PDA

View Full Version : Guns and booz don't mix...or do they?


Will Brink
September 26th 04, 06:10 PM
What Next? Uzi Bourbon?

Mon Sep 20,11:25 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The creator of one of the world's most famous guns,
the AK-47 assault rifle, launched another weapon in Britain Monday --
Kalashnikov vodka.

Lieutenant General Mikhail Kalashnikov, who invented the AK-47 after
being shot by German soldiers during World War II, said he wanted to
continue "the good name" of his gun.


"I've always wanted to improve and expand on the good name of my weapon
by doing good things," he told Reuters Television.


"So we decided to create a vodka under my name. And we wanted that vodka
to be better than anything made, up until now, in both Russia and
England."


The Kalashnikov rifle has become the weapon of choice for guerrillas and
gangsters across the world. But Kalashnikov said his original intentions
for the gun were purely patriotic.


"I did not create the gun for international conflicts, I created it to
protect the borders of my country," he said.


"It is not my fault that it has been spread all over the world. It is
its reliability and its simplicity that have taken it all over the
world."


Promoters of Kalashnikov vodka say it is "made from grain harvested in
Russia and water drawn from Lake Ladoga north of St Petersburg" and is
best drunk with friends.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 26th 04, 06:22 PM
Will Brink > wrote:
>What Next? Uzi Bourbon?
>
>Mon Sep 20,11:25 AM ET
>
>LONDON (Reuters) - The creator of one of the world's most famous guns,
>the AK-47 assault rifle, launched another weapon in Britain Monday --
>Kalashnikov vodka.

I read this on CCN.com several days ago.

Actually, since the developer of the M-16 was named "Stoner"

DZ
September 26th 04, 06:40 PM
Will Brink > wrote:
> What Next? Uzi Bourbon?
>
> Mon Sep 20,11:25 AM ET
>
> LONDON (Reuters) - The creator of one of the world's most famous guns,
> the AK-47 assault rifle, launched another weapon in Britain Monday --
> Kalashnikov vodka.

With Kalashnikov vodka, to take a few shots takes on whole new
meaning!

DZ

> Lieutenant General Mikhail Kalashnikov, who invented the AK-47 after
> being shot by German soldiers during World War II, said he wanted to
> continue "the good name" of his gun.
>
>
> "I've always wanted to improve and expand on the good name of my weapon
> by doing good things," he told Reuters Television.
>
>
> "So we decided to create a vodka under my name. And we wanted that vodka
> to be better than anything made, up until now, in both Russia and
> England."
>
>
> The Kalashnikov rifle has become the weapon of choice for guerrillas and
> gangsters across the world. But Kalashnikov said his original intentions
> for the gun were purely patriotic.
>
>
> "I did not create the gun for international conflicts, I created it to
> protect the borders of my country," he said.
>
>
> "It is not my fault that it has been spread all over the world. It is
> its reliability and its simplicity that have taken it all over the
> world."
>
>
> Promoters of Kalashnikov vodka say it is "made from grain harvested in
> Russia and water drawn from Lake Ladoga north of St Petersburg" and is
> best drunk with friends.

David Cohen
September 26th 04, 07:38 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote
<snipski>

> The Kalashnikov rifle has become the weapon of choice for guerrillas and
> gangsters across the world. But Kalashnikov said his original intentions
> for the gun were purely patriotic.
>
> "I did not create the gun for international conflicts, I created it to
> protect the borders of my country," he said.
>
> "It is not my fault that it has been spread all over the world. It is
> its reliability and its simplicity that have taken it all over the
> world."

I've seen numerous interviews with Kalashnikov over the years, and while I
have great respect for him as a gun designer, up there with Browning, Colt,
Stoner, et al, it is this attitude that always bothered me. He is truly a
good Party Comrade.

David

John M. Williams
September 26th 04, 07:49 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote:
>
>"Will Brink" > wrote
><snipski>
>
>> The Kalashnikov rifle has become the weapon of choice for guerrillas and
>> gangsters across the world. But Kalashnikov said his original intentions
>> for the gun were purely patriotic.
>>
>> "I did not create the gun for international conflicts, I created it to
>> protect the borders of my country," he said.
>>
>> "It is not my fault that it has been spread all over the world. It is
>> its reliability and its simplicity that have taken it all over the
>> world."
>
>I've seen numerous interviews with Kalashnikov over the years, and while I
>have great respect for him as a gun designer, up there with Browning, Colt,
>Stoner, et al, it is this attitude that always bothered me. He is truly a
>good Party Comrade.

I don't think it's so much him being an apparatchik as it is him being
arrogant and self-promoting. He's really quite fond of himself. And
not totally without good reason, just more than is polite.

Will Brink
September 26th 04, 07:59 PM
In article . net>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> "Will Brink" > wrote
> <snipski>
>
> > The Kalashnikov rifle has become the weapon of choice for guerrillas and
> > gangsters across the world. But Kalashnikov said his original intentions
> > for the gun were purely patriotic.
> >
> > "I did not create the gun for international conflicts, I created it to
> > protect the borders of my country," he said.
> >
> > "It is not my fault that it has been spread all over the world. It is
> > its reliability and its simplicity that have taken it all over the
> > world."
>
> I've seen numerous interviews with Kalashnikov over the years, and while I
> have great respect for him as a gun designer, up there with Browning, Colt,
> Stoner, et al, it is this attitude that always bothered me. He is truly a
> good Party Comrade.

He's no Browning...

>
> David
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Zen Cohen
September 26th 04, 08:21 PM
For the most authoritative piece ever on guns n booze, go to this Daily Show
page and click Ed Helms' report "A Round of Shots":
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?p=helms

MJL
September 26th 04, 08:49 PM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:21:21 GMT, "Zen Cohen" >
wrote:

>For the most authoritative piece ever on guns n booze, go to this Daily Show
>page and click Ed Helms' report "A Round of Shots":
>http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?p=helms
>

That was some funny ****!


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Brandon Berg
September 26th 04, 10:20 PM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:21:21 GMT, "Zen Cohen" >
> wrote:
>
>>For the most authoritative piece ever on guns n booze, go to this Daily
>>Show
>>page and click Ed Helms' report "A Round of Shots":
>>http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?p=helms
>
> That was some funny ****!

Funny, but predictably wrong. The legislation in question wouldn't have
prevented bar owners from prohibitng customers from carrying guns, or from
refusing to serve alcohol to customers carrying guns, nor would it force
customers to patronize establishments which they believed to have dangerous
gun policies. Also, the laws in place at the time banned guns not only in
bars, but also in restaurants which served alcohol.

This isn't a safety issue; it's a property rights issue. The question of
whether it's wise to allow some or all customers to carry guns in bars and
restaurants is entirely independent from the question of whether the
government should force a one-size-fits-all policy on the owners of those
establishments. It's like the smoking issue. I personally prefer a
smoke-free environment, but I understand that my preferences aren't
universal, and I don't arrogate to myself the right to force my preferences
upon others.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

David Cohen
September 27th 04, 02:56 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >"Will Brink" > wrote
> ><snipski>
> >
> >> The Kalashnikov rifle has become the weapon of choice for guerrillas
and
> >> gangsters across the world. But Kalashnikov said his original
intentions
> >> for the gun were purely patriotic.
> >>
> >> "I did not create the gun for international conflicts, I created it to
> >> protect the borders of my country," he said.
> >>
> >> "It is not my fault that it has been spread all over the world. It is
> >> its reliability and its simplicity that have taken it all over the
> >> world."
> >
> >I've seen numerous interviews with Kalashnikov over the years, and while
I
> >have great respect for him as a gun designer, up there with Browning,
Colt,
> >Stoner, et al, it is this attitude that always bothered me. He is truly a
> >good Party Comrade.
>
> I don't think it's so much him being an apparatchik as it is him being
> arrogant and self-promoting. He's really quite fond of himself. And
> not totally without good reason, just more than is polite.

You may be correct (aka: DRS's forbidden phrase).

David

Bob MacWilliam
September 27th 04, 08:14 PM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message >...
> "MJL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:21:21 GMT, "Zen Cohen" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>For the most authoritative piece ever on guns n booze, go to this Daily
> >>Show
> >>page and click Ed Helms' report "A Round of Shots":
> >>http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?p=helms
> >
> > That was some funny ****!
>
> Funny, but predictably wrong. The legislation in question wouldn't have
> prevented bar owners from prohibitng customers from carrying guns, or from
> refusing to serve alcohol to customers carrying guns, nor would it force
> customers to patronize establishments which they believed to have dangerous
> gun policies. Also, the laws in place at the time banned guns not only in
> bars, but also in restaurants which served alcohol.
>
> This isn't a safety issue; it's a property rights issue. The question of
> whether it's wise to allow some or all customers to carry guns in bars and
> restaurants is entirely independent from the question of whether the
> government should force a one-size-fits-all policy on the owners of those
> establishments. It's like the smoking issue. I personally prefer a
> smoke-free environment, but I understand that my preferences aren't
> universal, and I don't arrogate to myself the right to force my preferences
> upon others.

It's not so simple. I think it's the smokers who are forcing their
preferences on others. If you don't like smoke, you can go to another
bar right? What if there's no non-smoking bars around? Now the
choice is to stay home and drink or go to a smoky bar. What if you're
single? Now the choice might be stay at home or go out the bar and
breathe smoke but have a chance of getting laid. My point is the
choices are gray here and are NOT simple.

What about the waitress? Does she have a right to a safe work
environment? She can always go work somewhere else right? What if
she has children to feed and not much education? She can go back to
school maybe? So her choice is breathe the smoke and endanger her
health or go back to school and her children starve? This is a bit
extreme of course, but the point is the choice very often not as
simple as "then go work somewhere else if you don't like it".

Many of these arguments come down to the vehement insistence by a
certain lower element of society that engaging in immature risk-taking
behaviour that endagers themselves and more importantly others, is
somehow their "right".

Bob

Brandon Berg
September 28th 04, 07:14 AM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
om...
> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
> >...
>> This isn't a safety issue; it's a property rights issue. The question of
>> whether it's wise to allow some or all customers to carry guns in bars
>> and
>> restaurants is entirely independent from the question of whether the
>> government should force a one-size-fits-all policy on the owners of those
>> establishments. It's like the smoking issue. I personally prefer a
>> smoke-free environment, but I understand that my preferences aren't
>> universal, and I don't arrogate to myself the right to force my
>> preferences
>> upon others.
>
> It's not so simple. I think it's the smokers who are forcing their
> preferences on others. If you don't like smoke, you can go to another
> bar right? What if there's no non-smoking bars around? Now the
> choice is to stay home and drink or go to a smoky bar. What if you're
> single? Now the choice might be stay at home or go out the bar and
> breathe smoke but have a chance of getting laid. My point is the
> choices are gray here and are NOT simple.

I never said that the choices that patrons and owners of bars make regarding
which bars to patronize and what policies to set are simple. They're not.
What I said was that the political question--that is, who makes the rules
for a given bar--is simple. And it is. The owner of a bar or restaurant has
the same right to make the rules for his property that you have to make the
rules for your property. If you don't like those rules, you're free to
patronize other bars, or, if you can't find one to your liking, to open your
own.

> What about the waitress? Does she have a right to a safe work
> environment?

She has the right to work on any terms she and her employer find mutually
agreeable.

> She can always go work somewhere else right?

Yes, she can. Or she can remain unemployed. The only relevant fact is that
she's not being forced to work in the bar.

> What if she has children to feed and not much education?

I'm not sure I see how her poor choices translate to an obligation on the
part of anyone who happens to own a bar. How exactly does this work? Do you
have an obligation to provide her with an income and a safe working
environment, or does this obligation extend only to those who own bars? What
about me? Because I'm pretty sure I forgot to cut her a check last month.
Does this apply to all uneducated single mothers, or just to this one? You
said "children." What about women with just one child? Or two children and a
community college degree? What about single fathers?

I don't own a bar, but I do own a car. Am I obligated to employ a chauffer
and install front side airbags for his protection, or am I off the hook
since it's a cheap car? What about my home? Do I have to have it inspected
for mold before I hire a maid to clean it? What about the mold inspector?

You're right--this is complicated!

> Many of these arguments come down to the vehement insistence by a
> certain lower element of society...

I'll grant that there are a few elements of society lower than
self-righteous busybodies, but principled defenders of property rights are
not among them.

> ...that engaging in immature risk-taking
> behaviour that endagers themselves and more importantly others, is
> somehow their "right".

Are you saying that people don't have the right to endanger themselves?
(Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke). Everyone who enters the bar
voluntarily is a willing participant, so there is no endangerment of others.

And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their right to
consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a smoke-free
environment isn't lost on you.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Bob MacWilliam
September 28th 04, 01:42 PM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> This isn't a safety issue; it's a property rights issue. The question of
>>> whether it's wise to allow some or all customers to carry guns in bars
>>> and
>>> restaurants is entirely independent from the question of whether the
>>> government should force a one-size-fits-all policy on the owners of
>>> those
>>> establishments. It's like the smoking issue. I personally prefer a
>>> smoke-free environment, but I understand that my preferences aren't
>>> universal, and I don't arrogate to myself the right to force my
>>> preferences
>>> upon others.
>>
>> It's not so simple. I think it's the smokers who are forcing their
>> preferences on others. If you don't like smoke, you can go to another
>> bar right? What if there's no non-smoking bars around? Now the
>> choice is to stay home and drink or go to a smoky bar. What if you're
>> single? Now the choice might be stay at home or go out the bar and
>> breathe smoke but have a chance of getting laid. My point is the
>> choices are gray here and are NOT simple.
>
> I never said that the choices that patrons and owners of bars make
> regarding which bars to patronize and what policies to set are simple.
> They're not. What I said was that the political question--that is, who
> makes the rules for a given bar--is simple. And it is. The owner of a bar
> or restaurant has the same right to make the rules for his property that
> you have to make the rules for your property. If you don't like those
> rules, you're free to patronize other bars, or, if you can't find one to
> your liking, to open your own.
>
>> What about the waitress? Does she have a right to a safe work
>> environment?
>
> She has the right to work on any terms she and her employer find mutually
> agreeable.
>
>> She can always go work somewhere else right?
>
> Yes, she can. Or she can remain unemployed. The only relevant fact is that
> she's not being forced to work in the bar.
>
Patrons and bar owner's choices aren't simple, but the waitress's choice is?
The only relevant fact that she's not being forced to work there? What a
stupid thing to say.


