410 replies to this topic

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Jon Sprunk, on 07 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Actually, I really want to agree with this, because I suppose I agree with the spirit of it. Except that we're not just talking about the smell and the burning eyes. Second-hand smoke is a health hazard. The rights of a bar owner or smoker end where my health begins. Now, if people want to sit in a bar and pop nicotine pills all day, I've got no problem with that.

Well, the real point of my post is that if you don't like that people are smoking in that bar, don't go to that bar.

[Shryke]

The Catholic Orginization Health Care thing and how it polls:
http://publicreligio...king-poll-2012/

Quote

• A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
  
• There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
  
  • Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
    
  • Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
    
  • Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.

Really not a wedge issue for Catholics. Which is completely unsurprising if you know anything about Catholics.

Edited by Shryke, 07 February 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[TerraPrime]

Jon Sprunk, on 07 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Actually, I really want to agree with this, because I suppose I agree with the spirit of it. Except that we're not just talking about the smell and the burning eyes. Second-hand smoke is a health hazard. The rights of a bar owner or smoker end where my health begins. Now, if people want to sit in a bar and pop nicotine pills all day, I've got no problem with that.

Or, how about the health of the waitstaff?

Do employers not have any obligation to provide a work environment that is reasonably safe to their employees? We regulate industry safeties, do we not, at the expense of employers' freedom to do business the way they want?

Edited by TerraPrime, 07 February 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[TrackerNeil]

lupis42, on 07 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Cheerleading in the US has a serious injury rate of around 2.5/100k.  My point is not tied to that specific example, I'm merely suggesting that while it sounds reasonable in the abstract, there are a great many things that could be categorized as "dangerous" and "unnecessary" that most people would agree fall under the heading of 'privacy' and leave up to parental judgement.

And there are things they would agree do not. Such as, perhaps, exposing one's children to second-hand smoke, which, unlike cheerleading, has no positive side-effects except cancer and emphysema.

[Shryke]

GWB does something good for a change and bitchslaps Romney:
http://bottomline.ms...-id-do-it-again

Quote

It has become one of the rare things that binds the two men, the controversial auto industry is back.” His predecessor used a meeting of the nation’s auto dealers to defend his own actions, insisting he had no other choice but to completely sink the American economy.

“I’d do it again,” proclaimed Bush, speaking to the annual convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

This issue is gonna hit Romney bad in the Rust Belt.

[lupis42]

WrathOfCyvasse, on 07 February 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Let me weigh in on the smoking issue.

1. Secondhand smoke can cause cancer that can kill children.
2. Abortion kills "children."
3. Apparently our right-wing friends have no problem with 1 and oppose government efforts to stop it while simultaneously supporting total ban on abortions.
4. ?

Is it just a chance thing? Like, abortions definitely kill while cancer might theoretically not kill?

For the record, I have no problem with banning smoking in public places, and I do have a problem with banning abortions.  I have a problem with banning smoking in all businesses, just as I'd have a problem with banning drinking, gambling, nudity, worship, or anything else that goes on behind closed doors.

WrathOfCyvasse, on 07 February 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

For the record, fuck public smoking. I have asthma asshole, if I wanted to have a hard time breathing because of toxic fumes I'd suck on my car's tailpipe. However, I dont care at all what you do when you aren't around me or a place I might go, and I don't care if you frequent a smoking bar, because I'll know in advance not to go there.

And yet there's still a total ban on smoking bars, because apparently knowing in advance not to go there isn't enough if it's second hand smoke.

Jon Sprunk, on 07 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Actually, I really want to agree with this, because I suppose I agree with the spirit of it. Except that we're not just talking about the smell and the burning eyes. Second-hand smoke is a health hazard. The rights of a bar owner or smoker end where my health begins. Now, if people want to sit in a bar and pop nicotine pills all day, I've got no problem with that.

And yet the anti-smokers continue to object to e-Cigarettes, and I don't know how nicotine laced drinks are going over, but IIRC, NY tried to ban them too.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

Or, how about the health of the waitstaff?

Do employers not have any obligation to provide a work environment that is reasonably safe to their employees? We regular industry safeties, do we not, at the expense of employers' freedom to do business the way they want?

Like commercial fishing, logging, aircraft pilots, steel workers, and soldiers/marines.  People are free not to work in these extremely dangerous industries if they so choose.

[TerraPrime]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 07 February 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Like commercial fishing, logging, aircraft pilots, steel workers, and soldiers/marines.  People are free not to work in these extremely dangerous industries if they so choose.

Except that there are safety regulations in all the industries you named?

Some jobs will carry inherent risk to life. If you're a logger, well, sometimes, that tree is going to fall on you. That doesn't mean that we exempt employers from installing safety equipment to reduce the risk.

How does increased chance of lung cancer figure into being inherent to taking orders and serving food to patrons? Is that an unavoidable risk specific to the job that can only be minimized, but not removed, or is it a completely avoidable risk given that industry? I'd like to hear an argument about how serving food and drinks carries an inherent risk of developing cancer, like a radiologist or a nuclear physicists carry.

[Jon Sprunk]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 07 February 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Well, the real point of my post is that if you don't like that people are smoking in that bar, don't go to that bar.

Except that bars and restaurants have been ruled public, and not private. If you want to argue smoking on its merits (lol), you have to speak apples to apples. Bars have to comply as a price of doing business.

