to be smoked, the point is whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves how to live. This would include having the freedom to choose to work in any hazardous condition you want.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#52 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:27 PM

View Postscherzo, on Jul 14 2006, 05:06 PM, said:

Nah I'll pass...you've uttered more than enough for both of us. :humble:

Vague accusations are never helpful.

Quote

Who's arguing in favor of anarchy? Tell me what the individual issue is, and I'll tell you when people are behaving like fanatics. I can give you a hint though. If the very idea of people sitting down and enjoying an evening out at a smoke filled club or restaurant makes you angry, consider exercising your underrated freedom not to be there, before preparing a lecture.

And what about the business owner who would like to have shirtless customers, or would like to leave his meat out on the counter, or would like to have no health inspections at all? How is that any different?

Quote

But the simple fact is, I'm not willing to take it to the next level and be deliberately insulting, or even worse...pump a fist for further government encroachment on freedom.

What about the freedom from the cigarette smoke? The fact is, when someone smokes where others are around, he or she affects those people around them. Are you for the "freedom" of someone blaring their boom box while sitting next to you at a restaurant? What about someone who wants to flick paint at others who are in a park? Why aren't their freedoms protected?

Quote

According to the bureau of labor statistics lumbermen, fishermen and commercial pilots rack up the most actual on-the-job fatalities during an average year.

That's called a strawman argument. First of all, it would be good if you gave a link to this statistic. Second of all, the fatalities associated with that job are directly related to the dangers inherent to the job - swinging an ax, being on a boat at an angry sea, or flying against the wishes of physics. A waitress takes orders and carries food to tables. Those activities do not lead to lung cancer.

Quote

1) The people performing each of these tasks understand the inherent risk involved.

Breathing in smoke is not an inherent risk to being a waitress. That risk is imposed on the waitress by others.

Quote

2) Government requirement for a "safe working environment" does not prevent people from taking on these jobs.

You can't cut down a tree without swinging an ax. You can't fish without going on a boat. You can't always keep a plane in the aire. However, you CAN take food orders and deliver that food to tables without being exposed to smoke. See the difference?

Quote

And before you begin explaining that these jobs NEED to be done, and cigarettes don't NEED to be smoked, the point is whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves how to live.

It's not a question of "need" (though I have to point out that you're including the arguments that you like and you're trying to deny those that show flaws in your theory); it's a question of what CAN reasonably be done. Preventing smoking can reasonably be done.

Quote

This would include having the freedom to choose to work in any hazardous condition you want.

And who says that waitresses want to work in a hazardous condition?

#53 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:46 PM

View Postscherzo, on Jul 14 2006, 01:25 AM, said:

Quote

So with their friends the insurnace companies the Smoke Nazi's are not going to be happy till they are in my house looking to make sure I am safe from smoke and that 10 years from now the new home owner moving in here is not going to flop dead from the smoke from that cigar I had in 2001.
All the faux outrage aside, the term "Smoke Nazi" became completely appropriate the second government began dictating policy to privately owned businesses. And the "safe working environment" rhetoric is nothing more than a canard, raised by folks who believe the "employer/employee" dynamic is inherently exploitative right from jump. Freedom of "choice" suggests a choice to manage/frequent/work for, any establishment you like...regardless of what the risk factors happen to be. When you start telling people they do this under threat of legal action(for their own good of course) you better be prepared for some unpleasant comparisons to be drawn.

-scherzo

No, "safe working environment" is completely meaningful when you take into consideration that second-hand smoke is damaging to EVERYBODY.

When I was first tested for allergies back in the mid-60's they tested for tobacco and I was 4 on a scale of 1-4.  I got retested several years ago and I mentioned the original testing to the allergist, and he said "We don't do that any more, because we know cigarette smoke is bad for EVERYBODY."
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#54 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 01:45 PM

View PostRhea, on Jul 14 2006, 05:46 PM, said:

When I was first tested for allergies back in the mid-60's they tested for tobacco and I was 4 on a scale of 1-4.  I got retested several years ago and I mentioned the original testing to the allergist, and he said "We don't do that any more, because we know cigarette smoke is bad for EVERYBODY."