>> What if she has children to feed and not much education?
>
> I'm not sure I see how her poor choices translate to an obligation on the
> part of anyone who happens to own a bar. How exactly does this work? Do
> you have an obligation to provide her with an income and a safe working
> environment, or does this obligation extend only to those who own bars?
> What about me? Because I'm pretty sure I forgot to cut her a check last
> month. Does this apply to all uneducated single mothers, or just to this
> one? You said "children." What about women with just one child? Or two
> children and a community college degree? What about single fathers?

What the hell are you talking about? Poor choices and responsibility of
others has nothing to do with it.

I was illustrating the point that your overly simplistic "just go work
somewhere else" view is a flawed and immature viewpoint. How does this
excuse an employer from providing a safe workplace? In a civilized society,
workplace safety is a concept that we expect and DEMAND.


>
> I don't own a bar, but I do own a car. Am I obligated to employ a chauffer
> and install front side airbags for his protection, or am I off the hook
> since it's a cheap car? What about my home? Do I have to have it inspected
> for mold before I hire a maid to clean it? What about the mold inspector?

You are obligated not to drive a 200 miles per hour in a residential zone.
You are obligated not to endanger others.

> You're right--this is complicated!
>
>> Many of these arguments come down to the vehement insistence by a
>> certain lower element of society...
>
> I'll grant that there are a few elements of society lower than
> self-righteous busybodies, but principled defenders of property rights are
> not among them.
>

Defenders of property rights maybe, defenders of smokers "rights" =
L-O-S-E-R

>> ...that engaging in immature risk-taking
>> behaviour that endagers themselves and more importantly others, is
>> somehow their "right".
>
> Are you saying that people don't have the right to endanger themselves?

Others, man OTHERS, don't you get it!!?? Even with themselves it becomes
gray when you have the right to endanger yourself, but I don't have the
right to refuse you medical treatment. That however is another argument
entirely and is not relevant here.

> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
> perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke). Everyone who enters the
> bar voluntarily is a willing participant, so there is no endangerment of
> others.
>

Foolish, immature, simplistic and just plain wrong. Do you work for a
tobacco company or are you just insane?
What about the child that's dragged into a smoky room? Loser parent sure,
but your argument that everyone is willing is utterly ridiculous.

> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their right
> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>

Irony?

When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me not
to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
difference here???

> --
> Brandon Berg
> Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.
>
>

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 02:56 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>
>"Brandon Berg" > wrote:
>>
>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their right
>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>
>Irony?
>
>When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me not
>to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
>difference here???

I have yet to see anyone killed because a driver was intoxicated by
smoking cigarettes.

Bob MacWilliam
September 28th 04, 03:58 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>
>>"Brandon Berg" > wrote:
>>>
>>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their
>>> right
>>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>>
>>Irony?
>>
>>When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me not
>>to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
>>difference here???
>
> I have yet to see anyone killed because a driver was intoxicated by
> smoking cigarettes.
>

Many are killed by smoke. What are you trying to say?

Bob

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 05:18 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Brandon Berg" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>>>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their
>>>> right
>>>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>>>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>>>
>>>Irony?
>>>
>>>When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me not
>>>to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
>>>difference here???
>>
>> I have yet to see anyone killed because a driver was intoxicated by
>> smoking cigarettes.
>
>Many are killed by smoke. What are you trying to say?

I was expanding on Brandon's observation of irony. And you know what
I mean.

Bob MacWilliam
September 28th 04, 06:15 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Brandon Berg" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>>>>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their
>>>>> right
>>>>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>>>>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>>>>
>>>>Irony?
>>>>
>>>>When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me
>>>>not
>>>>to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
>>>>difference here???
>>>
>>> I have yet to see anyone killed because a driver was intoxicated by
>>> smoking cigarettes.
>>
>>Many are killed by smoke. What are you trying to say?
>
> I was expanding on Brandon's observation of irony. And you know what
> I mean.
>

Sorry, I don't. I'm discussing behaviour that's destructive to others.
Self-destructive behaviour is another topic. There is no "irony". Your
comments make no sense.

Bob

Brandon Berg
September 28th 04, 06:23 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>> She can always go work somewhere else right?
>>
>> Yes, she can. Or she can remain unemployed. The only relevant fact is
>> that she's not being forced to work in the bar.
>>
> Patrons and bar owner's choices aren't simple, but the waitress's choice
> is? The only relevant fact that she's not being forced to work there? What
> a stupid thing to say.

Again, I mean the only fact relevant to the political question of who has
the right to set policy for the bar. Personal decisions are complex.
Political decisions are simple.

>>> What if she has children to feed and not much education?
>>
>> I'm not sure I see how her poor choices translate to an obligation on the
>> part of anyone who happens to own a bar. How exactly does this work? Do
>> you have an obligation to provide her with an income and a safe working
>> environment, or does this obligation extend only to those who own bars?
>> What about me? Because I'm pretty sure I forgot to cut her a check last
>> month. Does this apply to all uneducated single mothers, or just to this
>> one? You said "children." What about women with just one child? Or two
>> children and a community college degree? What about single fathers?
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Poor choices and responsibility of
> others has nothing to do with it.

You seem to have lost your train of thought. Let's review:

1. You said that if a woman has children and no education (i.e., has made
certain poor choices in her life), she has very few employment options.
2. Therefore (by your logic), anyone who owns a bar is obligated to offer
her a job.
3. Furthermore, that job must meet certain standards which you seem to
understand better than I.

My question is simple: Why do the woman's poor choices translate to any kind
of obligation on the part of the bar owner? And to what extent does this
obligation extend to those who do not own bars?

> I was illustrating the point that your overly simplistic "just go work
> somewhere else" view is a flawed and immature viewpoint.

You can discuss the maturity of my ideas after you've shown that they're
flawed.

> How does this excuse an employer from providing a safe workplace?

Excuse him from what? You still haven't shown that the employer has any such
obligation. Are you also obligated to provide her with a safe workplace? Am
I?

> In a civilized society, workplace safety is a concept that we expect and
> DEMAND.

I don't see how you have any right to demand something of an arrangement to
which you're not a party. If employees demand workplace safety, then an
employer who provides an unsafe workplace will have trouble finding people
to work with him. As it is, it seems that many a barmaid places a lower
premium on a smoke-free work environment than you do. Again, you're
arrogating to yourself the right to override the preferences of others.

Let's try a different approach. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument,
that a man asks this uneducated single mother to marry him. Suppose also
that he smokes and she doesn't. Is he obligated to provide her with a "safe"
(i.e., smoke-free) wifing environment, even when the children are at the
neighbor's house? I mean, she might agree to live with him and tolerate the
smoking, but isn't that just because she has children and isn't particularly
attractive, and therefore has no other marriage options, and can't make it
on her own? Doesn't she have a Gorft-given RIGHT to a safe wifing
environment? Don't we, as a civilized society, expect and DEMAND wifeplace
safety?

>> I don't own a bar, but I do own a car. Am I obligated to employ a
>> chauffer and install front side airbags for his protection, or am I off
>> the hook since it's a cheap car? What about my home? Do I have to have it
>> inspected for mold before I hire a maid to clean it? What about the mold
>> inspector?
>
> You are obligated not to drive a 200 miles per hour in a residential zone.
> You are obligated not to endanger others.

But now you're simply reinforcing my point. The reason that I'm obligated
not to drive 200 MPH in a residential zone is that representatives of the
road's owners (the government) have set a policy for the road that prohibits
driving at speeds exceeding 25 MPH. Furthermore, those who live near and
drive on such roads do with the understanding that others will not be
allowed to drive at dangerous speeds. Neither of these applies to bars in
which the owner allows smoking (although he'll probably forbid driving at
200 MPH, too).

>> I'll grant that there are a few elements of society lower than
>> self-righteous busybodies, but principled defenders of property rights
>> are not among them.
>
> Defenders of property rights maybe, defenders of smokers "rights" =
> L-O-S-E-R

Who said anything about smokers' rights? There's no such thing. I made it
very clear even before you entered this thread that I'm defending the right
of bar owners to make the rules for their own property. Smokers have no
right whatsoever to smoke in a bar, or in a house, where the owner forbids
it, nor have gun owners any right to take their guns into places whose
owners forbid it.

>>> ...that engaging in immature risk-taking
>>> behaviour that endagers themselves and more importantly others, is
>>> somehow their "right".
>>
>> Are you saying that people don't have the right to endanger themselves?
>
> Others, man OTHERS, don't you get it!!??

Was that really necessary, given that I addressed the "others" question
below? Try to understand how this works. You may be able to fit your
arguments within single sentences, but I'm burdened by the need to string
together a logically coherent argument, which makes it difficult to counter
your assertions with the same compactness with which you present them.

> Even with themselves it becomes gray when you have the right to endanger
> yourself, but I don't have the right to refuse you medical treatment. That
> however is another argument entirely and is not relevant here.

You do have the right to refuse me medical treatment. It's just that, if you
happen to be a doctor, the government won't recognize that right. This is an
interesting illustration of how abridgements of liberty in one area tend to
create an imbalance that requires abridgements in other areas to correct.

>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
>> perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke). Everyone who enters the
>> bar voluntarily is a willing participant, so there is no endangerment of
>> others.
>>
> Foolish, immature, simplistic and just plain wrong. Do you work for a
> tobacco company or are you just insane?

If you don't have a valid rebuttal, just say so. There's no shame in being
wrong, as long as you can learn from it.

> What about the child that's dragged into a smoky room? Loser parent sure,
> but your argument that everyone is willing is utterly ridiculous.

Do bars even allow children? Anyway, you might be able to argue that taking
a child into a smoke-filled bar is a form of child abuse, but why should a
perfect stranger be obligated to prevent child abuse, especially in such a
mild form? Doesn't the responsibility lie with the parent? And even if, for
the sake of argument, we accept the premise that bartenders are responsible
for stopping this abuse, we can get around this with a narrower law: A bar
can allow smoking, or it can allow children, but it cannot allow both.

Of course, we'd then have to extend the same restrictions to homes. Do you
believe that there should be laws against smoking in the presence of
children anywhere, even in your own home?

And if we follow this to its logical conclusion, it leads to all manner of
absurdity. A parent might walk into a bar, order a shot of gin, and give it
to his child. Must the bar then stop serving gin in order to prevent this
abuse? Won't we have to ban liquor altogether, since parents could do the
same after purchasing it at a store? What about pornography? Some people say
that's damaging to children. In fact, won't we have to ban everything which
could conceivably be used to facilitate child abuse?

>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their right
>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>
> When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me not
> to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
> difference here???

And when you walk into a smoke-filled bar, it doesn't affect people outside
of the bar. Again, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that every adult
in the bar is there voluntarily and implicitly agreeing to tolerate the
smoke.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
September 28th 04, 06:31 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>>"Brandon Berg" > wrote:
>>>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>>>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their
>>>> right
>>>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>>>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>>>
>>>When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me
>>>not
>>>to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
>>>difference here???

In speaking of irony, I was referring specifically to your claim that people
have no right to engage in self-destructive behavior.

>> I have yet to see anyone killed because a driver was intoxicated by
>> smoking cigarettes.
>
> Many are killed by smoke. What are you trying to say?

When I get in my car and onto the road, I do so with the understanding that
other drivers have an obligation to drive safely and free from the influence
of intoxicants. If someone gets drunk and drives recklessly, he's violating
his obligation to me as a taxpayer, and also acting contrary to the
standards of behavior which I have a right to expect (because of the rules)
as a driver. This simply doesn't apply to a bar in which the owner allows
smoking. First, because the owner allows smoking. No one has any obligation
to him to refrain from smoking. Second, I have no right to expect him not to
smoke, because it's not contrary to the rules of the establishment.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Bob MacWilliam
September 28th 04, 07:01 PM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> She can always go work somewhere else right?
>>>
>>> Yes, she can. Or she can remain unemployed. The only relevant fact is
>>> that she's not being forced to work in the bar.
>>>
>> Patrons and bar owner's choices aren't simple, but the waitress's choice
>> is? The only relevant fact that she's not being forced to work there?
>> What a stupid thing to say.
>
> Again, I mean the only fact relevant to the political question of who has
> the right to set policy for the bar. Personal decisions are complex.
> Political decisions are simple.
>
>>>> What if she has children to feed and not much education?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I see how her poor choices translate to an obligation on
>>> the part of anyone who happens to own a bar. How exactly does this work?
>>> Do you have an obligation to provide her with an income and a safe
>>> working environment, or does this obligation extend only to those who
>>> own bars? What about me? Because I'm pretty sure I forgot to cut her a
>>> check last month. Does this apply to all uneducated single mothers, or
>>> just to this one? You said "children." What about women with just one
>>> child? Or two children and a community college degree? What about single
>>> fathers?
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about? Poor choices and responsibility of
>> others has nothing to do with it.
>
> You seem to have lost your train of thought. Let's review:
>
> 1. You said that if a woman has children and no education (i.e., has made
> certain poor choices in her life), she has very few employment options.
> 2. Therefore (by your logic), anyone who owns a bar is obligated to offer
> her a job.
> 3. Furthermore, that job must meet certain standards which you seem to
> understand better than I.
>

Wrong. An employer in a civilized society has an obligation to provide a
safe working environment - nothing more. This is why people can't smoke at
their desks in offices anymore.