Now if you want to serve your friends drinks in your house and allow them to smoke, that's perfectly fine with me, as long as their aren't any minors present.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

How does increased chance of lung cancer figure into being inherent to taking orders and serving food to patrons? Is that an unavoidable risk specific to the job that can only be minimized, but not removed, or is it a completely avoidable risk given that industry? I'd like to hear an argument about how serving food and drinks carries an inherent risk of developing cancer, like a radiologist or a nuclear physicists carry.

Because food and drink are occasionally served in areas with cigarette fumes.  No one is required to serve food and drink at an establishment that allows smoking, and millions of people don't.  Those that choose to do so at smoking establishments assume the risk of doing so, just as those who engage in commercial fishing in the Bering Sea rather than the Gulf of Mexico assume greater risk.

[awesome possum]

lupis42, on 07 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

I didn't say I thought it was a brilliant decision, I said the people in charge of allocating taxpayer money felt it wasn't the best use of funds given their organizational mandate.  For the same reason that it wouldn't be, e.g., funded by the DOT, or DOE, or the Justice Department.

Do you really think that's the true reason?  Or is it because of the use of stem cells, which moves this from the area of, "best use of funds" and into the area of, "OMG THEY KILLIN' BABIES AND INJECTING THEM INTO SOLDIERS!"

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

awesome possum, on 07 February 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Do you really think that's the true reason?  Or is it because of the use of stem cells, which moves this from the area of, "best use of funds" and into the area of, "OMG THEY KILLIN' BABIES AND INJECTING THEM INTO SOLDIERS!"

Nobody has a problem with adult stem cells, which is what was being used in this research according to the article.  Even the Bush Administration funded that research.  The controversy has always been over the use of fetal stem cells, which are not at issue here.

[lupis42]

TerraPrime, on 07 February 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Or, how about the health of the waitstaff?

Do employers not have any obligation to provide a work environment that is reasonably safe to their employees? We regular industry safeties, do we not, at the expense of employers' freedom to do business the way they want?

What if the person opening the bar has no plans to hire anybody?  Does the mere fact of being a business create an obligation to abide by workplace safety laws even when there are no workers?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I don't have a problem with smoking bars, as long as they are advertised as such. Then you eliminate the problems being mentioned, because anyone who applies for a job there knows what they're getting into.

(null)

[lupis42]

awesome possum, on 07 February 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Do you really think that's the true reason?  Or is it because of the use of stem cells, which moves this from the area of, "best use of funds" and into the area of, "OMG THEY KILLIN' BABIES AND INJECTING THEM INTO SOLDIERS!"

Given that it sounds like this has relatively little to do with defense, I'd say it's most likely that the issue is a simple "we're cutting budgets all over the place, and this is too long term/not important enough to our mandate to keep funding".  It's also possible that actual trials have a 5% success rate that they've been trying to hide, or that the lead scientist broke up with some general's son, and I'd say both are more likely than a stem cell objection, but that it's most likely just another DOD project defunded in response to budget cuts.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Dudes, the smoking ban is the best thing that ever happened to bars. Even the majority of smokers say so. You can go now go home and not have to smell like an ashtray. If you do smoke, going out for a smoke is a great opportunity to escape the music and chat for a while.

Considering myself a liberal (in the European sense of the word), I probably should oppose the ban on the grounds that every bar owner should get to decide for themselves. But is it always wrong to go against that principle, even when the results benefit almost everyone?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

lupis42, on 07 February 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

It's also possible that actual trials have a 5% success rate that they've been trying to hide, or that the lead scientist broke up with some general's son, and I'd say both are more likely than a stem cell objection, but that it's most likely just another DOD project defunded in response to budget cuts.

That's interesting.  I had some involvement with a "medical miracle" device about 15 years ago that was supposed to revolutionize the healing of bones, but it never quite turned out as expected.  Things that sound great in the abstract often are a bit overhyped by their promoters.

[awesome possum]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 07 February 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Nobody has a problem with adult stem cells, which is what was being used in this research according to the article.  Even the Bush Administration funded that research.  The controversy has always been over the use of fetal stem cells, which are not at issue here.

And I recall the Bush Administration getting flack for that, because the social conservatives aren't the brightest nuts on the wing and trying to make sense of something as difficult as basic science seems beyond most of them.

lupis42, on 07 February 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Given that it sounds like this has relatively little to do with defense, I'd say it's most likely that the issue is a simple "we're cutting budgets all over the place, and this is too long term/not important enough to our mandate to keep funding".  It's also possible that actual trials have a 5% success rate that they've been trying to hide, or that the lead scientist broke up with some general's son, and I'd say both are more likely than a stem cell objection, but that it's most likely just another DOD project defunded in response to budget cuts.

The DOD was funding it because of it's potential in quickly healing soldier's injuries that otherwise would have left a GI sitting in a hospital bed for months, or discharged and sent back as a cripple to a public that doesn't understand what he or she has been through.  This leads to low morale, depression, suicide, etc.

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 07 February 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

That's interesting.  I had some involvement with a "medical miracle" device about 15 years ago that was supposed to revolutionize the healing of bones, but it never quite turned out as expected.  Things that sound great in the abstract often are a bit overhyped by their promoters.

They are, agreed.  But I don't see that as a reason to dismiss new potential technologies or treatments.

Edited by awesome possum, 07 February 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

awesome possum, on 07 February 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

They are, agreed.  But I don't see that as a reason to dismiss new potential technologies or treatments.

Nor is it a reason to fund them all.

[awesome possum]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 07 February 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Nor is it a reason to fund them all.

It's not, and I never suggested such a thing.  I'm talking about this one, specific project.  You're the one who had to bring up the personal anecdote, as you usually do when you have no legitimate reason to object to something.