The exact same thing happened to me.  I wish they'd still test, though - there's a difference between being allergic and something being bad for you in other ways...  And you get better cooperation from militant smokers when you tell them you're specifically allergic rather than that it's generally bad for people.  

Themis
Cats will never be extinct!

#55 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 05:36 PM

^ how does one know if they're allergic?  do you have to be tested for it?  maybe that's my problem, not that it just makes me violently sick.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#56 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 05:51 PM

Quote

And what about the business owner who would like to have shirtless customers, or would like to leave his meat out on the counter, or would like to have no health inspections at all? How is that any different?
Why the barrage of question marks, when the answer is already plain as day in the section you quoted Broph? I said each individual issue needs to be judged on it's own merits. Period. Going down a laundry list of what does and does not require regulation, misses the point.

Quote

What about the freedom from the cigarette smoke? The fact is, when someone smokes where others are around, he or she affects those people around them. Are you for the "freedom" of someone blaring their boom box while sitting next to you at a restaurant? What about someone who wants to flick paint at others who are in a park? Why aren't their freedoms protected?
I said each individual issue needs to be judged on it's own merits. Period. Going down a laundry list of what does and does not require regulation misses the point.

That disorientation you're feeling is a concentrated wave of deja vu... :wacko:

Quote

According to the bureau of labor statistics lumbermen, fishermen and commercial pilots rack up the most actual on-the-job fatalities during an average year.

That's called a strawman argument.
No it's called a fact. :Oo:  The "argument" would come immediately after, but you got impatient. Here's a case where quoting the entire statement could have been helpful. No need to rush it. There's plenty of time to work in all that strangely popular debate terminology.

Although I have to ask...is a person who's introduced "boom boxes", "shirtless guys", and finally "rogue paint flickers" to the mix...really in a position to start complaining about "straw men". I mean, basically your argument boils down to " if one thinks a business owner should be permitted to have smoking in his place, they must also think every other regulation should be thrown out to be consistent". A point of view no amount of strawmen, tinmen or skittish jungle cats, is going to help make sense.

Quote

1) The people performing each of these tasks understand the inherent risk involved.

Breathing in smoke is not an inherent risk to being a waitress.
It sure would be in a restaurant where people are smoking I wager. Are you saying a waitress isn't capable of understanding this?

Quote

You can't cut down a tree without swinging an ax. You can't fish without going on a boat. ou can't always keep a plane in the aire. However, you CAN take food orders and deliver that food to tables without being exposed to smoke. See the difference?
Actually I think it'd be pretty difficult take food orders and not be exposed to smoke...in a restaurant where people smoke. Which obviously is the potentially dangerous work we're talking about. You can't alter the specifics of the job, and still construct the argument you have.

Quote

It's not a question of "need" (though I have to point out that you're including the arguments that you like and you're trying to deny those that show flaws in your theory); it's a question of what CAN reasonably be done. Preventing smoking can reasonably be done.
Well we could argue from now until December about what existing and potential government "rules" are reasonable. Everyone has their own threshold for where they think personal freedom, should be reigned in by regulation for the greater good. I will say that the nanny instinct behind this particular crusade, is one we should take great care in implementing. Trust me when I tell you the crackdown won't end with smokers

Quote

And who says that waitresses want to work in a hazardous condition?
Not this kid. I only think they should have the option.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#57 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 14 July 2006 - 11:09 PM

View Postscherzo, on Jul 14 2006, 10:51 PM, said:

Why the barrage of question marks, when the answer is already plain as day in the section you quoted Broph? I said each individual issue needs to be judged on it's own merits. Period. Going down a laundry list of what does and does not require regulation, misses the point.

You suggested that without smoking regulation that there is "freedom". I merely demonstrated that there are already numerous controls on business. This is no different.

Quote

I said each individual issue needs to be judged on it's own merits. Period. Going down a laundry list of what does and does not require regulation misses the point.

And the merit of this case is that non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe in the smoke of smokers.

Quote

No it's called a fact.

No, it's a strawman because the danger the other professions have are directly related to the job. Breathing in smoke is not directly related to the job. If carrying food and taking orders gave people lung cancer, then your argument would be valid; in reality, it's not.