> My question is simple: Why do the woman's poor choices translate to any
> kind of obligation on the part of the bar owner? And to what extent does
> this obligation extend to those who do not own bars?

The obligation extends - see above.

>> I was illustrating the point that your overly simplistic "just go work
>> somewhere else" view is a flawed and immature viewpoint.
>
> You can discuss the maturity of my ideas after you've shown that they're
> flawed.
>
>> How does this excuse an employer from providing a safe workplace?
>
> Excuse him from what? You still haven't shown that the employer has any
> such obligation. Are you also obligated to provide her with a safe
> workplace? Am I?

An employer does have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. If you
feel otherwise, you're wrong. There are things called laws that reinforce
this.

>> In a civilized society, workplace safety is a concept that we expect and
>> DEMAND.
>
> I don't see how you have any right to demand something of an arrangement
> to which you're not a party. If employees demand workplace safety, then an
> employer who provides an unsafe workplace will have trouble finding people
> to work with him.

Yeah, like the diamond workers in Africa. The brick workers in India. This
argument is not justifiable. Theoretically even this would only be true
economically in a full employment situation where a safe job with similar
pay was readily available for this person.

>As it is, it seems that many a barmaid places a lower premium on a
>smoke-free work environment than you do. Again, you're arrogating to
>yourself the right to override the preferences of others.
>

No. The problem is that the danger is not readily visible. Therefore the
danger is tolerated because it is hidden from immediate view. This again
does not excuse an employer from an obligation of a safe workplace.

> Let's try a different approach. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument,
> that a man asks this uneducated single mother to marry him. Suppose also
> that he smokes and she doesn't. Is he obligated to provide her with a
> "safe" (i.e., smoke-free) wifing environment, even when the children are
> at the neighbor's house? I mean, she might agree to live with him and
> tolerate the smoking, but isn't that just because she has children and
> isn't particularly attractive, and therefore has no other marriage
> options, and can't make it on her own? Doesn't she have a Gorft-given
> RIGHT to a safe wifing environment? Don't we, as a civilized society,
> expect and DEMAND wifeplace safety?
>

Adults are one thing. But children DO have a right to a smoke-free home in
my opinion. In any case, we are discussing the workplace, not homes.


>>> I don't own a bar, but I do own a car. Am I obligated to employ a
>>> chauffer and install front side airbags for his protection, or am I off
>>> the hook since it's a cheap car? What about my home? Do I have to have
>>> it inspected for mold before I hire a maid to clean it? What about the
>>> mold inspector?
>>
>> You are obligated not to drive a 200 miles per hour in a residential
>> zone. You are obligated not to endanger others.
>
> But now you're simply reinforcing my point. The reason that I'm obligated
> not to drive 200 MPH in a residential zone is that representatives of the
> road's owners (the government) have set a policy for the road that
> prohibits driving at speeds exceeding 25 MPH. Furthermore, those who live
> near and drive on such roads do with the understanding that others will
> not be allowed to drive at dangerous speeds. Neither of these applies to
> bars in which the owner allows smoking (although he'll probably forbid
> driving at 200 MPH, too).

Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a lawful
society. This applies directly (or damn well should) to other dangerous
behaviours like smoking in the presence of others.


>>> I'll grant that there are a few elements of society lower than
>>> self-righteous busybodies, but principled defenders of property rights
>>> are not among them.
>>
>> Defenders of property rights maybe, defenders of smokers "rights" =
>> L-O-S-E-R
>
> Who said anything about smokers' rights? There's no such thing. I made it
> very clear even before you entered this thread that I'm defending the
> right of bar owners to make the rules for their own property. Smokers have
> no right whatsoever to smoke in a bar, or in a house, where the owner
> forbids it, nor have gun owners any right to take their guns into places
> whose owners forbid it.
>
>>>> ...that engaging in immature risk-taking
>>>> behaviour that endagers themselves and more importantly others, is
>>>> somehow their "right".
>>>
>>> Are you saying that people don't have the right to endanger themselves?
>>
>> Others, man OTHERS, don't you get it!!??
>
> Was that really necessary, given that I addressed the "others" question
> below? Try to understand how this works. You may be able to fit your
> arguments within single sentences, but I'm burdened by the need to string
> together a logically coherent argument, which makes it difficult to
> counter your assertions with the same compactness with which you present
> them.

This is because there is no foundation for your argument. You either
believe an obligation exists for a safe working environment or you don't.
If you feel that incoherent justifications of ownership supercede this
obligation then fine. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

>> Even with themselves it becomes gray when you have the right to endanger
>> yourself, but I don't have the right to refuse you medical treatment.
>> That however is another argument entirely and is not relevant here.
>
> You do have the right to refuse me medical treatment. It's just that, if
> you happen to be a doctor, the government won't recognize that right. This
> is an interesting illustration of how abridgements of liberty in one area
> tend to create an imbalance that requires abridgements in other areas to
> correct.
>

Drivel.

>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
>>> perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke). Everyone who enters the
>>> bar voluntarily is a willing participant, so there is no endangerment of
>>> others.
>>>
>> Foolish, immature, simplistic and just plain wrong. Do you work for a
>> tobacco company or are you just insane?
>
> If you don't have a valid rebuttal, just say so. There's no shame in being
> wrong, as long as you can learn from it.
>

Ah... Yeah....

>> What about the child that's dragged into a smoky room? Loser parent
>> sure, but your argument that everyone is willing is utterly ridiculous.
>
> Do bars even allow children? Anyway, you might be able to argue that
> taking a child into a smoke-filled bar is a form of child abuse, but why
> should a perfect stranger be obligated to prevent child abuse, especially
> in such a mild form? Doesn't the responsibility lie with the parent? And
> even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that bartenders
> are responsible for stopping this abuse, we can get around this with a
> narrower law: A bar can allow smoking, or it can allow children, but it
> cannot allow both.

This in fact is the law in many areas, a step in the right direction.

>
> Of course, we'd then have to extend the same restrictions to homes. Do you
> believe that there should be laws against smoking in the presence of
> children anywhere, even in your own home?

WITHOUT QUESTION!!! How is that not child abuse asshole???

Explain that you ignorant jackass!!

This ultra-right bull**** based on some foolish notion of the
ultra-supremacy of the individual at the cost of everything else is the
epitome of pig-headed immaturity. You're supposed to grow out of this stage
when you reach 16 or so. Arguing that smoking in the presence of children
in a confined area is one's right is reprehensible. You sir, are a piece of
crap. You crossed over a line you weren't even aware of here. If you were
aware, then it's even worse. You need to seriously relfect on your
problems, then deal with them.

> And if we follow this to its logical conclusion, it leads to all manner of
> absurdity. A parent might walk into a bar, order a shot of gin, and give
> it to his child. Must the bar then stop serving gin in order to prevent
> this abuse? Won't we have to ban liquor altogether, since parents could do
> the same after purchasing it at a store? What about pornography? Some
> people say that's damaging to children. In fact, won't we have to ban
> everything which could conceivably be used to facilitate child abuse?
>

No sense whatsoever. The ACT (giving it to the child) is abuse, not the
substance. Can you understand this??
Second hand smoke is the direct result of the ACT of smoking.

>>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their
>>> right to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>>
>> When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me
>> not to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder
>> the difference here???
>
> And when you walk into a smoke-filled bar, it doesn't affect people
> outside of the bar. Again, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that
> every adult in the bar is there voluntarily and implicitly agreeing to
> tolerate the smoke.

You lose sight of the fact that this assertion is demonstrably false. Grow
the **** up.

Bob

Hoff
September 28th 04, 07:35 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a lawful
> society. This applies directly (or damn well should) to other dangerous
> behaviours like smoking in the presence of others.

Yeah, that Prohibition thing worked out real well.

Hoff
--
Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 08:06 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Brandon Berg" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I hope that the irony of the impugning people's right to engage in
>>>>>> self-destructive behaviour while at the same time championing their
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> to consume hard liquor while seeking out casual sex partners in a
>>>>>> smoke-free environment isn't lost on you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Irony?
>>>>>
>>>>>When I drink it doesn't spill down the throat of the person next to me
>>>>>not
>>>>>to mention the person in the far corner of the bar. Can you ponder the
>>>>>difference here???
>>>>
>>>> I have yet to see anyone killed because a driver was intoxicated by
>>>> smoking cigarettes.
>>>
>>>Many are killed by smoke. What are you trying to say?
>>
>> I was expanding on Brandon's observation of irony. And you know what
>> I mean.
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't. I'm discussing behaviour that's destructive to others.
>Self-destructive behaviour is another topic. There is no "irony". Your
>comments make no sense.

If that's the subject, then my comments make perfect sense, and yours
are, indeed, ironic. Drunk drivers kill a lot more people than
second-hand cigarette smoke does.

Bob MacWilliam
September 28th 04, 09:25 PM
"Hoff" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
>> lawful
>> society. This applies directly (or damn well should) to other dangerous
>> behaviours like smoking in the presence of others.
>
> Yeah, that Prohibition thing worked out real well.
>
> Hoff
> --
> Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
> http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm
>
>

Smoking IS prohibited in almost any indoor place where there's other people
except for homes and bars in some places. This prohibition does indeed work
very well thank-you-very-****ing-much.

Bob

Bob MacWilliam
September 28th 04, 09:45 PM
<snip>

> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
> perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).

The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.

Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.

Bob

Hoff
September 28th 04, 10:36 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hoff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
> >> lawful
> >> society. This applies directly (or damn well should) to other dangerous
> >> behaviours like smoking in the presence of others.
> >
> > Yeah, that Prohibition thing worked out real well.
> >
> > Hoff
> > --
> > Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
> > http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm
> >
> >
>
> Smoking IS prohibited in almost any indoor place where there's other people
> except for homes and bars in some places. This prohibition does indeed work
> very well thank-you-very-****ing-much.
>

Measured how?

Hoff
--
Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

Hoff
September 28th 04, 10:59 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>
> > (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
> > perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>
> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>
> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>

Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.

What about the World Health Org?

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Hoff
--
Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 11:00 PM
"Hoff" > wrote:
>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>> "Hoff" > wrote:
>> > "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
>> >> lawful
>> >> society. This applies directly (or damn well should) to other dangerous
>> >> behaviours like smoking in the presence of others.
>> >
>> > Yeah, that Prohibition thing worked out real well.
>> >
>>
>> Smoking IS prohibited in almost any indoor place where there's other people
>> except for homes and bars in some places. This prohibition does indeed work
>> very well thank-you-very-****ing-much.
>
>Measured how?

The din from whiny bitches is reduced to an OSHA-approved pitch and
decibel level.

Larry Hodges
September 29th 04, 12:17 AM
Hoff wrote:
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>
>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>
>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>
>
> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>
> What about the World Health Org?
>
> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>
> Hoff

Don't confuse him with facts.
--
-Larry

Bob MacWilliam
September 29th 04, 12:55 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> Hoff wrote:
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>
>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>
>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>
>> What about the World Health Org?
>>
>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>
>> Hoff
>
> Don't confuse him with facts.
> --
> -Larry
>
Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing with
relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and you
find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable ****ing
idiots..

"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the
major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
more likely to develop lung cancer. "

Take the real facts and **** off.

Bob

Bob MacWilliam
September 29th 04, 01:07 AM
"Hoff" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>> > (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
>> > perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>
>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>
>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>
>
> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>
> What about the World Health Org?
>
> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>
> Hoff
> --
> Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
> http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm
>

This took me exactly 10 seconds to find on the World Health Org website, 10
****ing seconds...

"Second-hand smoke kills. Let's clear the air.

Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health.
Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees
that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Second-hand smoking has been causally associated with a range of
life-threatening health effects, including lung cancer and heart disease.
For children, the situation is particularly disturbing, as involuntary
exposure to tobacco smoke has been identified as a cause of respiratory
disease, middle ear disease, asthma attacks, and sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS). Tobacco smoke is also an important source of indoor air
pollution, contributing to a noxious environment, and causing eye
irritation, sore throat, cough, and headache.

The evidence is in, let us act on it."

What's your problem with reality? Do you just enjoy being an ignorant
contrarian? WHO got a hidden agenda to dominate the world? Some diabolical
conspiracy afoot to rob you of your freedoms? What? What?

Bob

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 01:29 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:35:55 -0400, "Hoff" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a lawful
>> society. This applies directly (or damn well should) to other dangerous
>> behaviours like smoking in the presence of others.
>
>Yeah, that Prohibition thing worked out real well.
>
The Canucks made a fortune on running beer and booze across the border
during Prohibition. Oh, and, a lot of Americans were extremely
grateful for that:-) As were a lot of mobsters:-( And the Kennedy
family (whoops, I know, same thing).

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 01:30 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
>> Hoff wrote:
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>
>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>
>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>
>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>
>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>
>>> Hoff
>>
>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>> --
>> -Larry
>>
>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing with
>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and you
>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable ****ing
>idiots..
>
>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the
>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>
>Take the real facts and **** off.
>
You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.

