As some of you know, I have a rather unique perspective on this one. I work part time in a bar. I've also served as Safety Manager for several of my companies, and my dad was Safety Director for two major corporations. We both have engineering degrees. I also don't smoke.
Leaving aside the debate about the dangers of ETS (aka "secondhand smoke"), and there are very serious questions about whether or not it is indeed dangerous in normally encountered concentrations, there are generally accepted methods for dealing with any kind of chemical exposure in the workplace. They are based on what is called the Permissable Exposure Limits (PEL)
A PEL is the concentration that a worker can be safely exposed to. They are often set for both instantaneous exposure, and 8 hour average exposure. Even the nastiest chemicals have PELs. For example, the OSHA established PEL for hydrogen cyanide is 10ppm.
At one point, some of the anti-smoking advocates were pushing OSHA to establish a PEL for ETS. As it turns out, ETS contains several chemicals which already have PELs. For normally encountered concentrations, the PEL for these is not reached.
Two things became obvious:
1) A PEL for ETS would not have been as low as the advocates desired.
2) Bars and restaurants would be able to easily meet it using air scrubbers and ventilation systems.
As a result, the anti-smoking lobby abandoned the PEL. In effect, they advocated a PEL of "zero". They are promoting the idea that a mere cigarette smell is as bad as heavy smoke. At this point, they should have also abandoned the entire "employee safety" argument, because the PEL is the cornerstone of all occupational chemical exposure regulations. It's sort of like saying you want democracy, but dismiss the idea of voting.
All this is established fact. It's conjecture, but easily supportable conjecture, to claim that this proves the anti-smoking advocates could give a modell about employee safety, but instead are trying to ban personal behavior which they disapprove of. That's busybodyism, and busybodyism has no place in a free society.
To make this even clearer, look at the structure of the NYC law as originally written. The smokers themselves weren't charged. The bar was charged, and fined, for "allowing" smoking. Clearly, the law was all about the money, with of course the busybodyism thrown in.
"Employee protection"? Guess who got the modelly end of the enforcement stick? Bar employees, in particular bouncers. At least one got killed trying to enforce this law.
-Eric
Excuse me, but are you unsure about the DOD's findings of SHS ? Read the following please:
Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"
DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter. This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.
I take it further out. What is the proper role of government? Having PEL for substances is necessary. Most persons, employees and customers, would want to know the level of potential harm (or safety). Base decisions on full knowledge.
he question is, which organization is best able to accurately measure PEL and which is best able to weigh the pros and cons?
Business in any industry will lose employees and customers to competing businesses if it doesn't provide safe environment. To harm either is counter productive. Free market would give rise to companies that measure PEL and report accurately. ACME PEL would be under the same competitive veracity pressure as any industry. If ACME PEL falls short of their responsibility, Road-Runner PEL will out compete them.
It is quite clear to me that government, void of competition -- yet armed with the legitimization of initiating force -- is far from the most competent organization to measure PEL, weigh the pros and cons and report accurately. It's probably the least competent compared to any in a free competition marketplace.
In a free market, whether due to negligence or intentional, when harm occurs there is redress and restitution. With government there is little if any redress or restitution when it screws up. Banning of DDT is but one example. How many property owners have been denied full use of their property due to endangered species act or EPA regulations and never been compensated for the taking. Taking that is bogus in the first place because it isn't valid use of eminent domain or permitted by any part of the constitution.
Bottom line, in many areas the government -- politicians and bureaucrats -- has usurped from the free market what the free market can do better than the government.
Proclaiming to safe persons and society from running headlong to destruction politicians and bureaucrats create about 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. State government create their own barrage of laws and regs each year.
Yet, how is it that for more than a hundred years, without the "benefit" of the next years new laws and the laws in subsequent years that persons and society increasingly prospered? How do we increasingly prosper to day with out the "benefit" of new laws and regulations yet to come next year, five years and fifteen years ahead?
Also, with the increasing mountain of laws virtually every person breaks the law several times a year. How is it that with all that lawlessness that persons and society have not run headlong over the cliff-edge to destruction? Not to mention that if it were physically possible to apprehend every lawbreaker -- including judges, lawyers, police, prosecutors, bus drivers, grocery clerks etc. -- next week, society would come to a screeching halt -- driving it over the cliff-edge.
Capitalism and the workers that fuel it are the host. Politicians and bureaucrats are parasites living off the host. They leech just enough to gain unearned paychecks, prestige and power. Sure to not so encumber the host where it reduces its production of goods and services beyond that which would leave the parasites to perish. For the parasitical elites cannot produce much needed, life sustaining necessities.
Calling it bizarre would be an understatement. It's lethal. It's the anti-civilization.