Quote

The "argument" would come immediately after, but you got impatient.

That makes no sense. How did I get "impatient" when I merely replied to what you wrote?

Quote

Here's a case where quoting the entire statement could have been helpful. No need to rush it. There's plenty of time to work in all that strangely popular debate terminology.

I'm sorry, but that's just dancing around the issue. You're not addressing anything that I said.

Quote

Although I have to ask...is a person who's introduced "boom boxes", "shirtless guys", and finally "rogue paint flickers" to the mix...really in a position to start complaining about "straw men".

They're not straw men. Go to any family restaurant and you'll see a sign posted somewhere telling people that they have to wear shirts and shoes to enter. It's even in the movie "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" - "no shirt, no shoes, no dice", I believe that phrase goes. Obviously, there was a problem with people entering such establishments without shirts, people were upset about it and passed laws. Now shirts are worn in such places and notices are posted to inform people of the law. Do you understand what a strawman argument is?

Quote

I mean, basically your argument boils down to " if one thinks a business owner should be permitted to have smoking in his place, they must also think every other regulation should be thrown out to be consistent".

I said no such thing. I merely showed the flaw in your statement that you somehow thought businesses had limitless freedoms in their pursuits.

Quote

It sure would be in a restaurant where people are smoking I wager.

Nonsense. You're putting in conditions that have nothing to do with the job of being a waitress. A waitress in Hawaii may have to worry about sunburn whereas a waitress in Alaska would not. Does that make sunburn a risk of being a waitress? No. Same thing goes for smoking.

Can you fish for Alaska crab in the safety of your own backyard? No. The risk of being a fisherman who is trying to catch Alaska crab is that he or she sail in a boat in Alaska waters. The risk is inherent in the job. Do you see the difference?

Quote

Actually I think it'd be pretty difficult take food orders and not be exposed to smoke...in a restaurant where people smoke.

That's why you don't allow people to smoke!

Quote

You can't alter the specifics of the job, and still construct the argument you have.

But breathing in smoke is not a "specific of the job". The job is taking orders and serving food. You are the one introducing constructs that are not inherent to the job.

Quote

Everyone has their own threshold for where they think personal freedom, should be reigned in by regulation for the greater good. I will say that the nanny instinct behind this particular crusade, is one we should take great care in implementing.

IMHO, you're ignoring the prior statements that showed that when smoking was banned, lung cancer and heart attack rates were reduced. That should be enough for everyone that it's not  a "nanny instinct" but, in fact, a reality of the situation.

Quote

Trust me when I tell you the crackdown won't end with smokers

Sure it will.

Quote

Not this kid. I only think they should have the option.

Should they also have the option of working in hazardous waste, or underwater, or on the moon?

#58 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 July 2006 - 10:11 AM

Mod Comment:
G1223:

Quote

So excuse for looking at them as bastards worthy of being put to a wall.

After consolation with the rest of the OT Staff you are being issued a cool it.  Just because people disagree with you on a issue you should not be stating that they should be lined up at a wall and shot.  You can consider this your reminder that we have strict guidelines regarding advocating violence against other people.  If you continue to do so you will be given a warning.  Please cease it.  If anyone has any questions or comments on this action please bring it up over PM or in AQG.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#59 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 15 July 2006 - 12:16 PM

View PostBroph, on Jul 13 2006, 03:30 PM, said:

And does the rest of the plane deserve it as well?

No, of course not. I didn't mean to imply that. But I can't see how a smoker falling asleep with a cigarette, on a plane, would bring it down. Surely the people sitting near him, or her, would smell the burning...before whatever was burning burst into flame.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#60 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 15 July 2006 - 03:53 PM

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Jul 15 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

No, of course not. I didn't mean to imply that. But I can't see how a smoker falling asleep with a cigarette, on a plane, would bring it down. Surely the people sitting near him, or her, would smell the burning...before whatever was burning burst into flame.

Things happen fast on a plane. It's a pressurized, oxygenated environment. A fire that is started in a seat could easily engulf the cabin quickly.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Smoking, Airline, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users