Larry Hodges
September 29th 04, 01:39 AM
John Hanson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>
>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than
>>>>> the combined mortality from all regulated environmental
>>>>> carcinogens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis ,
>>>>> 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>
>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>
>>>> Hoff
>>>
>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>> --
>>> -Larry
>>>
>> Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when
>> dealing with relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at
>> more studies and you find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH
>> ORGANIZATION you miserable ****ing idiots..
>>
>> "A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>> (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all
>> of the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>> After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>> non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
>> 30% more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>
>> Take the real facts and **** off.
>>
> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.

Canuck on a Deca cycle maybe...
--
-Larry

Bob MacWilliam
September 29th 04, 01:49 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>
>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>
>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>
>>>> Hoff
>>>
>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>> --
>>> -Larry
>>>
>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing with
>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>you
>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>****ing
>>idiots..
>>
>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>the
>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>
>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>
> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.

Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being belligerent
so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust denial?

For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
uuggghhh!!

Bob

Bob

Hoff
September 29th 04, 02:36 AM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly exaggerated
>>> > perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>
>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>
>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>
>> What about the World Health Org?
>>
>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>
>> Hoff
>> --
>> Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
>> http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm
>>
>
> This took me exactly 10 seconds to find on the World Health Org website,
> 10 ****ing seconds...
>
> "Second-hand smoke kills. Let's clear the air.
>
> Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health.
> Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees
> that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.
>
> Second-hand smoking has been causally associated with a range of
> life-threatening health effects, including lung cancer and heart disease.
> For children, the situation is particularly disturbing, as involuntary
> exposure to tobacco smoke has been identified as a cause of respiratory
> disease, middle ear disease, asthma attacks, and sudden infant death
> syndrome (SIDS). Tobacco smoke is also an important source of indoor air
> pollution, contributing to a noxious environment, and causing eye
> irritation, sore throat, cough, and headache.
>
> The evidence is in, let us act on it."
>

Hell, I can do better than that.

The press release that WHO finally put out on the study stated:

"The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in
recent news reports, are very much in line
with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive
smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers".

Now you tell me, Bob, if they do or do not have an agenda? When the only
statistically significant result from their study
was a 22% *decrease* in the risk of cancer for children raised by smokers?

And you said something about small sample size in another post?

The study included 650 patients with lung cancer, and 1542 in the control
group. In 12 centers in 7 countries over the period
of 7 years.

Hell, quoting the researchers in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute:

"An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its
size,
which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical
precision..."

Hoff
--
Peanuts! Get yer Peanuts!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

Hoff
September 29th 04, 02:44 AM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Hoff
>>>>
>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>> --
>>>> -Larry
>>>>
>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>with
>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>>you
>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>****ing
>>>idiots..
>>>
>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>the
>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>
>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>
>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>
> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
> denial?
>
> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
> uuggghhh!!

Take a deep breath Bob. Relax.

Hell, the stress and rise in blood pressure is probably more of a risk than
second hand smoke.

Maybe we should ban Usenet?

Hoff
--
Peanuts! Get yer Peanuts!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 02:46 AM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
> "John Hanson" > wrote
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>
>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>
>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>with
>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>>you
>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>****ing
>>>idiots..
>>>
>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>the
>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>
>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>
>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>
> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
> denial?
>
> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
> uuggghhh!!

As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such fine
dogs, I'm OK with you.

David

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 02:55 AM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:46:17 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>
>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>with
>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>>>you
>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>****ing
>>>>idiots..
>>>>
>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>>the
>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>
>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>
>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>
>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>> denial?
>>
>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>> uuggghhh!!
>
>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such fine
>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>
Finest breed right after Labradors.

Proton Soup
September 29th 04, 03:10 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:44:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
wrote:

>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoff
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>> --
>>>>> -Larry
>>>>>
>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>with
>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>>>you
>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>****ing
>>>>idiots..
>>>>
>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>>the
>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>
>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>
>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>
>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>> denial?
>>
>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>> uuggghhh!!
>
>Take a deep breath Bob. Relax.
>
>Hell, the stress and rise in blood pressure is probably more of a risk than
>second hand smoke.
>
>Maybe we should ban Usenet?

Then someone would need a killin'.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 04:03 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>>with
>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies
>>>>>and
>>>>>you
>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>>****ing
>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>
>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>>>the
>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
>>>>>30%
>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>
>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>
>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>
>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>> denial?
>>>
>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>> uuggghhh!!
>>
>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such
>>fine
>>dogs, I'm OK with you.

> Finest breed right after Labradors.

You are obviously biased, brainwashed by the mainstream media, and have no
studies to back up your absurd assertion.

David

Lee Michaels
September 29th 04, 04:10 AM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:44:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> >>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> Hoff wrote:
> >>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in
message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
> >>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than
the
> >>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
> >>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis ,
1990:10:27-37.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hoff
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> -Larry
> >>>>>
> >>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
> >>>>with
> >>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies
and
> >>>>you
> >>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
> >>>>****ing
> >>>>idiots..
> >>>>
> >>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
> >>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all
of
> >>>>the
> >>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
> >>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
> >>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
30%
> >>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
> >>>>
> >>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
> >>>>
> >>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
> >>
> >> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
> >> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
> >> denial?
> >>
> >> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some
here
> >> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
> >> uuggghhh!!
> >
> >Take a deep breath Bob. Relax.
> >
> >Hell, the stress and rise in blood pressure is probably more of a risk
than
> >second hand smoke.
> >
> >Maybe we should ban Usenet?
>
> Then someone would need a killin'.
>
Forget nicotine withdrawal.

Imagine the mobs released onto the world from Usenet withdrawal.

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 04:12 AM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:03:52 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>>>****ing
>>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
>>>>>>30%
>>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>>
>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>>> denial?
>>>>
>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>>> uuggghhh!!
>>>
>>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such
>>>fine
>>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>
>> Finest breed right after Labradors.
>
>You are obviously biased, brainwashed by the mainstream media, and have no
>studies to back up your absurd assertion.
>
LOL! What...Buddy just told you to **** off.

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 05:59 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>>>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis ,
>>>>>>>>>> 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>>>>****ing
>>>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
>>>>>>>30%
>>>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>>>> denial?
>>>>>
>>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some
>>>>> here
>>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>>>> uuggghhh!!
>>>>
>>>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such
>>>>fine
>>>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>>
>>> Finest breed right after Labradors.
>>
>>You are obviously biased, brainwashed by the mainstream media, and have no
>>studies to back up your absurd assertion.
>>
> LOL! What...Buddy just told you to **** off.

"Buddy", huh? Named After Bill Clinton's late dog? That's what I thought.

Your Buddy been screwing around with a pudgy Canaan Dog lately? Figures.

David

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 06:56 AM
John Hanson > wrote:
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>>with
>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>>>>you
>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>>****ing
>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>
>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>>>the
>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>
>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>
>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>
>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>> denial?
>>>
>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>> uuggghhh!!
>>
>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such fine
>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>
>Finest breed right after Labradors.

You both appear to be unfamiliar with the obvious superiority of
German Shepherds. But maybe Hanson could appreciate our Sheppie-Lab
mix: http://www.rustyiron.net/missy700x500.jpg

She roolz.

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 07:28 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote
> John Hanson > wrote:
>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>>> denial?
>>>>
>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some
>>>> here
>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>>> uuggghhh!!
>>>
>>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such
>>>fine
>>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>>
>>Finest breed right after Labradors.
>
> You both appear to be unfamiliar with the obvious superiority of
> German Shepherds. But maybe Hanson could appreciate our Sheppie-Lab
> mix: http://www.rustyiron.net/missy700x500.jpg
>
> She roolz.

Cute dog. A fine pooch.

She can't help that chase-the-sheep-and-find-the-dead-bird ancestory.

David

Brandon Berg
September 29th 04, 07:39 AM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What the hell are you talking about? Poor choices and responsibility of
>>> others has nothing to do with it.
>>
>> You seem to have lost your train of thought. Let's review:
>>
>> 1. You said that if a woman has children and no education (i.e., has made
>> certain poor choices in her life), she has very few employment options.
>> 2. Therefore (by your logic), anyone who owns a bar is obligated to offer
>> her a job.
>> 3. Furthermore, that job must meet certain standards which you seem to
>> understand better than I.
>
> Wrong. An employer in a civilized society has an obligation to provide a
> safe working environment - nothing more. This is why people can't smoke
> at their desks in offices anymore.

So here's where you're losing me: You and I agree that the employer has no
obligation to provide the woman with a job. Right? But then our thinking
diverges. As I see it, he's free to make her any offer he wants, and she's
free to accept or reject it. All he's doing is giving her an option that she
wouldn't have otherwise. But what you're saying is that if he offers her a
job, then it has to conform to certain standards. Right?

Why? If he's under no obligation to provide her with any job, then why is he
forbidden from making certain offers which you consider improper?

Also, are employers of policemen, firefighters, and soldiers obligated to
provide a safe workplace? What about animal tamers? Rodeo clowns?
Bullfighters?

>>> How does this excuse an employer from providing a safe workplace?
>>
>> Excuse him from what? You still haven't shown that the employer has any
>> such obligation. Are you also obligated to provide her with a safe
>> workplace? Am I?
>
> An employer does have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. If you
> feel otherwise, you're wrong.

That's not how debate works.

> There are things called laws that reinforce this.

We're clearly not on the same page. I'm aware of the existence of workplace
safety laws. The entire point of my argument is that the government has no
moral authority to pass such laws. There's no logical connection between a
law having been passed and the government having the moral authority to pass
it.

>>> In a civilized society, workplace safety is a concept that we expect and
>>> DEMAND.
>>
>> I don't see how you have any right to demand something of an arrangement
>> to which you're not a party. If employees demand workplace safety, then
>> an employer who provides an unsafe workplace will have trouble finding
>> people to work with him.
>
> Yeah, like the diamond workers in Africa. The brick workers in India.

You are aware, are you not, that there are many, many economic differences
between the United States and the Third World? The reason that working
conditions are poor in Africa and India is that labor is not very
productive, because of the low capital-to-labor ratio (they don't have fancy
tools to work with). Because labor is unproductive, wages are low. And
because wages are low, it costs more to double your employees' wages
(thereby making them willing to tolerate occupational hazards) than it does
to install the safety equipment. If a third-world nation implemented
US-style labor regulations, the economy would screech to a halt overnight.
They just can't afford it.

> This argument is not justifiable. Theoretically even this would only be
> true economically in a full employment situation where a safe job with
> similar pay was readily available for this person.

Huh? Where are you getting this?

Look--all else being equal, pay increases with occupational hazard. It has
to. If you had a choice between doing a dangerous job with safety equipment
for $10/hour and doing it without safety equipment for $10/hour, which one
would you take? What's it going to take to get you to work on girders three
hundred feet up in the air without a safety harness? A lot, right? The only
way an employer can get people to work in a dangerous or otherwise
undesirable job is to pay them more than they could get elsewhere.

It's the opposite of the situation in the third world. It costs more to pay
off employees than to install the safety equipment, so employers buy the
safety equipment. And that's why safe workplace conditions are profitable
for American employers, but not to African employers. This effect is present
at any level of employment, because at no level of employment will people
work in safe and dangerous (again, ceteris paribus) jobs at the same price.

>>As it is, it seems that many a barmaid places a lower premium on a
>>smoke-free work environment than you do. Again, you're arrogating to
>>yourself the right to override the preferences of others.
>
> No. The problem is that the danger is not readily visible. Therefore the
> danger is tolerated because it is hidden from immediate view.

So the crux of your argument is that certain people are not smart enough to
make their own choices, and that enlightened people like you must make their
choices for them. Is that right?

>> Let's try a different approach. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument,
>> that a man asks this uneducated single mother to marry him. Suppose also
>> that he smokes and she doesn't. Is he obligated to provide her with a
>> "safe" (i.e., smoke-free) wifing environment, even when the children are
>> at the neighbor's house? I mean, she might agree to live with him and
>> tolerate the smoking, but isn't that just because she has children and
>> isn't particularly attractive, and therefore has no other marriage
>> options, and can't make it on her own? Doesn't she have a Gorft-given
>> RIGHT to a safe wifing environment? Don't we, as a civilized society,
>> expect and DEMAND wifeplace safety?
>
> Adults are one thing. But children DO have a right to a smoke-free home
> in my opinion.

I'm not talking about children. I specifically asked the question with
respect to times in which the children are not present. Does she, or does
she not, have the right to a smoke-free wifing environment?

> In any case, we are discussing the workplace, not homes.

What's the difference? In both cases, a man is making an offer to a woman,
one which she is free to accept or reject, and one which will affect her
material well-being. Why do you believe that the employer is subject to
obligations to which the husband is not?

>>>> I don't own a bar, but I do own a car. Am I obligated to employ a
>>>> chauffer and install front side airbags for his protection, or am I off
>>>> the hook since it's a cheap car? What about my home? Do I have to have
>>>> it inspected for mold before I hire a maid to clean it? What about the
>>>> mold inspector?
>>>
>>> You are obligated not to drive a 200 miles per hour in a residential
>>> zone. You are obligated not to endanger others.
>>
>> But now you're simply reinforcing my point. The reason that I'm obligated
>> not to drive 200 MPH in a residential zone is that representatives of the
>> road's owners (the government) have set a policy for the road that
>> prohibits driving at speeds exceeding 25 MPH. Furthermore, those who live
>> near and drive on such roads do with the understanding that others will
>> not be allowed to drive at dangerous speeds. Neither of these applies to
>> bars in which the owner allows smoking (although he'll probably forbid
>> driving at 200 MPH, too).
>
> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
> lawful society.

Absolutely false. To give one example, racing cars is highly dangerous to
all participants, and perfectly legal, provided:

1. That it's done on a site whose owner has given permission.
2. That all who participate do so voluntarily.

How with respect to the points of contention, is walking into a smoke-filled
bar different from participating in a car race?

>> Of course, we'd then have to extend the same restrictions to homes. Do
>> you believe that there should be laws against smoking in the presence of
>> children anywhere, even in your own home?
>
> WITHOUT QUESTION!!! How is that not child abuse asshole???

I didn't say it wasn't. First, I wanted to see if you were consistent.
Second, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to give government the power to
take away children for a relatively mild and nonmalicious form of abuse.

Look--this is a very dangerous road to walk down. If we're going to say that
you can prosecute parents for harming their children in ways which are
neither malicious nor immediately dangerous, then we have to put the
government in the position of arbitrator of correct parenting. I believe
that vegetarianism is tremendously harmful to children; probably more so
than secondhand smoke. Should parents be forced to feed their children meat?
Some people say that feeding children meat is a form of child abuse. Should
parents be prosecuted for feeding their children meat? Some would argue that
allowing children to watch television is bad for them. Some say religion is
a form of child abuse. Parents have had their children taking away for
refusing to give them Ritalin.

So where do you draw the line? How do you distinguish between good but
unconventional parenting, crummy but noncriminal parenting, and
unintentional abuse? Again, I believe that you have an exaggerated view of
the dangers of secondhand smoke. Maybe if I shared your views on that, I
would see this as a clear case of outright abuse. As it is, I'm extremely
wary of giving the government the power to take away children for something
which I believe to be only mildly and unintentionally harmful.

>> And if we follow this to its logical conclusion, it leads to all manner
>> of absurdity. A parent might walk into a bar, order a shot of gin, and
>> give it to his child. Must the bar then stop serving gin in order to
>> prevent this abuse? Won't we have to ban liquor altogether, since parents
>> could do the same after purchasing it at a store? What about pornography?
>> Some people say that's damaging to children. In fact, won't we have to
>> ban everything which could conceivably be used to facilitate child abuse?
>
> No sense whatsoever. The ACT (giving it to the child) is abuse, not the
> substance. Can you understand this??
> Second hand smoke is the direct result of the ACT of smoking.

You're arguing that smoking should be banned in bars because parents might
take their children into the bar, right? The act, then, is not smoking, but
taking the child into a smoke-filled bar. Again, it's parents, and not total
strangers, who are responsible for taking care of their children.

>> And when you walk into a smoke-filled bar, it doesn't affect people
>> outside of the bar. Again, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that
>> every adult in the bar is there voluntarily and implicitly agreeing to
>> tolerate the smoke.
>
> You lose sight of the fact that this assertion is demonstrably false.

You have yet to provide a single counterexample, except for children, whose
parents, as I've already pointed out, are responsible for them. If you want
to say that taking children into a smoke-filled bar is child abuse, that's
fine. I won't argue with you. But it doesn't change the fact that it's abuse
on the part of the parents, not on the part of the bar owner or the smokers.
It's absurd to say that people must stop engaging in behavior potentially
harmful to children anywhere and everywhere just because some irresponsible
parent might bring a child in.

> Grow the **** up.

By, for example, eschewing crude language and childish insults in favor of
sound logic? Way ahead of you.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 01:29 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:56:38 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote:
>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>>>****ing
>>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>>
>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>>> denial?
>>>>
>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some here
>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>>> uuggghhh!!
>>>
>>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such fine
>>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>>
>>Finest breed right after Labradors.
>
>You both appear to be unfamiliar with the obvious superiority of
>German Shepherds. But maybe Hanson could appreciate our Sheppie-Lab
>mix: http://www.rustyiron.net/missy700x500.jpg
>
>She roolz.

Nice dog. My first dog as a kid was a German Shepherd-Great Dane mix
named Chopper.

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 01:32 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:59:17 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>>>>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis ,
>>>>>>>>>>> 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing
>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable
>>>>>>>>****ing
>>>>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>>>>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>>>>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
>>>>>>>>30%
>>>>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>>>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next, holocaust
>>>>>> denial?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some
>>>>>> here
>>>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>>>>> uuggghhh!!
>>>>>
>>>>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog breed
>>>>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such
>>>>>fine
>>>>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>>>
>>>> Finest breed right after Labradors.
>>>
>>>You are obviously biased, brainwashed by the mainstream media, and have no
>>>studies to back up your absurd assertion.
>>>
>> LOL! What...Buddy just told you to **** off.
>
>"Buddy", huh? Named After Bill Clinton's late dog? That's what I thought.
>
>Your Buddy been screwing around with a pudgy Canaan Dog lately? Figures.
>
If I would have remembered that Clinton's dog was named Buddy at the
time, Buddy would have gotten a different name. My wife wanted to
call him something stupid and I can't remember what it was so I said
"Buddy", which is what we had been calling him, and she agreed.

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 07:27 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>> "David Cohen" > wrote in
>>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>>>>>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater
>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>> carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis ,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when
>>>>>>>>>dealing
>>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more
>>>>>>>>>studies
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you
>>>>>>>>>miserable
>>>>>>>>>****ing
>>>>>>>>>idiots..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on
>>>>>>>>>Cancer
>>>>>>>>>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined
>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>>>>>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they
>>>>>>>>>suggested
>>>>>>>>>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20%
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>30%
>>>>>>>>>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about being
>>>>>>> belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's next,
>>>>>>> holocaust
>>>>>>> denial?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to some
>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore sometimes -
>>>>>>> uuggghhh!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest dog
>>>>>>breed
>>>>>>ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for owning such
>>>>>>fine
>>>>>>dogs, I'm OK with you.
>>>>
>>>>> Finest breed right after Labradors.
>>>>
>>>>You are obviously biased, brainwashed by the mainstream media, and have
>>>>no
>>>>studies to back up your absurd assertion.
>>>>
>>> LOL! What...Buddy just told you to **** off.
>>
>>"Buddy", huh? Named After Bill Clinton's late dog? That's what I thought.
>>
>>Your Buddy been screwing around with a pudgy Canaan Dog lately? Figures.

> If I would have remembered that Clinton's dog was named Buddy at the
> time, Buddy would have gotten a different name. My wife wanted to
> call him something stupid and I can't remember what it was so I said
> "Buddy", which is what we had been calling him, and she agreed.

Uh-huh. And this explains your cat, Franken, and Moore the gerbil?

David

Larry Hodges
September 29th 04, 07:58 PM
David Cohen wrote:
> "John Hanson" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in
>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote in
>>>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Hoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carcinogens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when
>>>>>>>>>> dealing
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more
>>>>>>>>>> studies
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you
>>>>>>>>>> miserable
>>>>>>>>>> ****ing
>>>>>>>>>> idiots..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A working group from the International Agency for Research
>>>>>>>>>> on Cancer
>>>>>>>>>> (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization,
>>>>>>>>>> examined all
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>>>>>>>>>> After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they
>>>>>>>>>> suggested
>>>>>>>>>> non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between
>>>>>>>>>> 20% and
>>>>>>>>>> 30%
>>>>>>>>>> more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take the real facts and **** off.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're far too spirited to be a Canuck.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Damn! It just ****ed me off! At least I feel guilty about
>>>>>>>> being belligerent so I'm not totally unCanadian. But what's
>>>>>>>> next, holocaust
>>>>>>>> denial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For crying out loud I'm a friggin' lifetime Tory! Compared to
>>>>>>>> some here
>>>>>>>> though it feels like I'm somewhere left of Michael Moore
>>>>>>>> sometimes - uuggghhh!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as you continue to agree that Pit Bulls are the finest
>>>>>>> dog breed
>>>>>>> ever, and owners should be given tax rebates as reward for
>>>>>>> owning such fine
>>>>>>> dogs, I'm OK with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finest breed right after Labradors.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are obviously biased, brainwashed by the mainstream media,
>>>>> and have no
>>>>> studies to back up your absurd assertion.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! What...Buddy just told you to **** off.
>>>
>>> "Buddy", huh? Named After Bill Clinton's late dog? That's what I
>>> thought.
>>>
>>> Your Buddy been screwing around with a pudgy Canaan Dog lately?
>>> Figures.
>
>> If I would have remembered that Clinton's dog was named Buddy at the
>> time, Buddy would have gotten a different name. My wife wanted to
>> call him something stupid and I can't remember what it was so I said
>> "Buddy", which is what we had been calling him, and she agreed.
>
> Uh-huh. And this explains your cat, Franken, and Moore the gerbil?
>
> David

Don't forget Kerry, the ass. I mean donkey...sorry for the Freudian slip.
--
-Larry

Bob MacWilliam
October 1st 04, 01:37 AM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> What the hell are you talking about? Poor choices and responsibility
>>>> of others has nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>> You seem to have lost your train of thought. Let's review:
>>>
>>> 1. You said that if a woman has children and no education (i.e., has
>>> made certain poor choices in her life), she has very few employment
>>> options.
>>> 2. Therefore (by your logic), anyone who owns a bar is obligated to
>>> offer her a job.
>>> 3. Furthermore, that job must meet certain standards which you seem to
>>> understand better than I.
>>
>> Wrong. An employer in a civilized society has an obligation to provide a
>> safe working environment - nothing more. This is why people can't smoke
>> at their desks in offices anymore.
>
> So here's where you're losing me: You and I agree that the employer has no
> obligation to provide the woman with a job. Right? But then our thinking
> diverges. As I see it, he's free to make her any offer he wants, and she's
> free to accept or reject it. All he's doing is giving her an option that
> she wouldn't have otherwise. But what you're saying is that if he offers
> her a job, then it has to conform to certain standards. Right?
>
> Why? If he's under no obligation to provide her with any job, then why is
> he forbidden from making certain offers which you consider improper?
>
Ok, no more yelling on my part, I'll try to be civil here...

The problem is with things like smoking and second hand smoke is that the
danger is concealed. This is why psychologically people continue to smoke
in the first place. When you smoke you don't "feel" the danger. The danger
is there, but people don't respond to the dangers of smoking in the same way
they do other dangers that result in immediate physical harm.

Your argument is that people are free to make their own choices for better
for worse, and employers do not have an obligation to provide safety if all
parties agree. This is a simple argument, I get it, but it is flawed. This
is part of the whole "free markets solve all problems" argument that just
doesn't work in practice.

Firstly, assuming that people are "free" to make their own choices is not in
line with the reality of most people. Some people, perhaps like you and I,
with good educations and a strong work ethic are more or less free in your
sense. But most people are not. Most people, perhaps through their own
poor choices don't have anywhere near the same freedom. So, what about
stupid people? Seriously, people in the lower rungs of the mental spectrum.
In your world, these people would most likely end up in the "concealed
danger" jobs because their choices are so limited and they may not even
understand the danger. But regardless of who fills these positions,
affording them basic workplace safety is a moral and legal obligation that I
fully support - even if they don't "deserve" it because of poor life
choices.

> Also, are employers of policemen, firefighters, and soldiers obligated to
> provide a safe workplace? What about animal tamers? Rodeo clowns?
> Bullfighters?

This is a good point. The difference is in the clear and present danger of
these occupations. Danger is part of the allure even. If they die, they're
heroes. The same cannot be said for the waitress.

Another difference is that these people have a great deal of training and
gear usually to minimize the danger. If all waitresses in smoky bars were
required to wear gas-masks, as crazy as it sounds, it's at least logically
consistent. People who remove asbestos from old buildings are required to
wear gas masks like this.

Another difference is that most of these occupations are necessary. We need
police, fire, and military protection. These dangers cannot be controlled,
at least very well. Second hand smoke is a needless danger, easily dealt
with. What dangers the employer can mitigate, he does. The buildings that
police officers and firefighters are based in are required to be safe. The
external danger over which the employer has little or no control is where
the danger comes from, not from within.

>>>> How does this excuse an employer from providing a safe workplace?
>>>
>>> Excuse him from what? You still haven't shown that the employer has any
>>> such obligation. Are you also obligated to provide her with a safe
>>> workplace? Am I?
>>
>> An employer does have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. If you
>> feel otherwise, you're wrong.
>
> That's not how debate works.
>

It's a moral question more than anything else. Your logic says a third
party has no right imposing rules on an agreement between two other parties.
Sure, nice, simple, logically consistent, but insane.

I want my children, who most likely have to start out in the working world
on some type of lower rung on some ladder, to work in an environment that is
free from needless risks. Actually no, I demand it.

When I play hockey I assume the risk of getting a (another) puck in the
head. I hold noone responsible when this happens. But when I'm tying my
skates before the game and the ceiling falls on my head, I certainly would
hold the owner liable.


>> There are things called laws that reinforce this.
>
> We're clearly not on the same page. I'm aware of the existence of
> workplace safety laws. The entire point of my argument is that the
> government has no moral authority to pass such laws. There's no logical
> connection between a law having been passed and the government having the
> moral authority to pass it.

Perhaps this is true and we agree on the basic pricnciple of this. BUT,
workplace safety does not fall into this category. To me it's a basic human
right.


>>>> In a civilized society, workplace safety is a concept that we expect
>>>> and DEMAND.
>>>
>>> I don't see how you have any right to demand something of an arrangement
>>> to which you're not a party. If employees demand workplace safety, then
>>> an employer who provides an unsafe workplace will have trouble finding
>>> people to work with him.
>>
>> Yeah, like the diamond workers in Africa. The brick workers in India.
>
> You are aware, are you not, that there are many, many economic differences
> between the United States and the Third World? The reason that working
> conditions are poor in Africa and India is that labor is not very
> productive, because of the low capital-to-labor ratio (they don't have
> fancy tools to work with). Because labor is unproductive, wages are low.
> And because wages are low, it costs more to double your employees' wages
> (thereby making them willing to tolerate occupational hazards) than it
> does to install the safety equipment. If a third-world nation implemented
> US-style labor regulations, the economy would screech to a halt overnight.
> They just can't afford it.
>
So the free market adjusts for unsafe conditions just sometimes? When it's
convenient for your argument you use it, but dismiss it in low wage
situations?

Where's the flawless logic?

>> This argument is not justifiable. Theoretically even this would only be
>> true economically in a full employment situation where a safe job with
>> similar pay was readily available for this person.
>
> Huh? Where are you getting this?
>
Your argument assumes the person (waitress) has an easily available
alternative choice. This type of choice only exists if another job exists
that is safer that is readily available. Full employment means one job
available for every person. Otherwise, by definition, some have no choice.
Follow me here? 100 people, 99 jobs - someone can't find work.

This is in addition to due to the hidden danger and human psychology
argument. It's just not reality.

> Look--all else being equal, pay increases with occupational hazard. It has
> to. If you had a choice between doing a dangerous job with safety
> equipment for $10/hour and doing it without safety equipment for $10/hour,
> which one would you take? What's it going to take to get you to work on
> girders three hundred feet up in the air without a safety harness? A lot,
> right? The only way an employer can get people to work in a dangerous or
> otherwise undesirable job is to pay them more than they could get
> elsewhere.
>
> It's the opposite of the situation in the third world. It costs more to
> pay off employees than to install the safety equipment, so employers buy
> the safety equipment. And that's why safe workplace conditions are
> profitable for American employers, but not to African employers. This
> effect is present at any level of employment, because at no level of
> employment will people work in safe and dangerous (again, ceteris paribus)
> jobs at the same price.
>

Disagree.

In a pure supply-demand system, the effect of a job shortage would be to
reduce the premium on dangerous work.
Therefore, while you may be correct that the effect does exist at any level
of employment, it is reduced as employment falls.

Look at the extreme.

1000 people searching for jobs, 3 jobs available - one dangerous. Would the
dangerous one carry a premium with that many people chasing it?

BTW, the United States has many ecomomies within it. There's a fairly
significant lower class that plays by practically third world rules -
migrant agriculture work, illegal immigrant sweat-shops, and inner-city
poverty centres.

>>>As it is, it seems that many a barmaid places a lower premium on a
>>>smoke-free work environment than you do. Again, you're arrogating to
>>>yourself the right to override the preferences of others.
>>
>> No. The problem is that the danger is not readily visible. Therefore
>> the danger is tolerated because it is hidden from immediate view.
>
> So the crux of your argument is that certain people are not smart enough
> to make their own choices, and that enlightened people like you must make
> their choices for them. Is that right?
>

That's a bit of a heavy/sarcastic statement, but essentially yes - of
course. We don't let people work in asbestos zones either without
protection.

It's not about enlightenment though, it's about protecting people in
inferior power positions from being forced/coerced/deceived into dangerous
situations by someone in a superior power position. It's not enlightenment,
it's human rights.


>>> Let's try a different approach. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument,
>>> that a man asks this uneducated single mother to marry him. Suppose also
>>> that he smokes and she doesn't. Is he obligated to provide her with a
>>> "safe" (i.e., smoke-free) wifing environment, even when the children are
>>> at the neighbor's house? I mean, she might agree to live with him and
>>> tolerate the smoking, but isn't that just because she has children and
>>> isn't particularly attractive, and therefore has no other marriage
>>> options, and can't make it on her own? Doesn't she have a Gorft-given
>>> RIGHT to a safe wifing environment? Don't we, as a civilized society,
>>> expect and DEMAND wifeplace safety?
>>
>> Adults are one thing. But children DO have a right to a smoke-free home
>> in my opinion.
>
> I'm not talking about children. I specifically asked the question with
> respect to times in which the children are not present. Does she, or does
> she not, have the right to a smoke-free wifing environment?
>
>> In any case, we are discussing the workplace, not homes.
>
> What's the difference? In both cases, a man is making an offer to a woman,
> one which she is free to accept or reject, and one which will affect her
> material well-being. Why do you believe that the employer is subject to
> obligations to which the husband is not?
>
>>>>> I don't own a bar, but I do own a car. Am I obligated to employ a
>>>>> chauffer and install front side airbags for his protection, or am I
>>>>> off the hook since it's a cheap car? What about my home? Do I have to
>>>>> have it inspected for mold before I hire a maid to clean it? What
>>>>> about the mold inspector?
>>>>
>>>> You are obligated not to drive a 200 miles per hour in a residential
>>>> zone. You are obligated not to endanger others.
>>>
>>> But now you're simply reinforcing my point. The reason that I'm
>>> obligated not to drive 200 MPH in a residential zone is that
>>> representatives of the road's owners (the government) have set a policy
>>> for the road that prohibits driving at speeds exceeding 25 MPH.
>>> Furthermore, those who live near and drive on such roads do with the
>>> understanding that others will not be allowed to drive at dangerous
>>> speeds. Neither of these applies to bars in which the owner allows
>>> smoking (although he'll probably forbid driving at 200 MPH, too).
>>
>> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
>> lawful society.
>
> Absolutely false. To give one example, racing cars is highly dangerous to
> all participants, and perfectly legal, provided:
>
> 1. That it's done on a site whose owner has given permission.
> 2. That all who participate do so voluntarily.
>
> How with respect to the points of contention, is walking into a
> smoke-filled bar different from participating in a car race?
>

Behaviour highly dangerous to INNOCENT others is prohibited in a
lawful society. This would have been more clear.

The waitress has a hidden danger to face and is much more innocent compared
to race car drivers because:

- no training/skill/talent exists to minimize danger
- she may not have a choice (as I argued earlier)
- She is offered no safety equipment (like a well-built car, helmet, fire
suit)

Because of the hidden danger and her possible lack of choice, she may not be
a willing participant - this is the basic reason for requiring workplace
safety in the firstplace.




>>> Of course, we'd then have to extend the same restrictions to homes. Do
>>> you believe that there should be laws against smoking in the presence of
>>> children anywhere, even in your own home?
>>
>> WITHOUT QUESTION!!! How is that not child abuse asshole???
>
> I didn't say it wasn't. First, I wanted to see if you were consistent.
> Second, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to give government the power to
> take away children for a relatively mild and nonmalicious form of abuse.
>
> Look--this is a very dangerous road to walk down. If we're going to say
> that you can prosecute parents for harming their children in ways which
> are neither malicious nor immediately dangerous, then we have to put the
> government in the position of arbitrator of correct parenting. I believe
> that vegetarianism is tremendously harmful to children; probably more so
> than secondhand smoke. Should parents be forced to feed their children
> meat? Some people say that feeding children meat is a form of child abuse.
> Should parents be prosecuted for feeding their children meat? Some would
> argue that allowing children to watch television is bad for them. Some say
> religion is a form of child abuse. Parents have had their children taking
> away for refusing to give them Ritalin.
>
> So where do you draw the line? How do you distinguish between good but
> unconventional parenting, crummy but noncriminal parenting, and
> unintentional abuse? Again, I believe that you have an exaggerated view of
> the dangers of secondhand smoke. Maybe if I shared your views on that, I
> would see this as a clear case of outright abuse. As it is, I'm extremely
> wary of giving the government the power to take away children for
> something which I believe to be only mildly and unintentionally harmful.

When we know that something is clearly physically harmful, like second hand
smoke, ignoring a childs safety in the face of this knowledge is abuse. The
other examples are less clear. But if a danger becomes clear then so be it.
Not that tough.


>
>>> And if we follow this to its logical conclusion, it leads to all manner
>>> of absurdity. A parent might walk into a bar, order a shot of gin, and
>>> give it to his child. Must the bar then stop serving gin in order to
>>> prevent this abuse? Won't we have to ban liquor altogether, since
>>> parents could do the same after purchasing it at a store? What about
>>> pornography? Some people say that's damaging to children. In fact, won't
>>> we have to ban everything which could conceivably be used to facilitate
>>> child abuse?
>>
>> No sense whatsoever. The ACT (giving it to the child) is abuse, not the
>> substance. Can you understand this??
>> Second hand smoke is the direct result of the ACT of smoking.
>
> You're arguing that smoking should be banned in bars because parents might
> take their children into the bar, right? The act, then, is not smoking,
> but taking the child into a smoke-filled bar. Again, it's parents, and not
> total strangers, who are responsible for taking care of their children.
>
>>> And when you walk into a smoke-filled bar, it doesn't affect people
>>> outside of the bar. Again, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that
>>> every adult in the bar is there voluntarily and implicitly agreeing to
>>> tolerate the smoke.
>>
>> You lose sight of the fact that this assertion is demonstrably false.
>
> You have yet to provide a single counterexample, except for children,
> whose parents, as I've already pointed out, are responsible for them. If
> you want to say that taking children into a smoke-filled bar is child
> abuse, that's fine. I won't argue with you. But it doesn't change the fact
> that it's abuse on the part of the parents, not on the part of the bar
> owner or the smokers. It's absurd to say that people must stop engaging in
> behavior potentially harmful to children anywhere and everywhere just
> because some irresponsible parent might bring a child in.
>
>> Grow the **** up.
>
> By, for example, eschewing crude language and childish insults in favor of
> sound logic? Way ahead of you.
>
> --
> Brandon Berg
> Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.
>

MJL
October 1st 04, 04:04 AM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:20:04 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>
>"MJL" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:21:21 GMT, "Zen Cohen" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>For the most authoritative piece ever on guns n booze, go to this Daily
>>>Show
>>>page and click Ed Helms' report "A Round of Shots":
>>>http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?p=helms
>>
>> That was some funny ****!
>
>Funny, but predictably wrong. The legislation in question wouldn't have
>prevented bar owners from prohibitng customers from carrying guns, or from
>refusing to serve alcohol to customers carrying guns, nor would it force
>customers to patronize establishments which they believed to have dangerous
>gun policies. Also, the laws in place at the time banned guns not only in
>bars, but also in restaurants which served alcohol.
>
>This isn't a safety issue; it's a property rights issue. The question of
>whether it's wise to allow some or all customers to carry guns in bars and
>restaurants is entirely independent from the question of whether the
>government should force a one-size-fits-all policy on the owners of those
>establishments. It's like the smoking issue. I personally prefer a
>smoke-free environment, but I understand that my preferences aren't
>universal, and I don't arrogate to myself the right to force my preferences
>upon others.


I believe in gun rights, by the way. I'm a member of the NRA.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

MJL
October 1st 04, 04:05 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:55:53 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
>> Hoff wrote:
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> (Which is not to say that I don't think you have a wildly
>>>>> exaggerated perception of the dangers of second-hand smoke).
>>>>
>>>> The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the
>>>> combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.
>>>>
>>>> Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Risk assessment methodologies for
>>>> passive-smoking-induced lung cancer. Risk Analysis , 1990:10:27-37.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, Repace is definitely an unbiased researcher <cough>.
>>>
>>> What about the World Health Org?
>>>
>>> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>>
>>> Hoff
>>
>> Don't confuse him with facts.
>> --
>> -Larry
>>
>Go **** yourselves. Any study can show non significance when dealing with
>relatively small incidences and small numbers. Look at more studies and you
>find data like this FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION you miserable ****ing
>idiots..
>
>"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
>(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the
>major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
>After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
>non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
>more likely to develop lung cancer. "
>
>Take the real facts and **** off.
>
>Bob
>

That is a persuasive and compelling syle you have got for yourself
there.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

MJL
October 1st 04, 04:20 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:39:13 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> What the hell are you talking about? Poor choices and responsibility of
>>>> others has nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>> You seem to have lost your train of thought. Let's review:
>>>
>>> 1. You said that if a woman has children and no education (i.e., has made
>>> certain poor choices in her life), she has very few employment options.
>>> 2. Therefore (by your logic), anyone who owns a bar is obligated to offer
>>> her a job.
>>> 3. Furthermore, that job must meet certain standards which you seem to
>>> understand better than I.
>>
>> Wrong. An employer in a civilized society has an obligation to provide a
>> safe working environment - nothing more. This is why people can't smoke
>> at their desks in offices anymore.
>
>So here's where you're losing me: You and I agree that the employer has no
>obligation to provide the woman with a job. Right? But then our thinking
>diverges. As I see it, he's free to make her any offer he wants, and she's
>free to accept or reject it. All he's doing is giving her an option that she
>wouldn't have otherwise. But what you're saying is that if he offers her a
>job, then it has to conform to certain standards. Right?
>

Well, I think where this gets confusing is that libertarians will say
this is an either/or proposition. Either you allow employers to offer
whatever circumstances they feel like offering or you have no
circumstances at all. The truth of the situation is that employers
can feel free to offer whatever circumstances they want as long as
they meet some basic level of workplace safety. Now really, this is
NOT such an onerous burden to reach.

>Why? If he's under no obligation to provide her with any job, then why is he
>forbidden from making certain offers which you consider improper?
>

This is, seriously, the essence of democracy. The people have the
right to vote and appropriate to themselves the things they believe
they deserve. Your position is something of a libertarian/anarchist
viewpoint and as such is a "purist" position; perfectly defendable,
perfectly logical; and completely unworkable (as most purist positions
are).

You are however free to argue your point, of course.

>Also, are employers of policemen, firefighters, and soldiers obligated to
>provide a safe workplace? What about animal tamers? Rodeo clowns?
>Bullfighters?
>

Yes, to all, within the confines of the position. Some positions have
an inherent risk in them and people are willing to take them anyway.
A rodeo clown who survives 20 years as a clown to retire to a cushy
clown pad only to find he has lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke has, to
my thinking, a legit grievance.

>>> But now you're simply reinforcing my point. The reason that I'm obligated
>>> not to drive 200 MPH in a residential zone is that representatives of the
>>> road's owners (the government) have set a policy for the road that
>>> prohibits driving at speeds exceeding 25 MPH. Furthermore, those who live
>>> near and drive on such roads do with the understanding that others will
>>> not be allowed to drive at dangerous speeds. Neither of these applies to
>>> bars in which the owner allows smoking (although he'll probably forbid
>>> driving at 200 MPH, too).
>>
>> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
>> lawful society.
>
>Absolutely false. To give one example, racing cars is highly dangerous to
>all participants, and perfectly legal, provided:
>
>1. That it's done on a site whose owner has given permission.
>2. That all who participate do so voluntarily.
>
>How with respect to the points of contention, is walking into a smoke-filled
>bar different from participating in a car race?
>

It is different in a pragmatic sense. Not every situation can be
decoded and placed into a neat framework. You can TRY to do that and
the giant mass of past experience of the history of mankind will not
be on your side. However, it is a nice comfy place to say "I'm right,
see it all fits into my purist reality lens".

Convenient but not helpful.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Brandon Berg
October 1st 04, 06:11 AM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
> "A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
> (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
> the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
> After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
> non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30%
> more likely to develop lung cancer. "

My point exactly. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accept the
conclusions of this study despite the glaring inadequacies of the
explanation in the quote above. (What are the duration, frequency, and
intensity of exposure? A 20-30% increase compared to what? I'd expect
second-hand smokers to have worse nutrition than the control group. Was this
examined and adjusted for?) A 20-30% increase in incidence over a nonsmoking
control group still isn't very much in absolute terms. What this means is
that if a non-smoker not exposed to second-hand smoke has a .01% chance of
developing lung cancer, a non-smoker who is exposed to second-hand smoke
(whatever that means) has a .012-.013% chance. The danger to any individual
person of developing lung cancer as a result of exposure to second-hand
smoke is negligible.

Describing a study this vaguely really is worthless, though. This is a
highly politicized topic, and any study purporting to provide evidence one
way or another is extremely suspect and must be examined closely for
methodological flaws. You just can't do that with what you gave us.

To be fair, though, you really can't get an accurate picture of the dangers
of second-hand smoke by looking at lung cancer alone. I wouldn't at all be
surprised if it had a greater effect on the incidence of less severe lung
problems.

Not that any of this is relevant to my core argument.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 3rd 04, 08:21 PM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:39:13 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
> wrote:
>>"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>So here's where you're losing me: You and I agree that the employer has no
>>obligation to provide the woman with a job. Right? But then our thinking
>>diverges. As I see it, he's free to make her any offer he wants, and she's
>>free to accept or reject it. All he's doing is giving her an option that
>>she
>>wouldn't have otherwise. But what you're saying is that if he offers her a
>>job, then it has to conform to certain standards. Right?
>>
>
> Well, I think where this gets confusing is that libertarians will say
> this is an either/or proposition. Either you allow employers to offer
> whatever circumstances they feel like offering or you have no
> circumstances at all. The truth of the situation is that employers
> can feel free to offer whatever circumstances they want as long as
> they meet some basic level of workplace safety. Now really, this is
> NOT such an onerous burden to reach.

I know there's no point in arguing the sanctity of property rights with you,
so I'll move on the pragmatic objections. Sometimes it is onerous, and
sometimes it isn't. That's the problem with government regulations.
Cost-benefit analysis is inherent in market transactions. Sometimes people
make bad judgments, but the attempt is always there. Government regulation
is inherently political, or at best bureaucratic. Regulators have no
personal interest in doing proper cost-benefit analysis. Even when they try
their honest best, they have a tendency to insert personal value judgments
which may not be in line with those of the people who will have to live with
the regulations. There's no great loss if people can't smoke in bars, but if
regulators mandate a piece of safety equipment at a cost of a billion
dollars per life saved, then that can be tremendously destructive.

The premise of regulation is that the government has to step in and take
control because certain people are too stupid or ill-informed to make
decisions for themselves, is it not? I reject this premise. Some people are
stupid or ill-informed, but we can't go around trampling on everyone's
freedom just because a few people are too stupid. If some people really
can't be trusted to govern their own lives, then the government should
appoint babysitters for them and leave the rest of us alone. Isn't that a
better fit?

>>Why? If he's under no obligation to provide her with any job, then why is
>>he
>>forbidden from making certain offers which you consider improper?
>
> This is, seriously, the essence of democracy. The people have the
> right to vote and appropriate to themselves the things they believe
> they deserve.

I agree. And that's precisely what's wrong with democracy.

> Your position is something of a libertarian/anarchist
> viewpoint and as such is a "purist" position; perfectly defendable,
> perfectly logical; and completely unworkable (as most purist positions
> are).

And I can assert that your position is completely unworkable, too, but it
doesn't seem worth the trouble.

>>Also, are employers of policemen, firefighters, and soldiers obligated to
>>provide a safe workplace? What about animal tamers? Rodeo clowns?
>>Bullfighters?
>
> Yes, to all, within the confines of the position. Some positions have
> an inherent risk in them and people are willing to take them anyway.
> A rodeo clown who survives 20 years as a clown to retire to a cushy
> clown pad only to find he has lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke has, to
> my thinking, a legit grievance.

Are you saying that dealing with smoke isn't an inherent part of working in
a bar? What if they called it a smoketeria? Would it be okay then?

>>> Ridiculous. Behaviour highly dangerous to others is prohibited in a
>>> lawful society.
>>
>>Absolutely false. To give one example, racing cars is highly dangerous to
>>all participants, and perfectly legal, provided:
>>
>>1. That it's done on a site whose owner has given permission.
>>2. That all who participate do so voluntarily.
>>
>>How with respect to the points of contention, is walking into a
>>smoke-filled
>>bar different from participating in a car race?
>
> It is different in a pragmatic sense.

How so? It seems to me that your argument is basically, "I don't know why
you're wrong, but you must be, because I don't like your conclusions."

I get that a lot.

> Not every situation can be
> decoded and placed into a neat framework. You can TRY to do that and
> the giant mass of past experience of the history of mankind will not
> be on your side. However, it is a nice comfy place to say "I'm right,
> see it all fits into my purist reality lens".

But that's precisely what you're doing. You have certain standards which you
believe constitute acceptable working conditions, and you believe that
everyone should be coerced into adhering to them, regardless of
circumstances and differences of perception and preference. For the vast
majority of human history, these conditions were utterly unattainable. For
the majority of the world's population, they're still unattainable. In a
hundred years, they'll be thought of as intolerably dangerous.

My argument--and I said this when I first entered the thread--is that you
can't just push everyone into some one-size-fits-all template. The genius of
the market system is that, despite its simple rules of construction, it
allows for the case-by-case negotiation of every transaction in a manner
appropriate to the circumstances and consistent with the preferences of
those involved. You just can't do that with government regulation.

In a way, a market economy is like the universe. The interaction of a few
different types of particles according to a few simple rules has created a
vast world of unimaginable complexity and diversity. Now imagine a universe
built by bureaucrats.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

MJL
October 3rd 04, 09:12 PM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:21:51 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:


>> This is, seriously, the essence of democracy. The people have the
>> right to vote and appropriate to themselves the things they believe
>> they deserve.
>
>I agree. And that's precisely what's wrong with democracy.
>

This is a particular kind of arrogance that only gains widespread
traction in totalitarian situations (luckily).

>> Your position is something of a libertarian/anarchist
>> viewpoint and as such is a "purist" position; perfectly defendable,
>> perfectly logical; and completely unworkable (as most purist positions
>> are).
>
>And I can assert that your position is completely unworkable, too, but it
>doesn't seem worth the trouble.
>

Well, I'm saying that the world we actually live in is the one to work
with. So in that sense it is absolutely working FSVO working.


>> It is different in a pragmatic sense.
>
>How so? It seems to me that your argument is basically, "I don't know why
>you're wrong, but you must be, because I don't like your conclusions."
>
>I get that a lot.
>

hah! I'm sure you do. It is hard to live in a world that does not
see the obvious correctness of your conclusions.

>> Not every situation can be
>> decoded and placed into a neat framework. You can TRY to do that and
>> the giant mass of past experience of the history of mankind will not
>> be on your side. However, it is a nice comfy place to say "I'm right,
>> see it all fits into my purist reality lens".
>
>But that's precisely what you're doing. You have certain standards which you
>believe constitute acceptable working conditions, and you believe that
>everyone should be coerced into adhering to them, regardless of
>circumstances and differences of perception and preference. For the vast
>majority of human history, these conditions were utterly unattainable. For
>the majority of the world's population, they're still unattainable. In a
>hundred years, they'll be thought of as intolerably dangerous.
>

Not really, I'm saying the situation is what it is. We can try to
apply a pure theoretical framework to these, and many other, things.
Good luck!

>My argument--and I said this when I first entered the thread--is that you
>can't just push everyone into some one-size-fits-all template. The genius of
>the market system is that, despite its simple rules of construction, it
>allows for the case-by-case negotiation of every transaction in a manner
>appropriate to the circumstances and consistent with the preferences of
>those involved. You just can't do that with government regulation.
>

You absolutely can do that very thing WRT the establishment of "ground
rules" and, in fact, in the US we do. You can argue it is not
efficient, if you like. Personally I don't want to live in your world
and will vote for people who do not espouse it.

That really is the beauty of democracy, you fascist.

>In a way, a market economy is like the universe. The interaction of a few
>different types of particles according to a few simple rules has created a
>vast world of unimaginable complexity and diversity. Now imagine a universe
>built by bureaucrats.

I know I know, in your head it is all so simple and if only the world
would conform to the vision you see in your head. Really, I do
understand.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Brandon Berg
October 3rd 04, 10:16 PM
"Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
...
> The problem is with things like smoking and second hand smoke is that the
> danger is concealed. This is why psychologically people continue to smoke
> in the first place. When you smoke you don't "feel" the danger. The
> danger is there, but people don't respond to the dangers of smoking in the
> same way they do other dangers that result in immediate physical harm.

So shouldn't we ban smoking altogether? Why is it okay for someone to inhale
smoke directly from a cigarette, but not for someone to walk into a
smoke-filled room of his own volition? In fact, there are all sorts of
things that people do without accurate perceptions of the risks involved.
Should we ban all those things?

> Your argument is that people are free to make their own choices for better
> for worse, and employers do not have an obligation to provide safety if
> all parties agree. This is a simple argument, I get it, but it is flawed.
> This is part of the whole "free markets solve all problems" argument that
> just doesn't work in practice.

The argument isn't that free markets solve all problems--it's that
government intervention makes things worse. I could just as easily
characterize your argument as the whole "government intervention solves all
problems" argument that just doesn't work in practice.

> So, what about stupid people? Seriously, people in the lower rungs of the
> mental spectrum. In your world, these people would most likely end up in
> the "concealed danger" jobs because their choices are so limited and they
> may not even understand the danger.

As I said in my response to MJL, if you really think that the government
ought to be in the business of taking care of the marginally competent, I
think that government-appointed babysitters would be a better fit. That way
you could keep safe while leaving the rest of us alone.

> But regardless of who fills these positions, affording them basic
> workplace safety is a moral and legal obligation that I fully support -
> even if they don't "deserve" it because of poor life choices.

Even if the person is, in your estimation, smart enough to make his own
choices? Surely you realize that there are legitimate differences of
preferences and risk perception even among intelligent and well-informed
people? Obviously there are many cases in which some would be willing to
accept the risk premium and others would not.

> Another difference is that these people have a great deal of training and
> gear usually to minimize the danger. If all waitresses in smoky bars were
> required to wear gas-masks, as crazy as it sounds, it's at least logically
> consistent. People who remove asbestos from old buildings are required to
> wear gas masks like this.

But most people don't want to be served by a waitress wearing a gas mask.
And again, why just the employees? If they have to wear gas masks, shouldn't
the customers?

> Another difference is that most of these occupations are necessary. We
> need police, fire, and military protection. These dangers cannot be
> controlled, at least very well.

I anticipated that, which is why I added the entertainers. We don't need
lion tamers. They exist solely because some people like to watch that kind
of thing. But there's also a market demand for a place where people can go
to smoke and socialize and have people bring them beer. Why is it okay to
satisfy the demand for lion tamers but not the demand for smoketerias?

> It's a moral question more than anything else. Your logic says a third
> party has no right imposing rules on an agreement between two other
> parties. Sure, nice, simple, logically consistent, but insane.

And I'd argue that your position is no more sane than mine, which puts me at
least three points ahead.

> I want my children, who most likely have to start out in the working world
> on some type of lower rung on some ladder, to work in an environment that
> is free from needless risks. Actually no, I demand it.

Isn't your best course of action, then, to educate your children on the
needless risks which they should avoid? Besides, there are probably all
kinds of jobs you don't want your children to take. Should all those jobs be
banned?

Anyway, employers generally don't impose needless (in the sense of not being
necessary to meet market demand efficiently) risks on their employees,
because it's just bad business.

> When I play hockey I assume the risk of getting a (another) puck in the
> head. I hold noone responsible when this happens. But when I'm tying my
> skates before the game and the ceiling falls on my head, I certainly would
> hold the owner liable.

But that's an absurd comparison. It's reasonable to expect, when you go into
a building, that it's not going to collapse. On the other hand, it's common
knowledge that inhaling smoke isn't good for you. When you go into a
building and it's filled with smoke, you know it's there. The owner hasn't
hidden anything from you, and he hasn't been negligent. You go into that
building with full awareness of its physical condition, and you can
reasonably be expected to have some idea that it will negatively affect your
health.

>> You are aware, are you not, that there are many, many economic
>> differences between the United States and the Third World? The reason
>> that working conditions are poor in Africa and India is that labor is not
>> very productive, because of the low capital-to-labor ratio (they don't
>> have fancy tools to work with). Because labor is unproductive, wages are
>> low. And because wages are low, it costs more to double your employees'
>> wages (thereby making them willing to tolerate occupational hazards) than
>> it does to install the safety equipment. If a third-world nation
>> implemented US-style labor regulations, the economy would screech to a
>> halt overnight. They just can't afford it.
>>
> So the free market adjusts for unsafe conditions just sometimes? When it's
> convenient for your argument you use it, but dismiss it in low wage
> situations?

The free market provides a level of safety appropriate to the circumstances.
There's no one "right" level of safety. Employers in third-world countries
*cannot* provide the working conditions to which we're accustomed in the US.
They simply can't afford it. If they could, they'd have to pay much lower
wages to make up for it. It's unfortunate, but that's life in a country with
a three-digit per-capita GDP.

Operating on the principle that the possibility of an accidental death is
better than certain starvation, workers are willing to accept the risks. As
the economy grows, wages rise, and employers can afford better safety
equipment, and workers can demand it, because they don't need the risk
premium to survive.

>>> This argument is not justifiable. Theoretically even this would only be
>>> true economically in a full employment situation where a safe job with
>>> similar pay was readily available for this person.
>>
>> Huh? Where are you getting this?
>>
> Your argument assumes the person (waitress) has an easily available
> alternative choice. This type of choice only exists if another job exists
> that is safer that is readily available.

As I've already pointed out, there's a risk premium at any employment level.

Suppose I employ a 50 people at $100/day. Then suppose I find a way to make
the job much safer, and the employees are willing to take a pay cut in
exchange. If I can spend $5/person*day extra to save $10/person*day on
wages, I'm going to do it. If I don't, someone else will. But suppose it
costs me $20/person*day, and the employees won't take that much of a cut.
That doesn't mean that there's no risk premium; it just means that it's
lower than the cost of eliminating the risk, and that we're at the optimal
level of safety for our situation. Maybe they'd be willing to take a $20/day
cut if they were productive enough to make $150/day. But that's not
particularly relevant now.

Along the same lines, suppose that the government mandates the change. I
can't take a $500/day cut in profits; I'm only making $400/day. So I have to
shut down and fire them all. Wheee! Granted, that's an oversimplification.
In real life, it's possible that some but not all would be willing to take
the $20/day. So I'd only have to fire some of them. Wheee!

> Full employment means one job available for every person. Otherwise, by
> definition, some have no choice. Follow me here? 100 people, 99 jobs -
> someone can't find work.

But that's not how the job market works. The number of jobs isn't fixed.
There's always work available at some wage level. Suppose the 100th person
offers to work for you for $1/hour. You can find something for him to do at
that price, right? In a free market, wages will adjust to achieve full
employment. All long-term unemployment is caused by regulations which
increase the cost of employment, such as minimum wage and, yes, inefficient
safety regulations.

If the conclusions of economics are valid only at full employment, then we
might as well just throw everything out now, because we never have full
employment (though we might, if politicians would listen to better
economists).

> Disagree.
>
> In a pure supply-demand system, the effect of a job shortage would be to
> reduce the premium on dangerous work.
> Therefore, while you may be correct that the effect does exist at any
> level of employment, it is reduced as employment falls.

Precisely. And that's entirely appropriate, because the alternative is that
people will have to accept lower wages or unemployment, and they won't have
the option to take the risk premium even if they want it.

> BTW, the United States has many ecomomies within it. There's a fairly
> significant lower class that plays by practically third world rules -
> migrant agriculture work, illegal immigrant sweat-shops, and inner-city
> poverty centres.

Yes. And as in other cases, intervening in those situations does more harm
than good.

>> So the crux of your argument is that certain people are not smart enough
>> to make their own choices, and that enlightened people like you must make
>> their choices for them. Is that right?
>
> That's a bit of a heavy/sarcastic statement, but essentially yes - of
> course. We don't let people work in asbestos zones either without
> protection.

But what if they think it's worth the risk? There's a very real cost
associated with risk reduction, and the level mandated by the government is
not always in line with the levels preferred by those who have to live with
the mandates.

> It's not about enlightenment though, it's about protecting people in
> inferior power positions from being forced/coerced/deceived into dangerous
> situations by someone in a superior power position. It's not
> enlightenment, it's human rights.

But I'm arguing against force and coercion, and you're arguing for it. And
I'm not opposed to laws against deception. An employer doesn't have "power"
over an employee in the same sense that the government has power over you or
I. A business owner might ask me to work for him, and I might not like the
offer, but if I reject it, I can walk away none the worse for having met
him. On the other hand, the government can legally make you an offer you
can't refuse.

And again, I believe that I'm arguing for human rights just as sincerely
that you believe that you are. I'm arguing for the "right" of people to
associate freely with one another in any manner they choose, so long as it's
peaceful. You're arguing for the "right" to force your employer to do
certain things. The key difference is that your "right" creates positive
obligations for others, whereas mine doesn't.

>>>> Let's try a different approach. Let's suppose, for the sake of
>>>> argument, that a man asks this uneducated single mother to marry him.
>>>> Suppose also that he smokes and she doesn't. Is he obligated to provide
>>>> her with a "safe" (i.e., smoke-free) wifing environment, even when the
>>>> children are at the neighbor's house? I mean, she might agree to live
>>>> with him and tolerate the smoking, but isn't that just because she has
>>>> children and isn't particularly attractive, and therefore has no other
>>>> marriage options, and can't make it on her own? Doesn't she have a
>>>> Gorft-given RIGHT to a safe wifing environment? Don't we, as a
>>>> civilized society, expect and DEMAND wifeplace safety?
>>>
>>> ...We are discussing the workplace, not homes.
>>
>> What's the difference? In both cases, a man is making an offer to a
>> woman, one which she is free to accept or reject, and one which will
>> affect her material well-being. Why do you believe that the employer is
>> subject to obligations to which the husband is not?

I had hoped that you would address this point, because I think it goes to
the heart of our disagreement. I'm curious as to why you think that the
employer has special obligations which others in analogous positions do not.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 3rd 04, 10:19 PM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
>
> That really is the beauty of democracy, you fascist.

I'm sorry. I took your previous response as a sign of intelligence. It won't
happen again.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Bob MacWilliam
October 4th 04, 02:27 AM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob MacWilliam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The problem is with things like smoking and second hand smoke is that the
>> danger is concealed. This is why psychologically people continue to
>> smoke in the first place. When you smoke you don't "feel" the danger.
>> The danger is there, but people don't respond to the dangers of smoking
>> in the same way they do other dangers that result in immediate physical
>> harm.
>
> So shouldn't we ban smoking altogether? Why is it okay for someone to
> inhale smoke directly from a cigarette, but not for someone to walk into a
> smoke-filled room of his own volition? In fact, there are all sorts of
> things that people do without accurate perceptions of the risks involved.
> Should we ban all those things?
>

I think even you would agree if tobacco came on the market today, it would
be promptly removed. I have no problem with banning highly addictive
dangerous substances with no useful qualities whatsoeve.


>> Your argument is that people are free to make their own choices for
>> better for worse, and employers do not have an obligation to provide
>> safety if all parties agree. This is a simple argument, I get it, but it
>> is flawed. This is part of the whole "free markets solve all problems"
>> argument that just doesn't work in practice.
>
> The argument isn't that free markets solve all problems--it's that
> government intervention makes things worse. I could just as easily
> characterize your argument as the whole "government intervention solves
> all problems" argument that just doesn't work in practice.
>
No. Government intervention CAN make things worse, but it often makes
things better. To think that government is fundamentally incapable of ever
doing anything right or that goverment intervention is by definition wrong
is not a supportable position.

>> So, what about stupid people? Seriously, people in the lower rungs of
>> the mental spectrum. In your world, these people would most likely end up
>> in the "concealed danger" jobs because their choices are so limited and
>> they may not even understand the danger.
>
> As I said in my response to MJL, if you really think that the government
> ought to be in the business of taking care of the marginally competent, I
> think that government-appointed babysitters would be a better fit. That
> way you could keep safe while leaving the rest of us alone.

A civilized society takes care of it's weaker members and builds social and
legal infrastructures to ensure this.

>> But regardless of who fills these positions, affording them basic
>> workplace safety is a moral and legal obligation that I fully support -
>> even if they don't "deserve" it because of poor life choices.
>
> Even if the person is, in your estimation, smart enough to make his own
> choices? Surely you realize that there are legitimate differences of
> preferences and risk perception even among intelligent and well-informed
> people? Obviously there are many cases in which some would be willing to
> accept the risk premium and others would not.
>

I'm not going to argue for a riskless society. It cannot and should not
exist. This doesn't mean though, that needless serious concealed health
hazards should be allowed to exist when a simple solution exists to
eliminate it.

>> Another difference is that these people have a great deal of training and
>> gear usually to minimize the danger. If all waitresses in smoky bars
>> were required to wear gas-masks, as crazy as it sounds, it's at least
>> logically consistent. People who remove asbestos from old buildings are
>> required to wear gas masks like this.
>
> But most people don't want to be served by a waitress wearing a gas mask.
> And again, why just the employees? If they have to wear gas masks,
> shouldn't the customers?

Customers, I say, have more choice in this situation than the waitress.
This, I feel, is what you refuse to acknowledge, yet is undeniably true in
reality.

>> Another difference is that most of these occupations are necessary. We
>> need police, fire, and military protection. These dangers cannot be
>> controlled, at least very well.
>
> I anticipated that, which is why I added the entertainers. We don't need
> lion tamers. They exist solely because some people like to watch that kind
> of thing. But there's also a market demand for a place where people can go
> to smoke and socialize and have people bring them beer. Why is it okay to
> satisfy the demand for lion tamers but not the demand for smoketerias?

It wouldn't be okay for very long if lion shows killed thousands of people
per year now would it??

>
>> It's a moral question more than anything else. Your logic says a third
>> party has no right imposing rules on an agreement between two other
>> parties. Sure, nice, simple, logically consistent, but insane.
>
> And I'd argue that your position is no more sane than mine, which puts me
> at least three points ahead.

Ahhh...Whatever...

>> I want my children, who most likely have to start out in the working
>> world on some type of lower rung on some ladder, to work in an
>> environment that is free from needless risks. Actually no, I demand it.
>
> Isn't your best course of action, then, to educate your children on the
> needless risks which they should avoid? Besides, there are probably all
> kinds of jobs you don't want your children to take. Should all those jobs
> be banned?

Banned? I demand only that needless risks be dealt with.

> Anyway, employers generally don't impose needless (in the sense of not
> being necessary to meet market demand efficiently) risks on their
> employees, because it's just bad business.
>
>> When I play hockey I assume the risk of getting a (another) puck in the
>> head. I hold noone responsible when this happens. But when I'm tying my
>> skates before the game and the ceiling falls on my head, I certainly
>> would hold the owner liable.
>
> But that's an absurd comparison. It's reasonable to expect, when you go
> into a building, that it's not going to collapse. On the other hand, it's
> common knowledge that inhaling smoke isn't good for you. When you go into
> a building and it's filled with smoke, you know it's there. The owner
> hasn't hidden anything from you, and he hasn't been negligent. You go into
> that building with full awareness of its physical condition, and you can
> reasonably be expected to have some idea that it will negatively affect
> your health.

It's absurd because it shoots holes in your foolish world view. Pay
attention now.

" It's reasonable to expect, when you go into
> a building, that it's not going to collapse"

It's goddamn well just as reasonable to expect the air to be free of highly
carcinogenic agents, concealed or not. Listen, here now is where your
argument dies. If there was a chance that a roof collapse represented the
same overall risk to your health as smoke, the owner somehow has been
negligent in this roof case, but in smoke there's no culpability?

Smoke is not concealed. Smoke DANGER is highly concealed because no
immediate adverse health effects are suffered. This is human psychology
101 - literally. The fact remains that concealed danger exists in both
cases. The only point left to argue is whether the danger is concealed. I
don't wish to argue this because it I know it to be true and I think you do
too.

BTW, you just lost.

<snip>

>>>
>>> What's the difference? In both cases, a man is making an offer to a
>>> woman, one which she is free to accept or reject, and one which will
>>> affect her material well-being. Why do you believe that the employer is
>>> subject to obligations to which the husband is not?
>
> I had hoped that you would address this point, because I think it goes to
> the heart of our disagreement. I'm curious as to why you think that the
> employer has special obligations which others in analogous positions do
> not.
>

My reaction to this is simple. If society were to do the RIGHT thing and
ban smoking period, this question goes away. As I mentioned before, if
tobacco was a new product it would be banned immediately, so the right thing
to do is clear. Of course there are complicating factors - physical
addition, hundreds of years of use being just a couple. But this does not
change the FACT that the right thing to do is not to smoke individually, and
not to allow smoking as a society - logic demands this as much as anything
else. It is arguably less logical to ban heroin.

My main point is that the VERY LEAST we can do is get rid of it in the
workplace.

You're cooked - game over.

Bob