|
Grex > Agora41 > #81: Washtenaw County workplace smoking ban? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
polygon
|
|
Washtenaw County workplace smoking ban?
| 
Apr 11 16:23 UTC 2002 |
Ingham County (Lansing/East Lansing area) has enacted a regulation to
ban smoking in essentially all workplaces and public places.
They're going to allow smoking sections in restaurants provided that the
air in the nonsmoking areas meets a certain chemical standard, i.e., might
bother someone a little (enough smoke to be noticeable) but wouldn't cause
an asthma attack. Obviously that would require very good air handling
equipment.
Now there is a call to enact the same kind of rules (or more stringent
ones) in Washtenaw County. At the last county board meeting, a dozen
people showed up to speak in favor of it. We also recived one email in
opposition to the idea, comparing it to the USSR and North Korea.
Such a rule, if enacted, would have little impact on me personally.
Practically all of my activities from day to day are in smoke-free
environments. But it would have a huge impact elsewhere, on bars, bowling
alleys, and other places where smoking is taken for granted.
Any thoughts?
|
| 155 responses total. |
edina
|
|
response 1 of 155:
|
Apr 11 16:33 UTC 2002 |
I have to say that I am in favor of the workplace, but only partly. My mom
works for Washtenaw County Mental Health and I want her to stop smoking. But
I know a lot of their clients do smoke, and the last thing I want to do to
some schizophrenic is take something that soothes their nerves away from them.
|
flem
|
|
response 2 of 155:
|
Apr 11 16:51 UTC 2002 |
'bout damn time, says I.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 3 of 155:
|
Apr 11 17:25 UTC 2002 |
I'd leave bars alone, personally.
|
scott
|
|
response 4 of 155:
|
Apr 11 17:39 UTC 2002 |
I'd be more likely to go to bars, at least those with live music.
|
jared
|
|
response 5 of 155:
|
Apr 11 17:58 UTC 2002 |
I'm in favor (and would vote for it if it were to show up on a ballot
even) to reduce second hand smoke for non-smokers. As far as
bars and restraunts go, I don't think one should go as far as California
but requiring some sort of dedicated non-smoking area (1/4 or 1/8 size of
public floorspace) would not be a bad idea... but in the workplace
(office buildings and such) it should be a smoke-free environment
(except for dedicated smoking areas inside of larger buildings/offices).
The small office and small business owner can request that their
employees smoke outside.
|
slynne
|
|
response 6 of 155:
|
Apr 11 18:12 UTC 2002 |
*shrug* It doesnt matter much to me personally. Certainly it is fair to
ban smoking from all workplaces (except bars) and that probably wont
make much of a difference since most workplaces are already smoke free.
Would this ban include outdoor public areas? I mean, lets face it -- a
smoker can easily go outside to burn one but a non smoker is kind of
stuck inside with the stink. Personally, I hope they ban perfume too
but I suppose even Ann Arbor isnt ready for *that*.
I think that the bars in Ann Arbor probably could handle being smoke
free and not lose too much money. I dont know if the same would be true
for Ypsilanti. Ypsilanti businesses probably dont need anything that
might put them under and the last thing Ypsilanti needs is more vacant
store fronts because a bunch of whiners in Ann Arbor want to be able to
go anywhere anytime and not have to deal with second hand smoke. I
guess I wouldnt support this measure for that reason.
Sometimes it is better for the market to decide perhaps with a little
nudge from the government. Maybe they could pass a law that would
require bars to be all smoking or all non-smoking (none of this smoking
and non smoking sections) with clear signs on the door so patrons will
know before entering. My guess is that a lot of bars in Ann Arbor will
go all non smoking and some will continue to allow smoking depending on
the market. I would bet that most of the bars in Ypsi would go all
smoking or maybe (like Sidetrack already does) go "all smoking" after a
certain hour (10pm for Sidetrack).
|
michaela
|
|
response 7 of 155:
|
Apr 11 18:16 UTC 2002 |
As much as I don't care if people smoke, it would be nice to be able to eat
out or go to a bar without coughing and wheezing for three days afterward.
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 155:
|
Apr 11 18:32 UTC 2002 |
I forget who said it, but:
"Setting aside a non-smoking area in a restaurant is like roping off a
no-peeing section in a pool."
|
jared
|
|
response 9 of 155:
|
Apr 11 18:37 UTC 2002 |
with proper ventilation and air-circulation systems you can reduce the
amount of smoke significantly. there are no 100% absolutes but
anything is better than nothing.
if places do go non-smoking and are of the type that i'd visit I would
probally be a bit more inclined to visit them. (eg: there is no
smoking at blimpyburger).
i have a number of friends that do smoke but they are always kind enough
that if I desire to sit in the non-smoking section that it is not a problem
at all. they step outside for a few and smoke if we are there for
long-times or keep their smoking to a minimum should we sit in the smoking
section.
places where people eat are the most delicate. i don't see the need to
ban smoking there, just in the non-bar/non-restraunt type places. there
tend to be little/no problems with such a setup.
(i'm reminded of a NewsRadio episode [damn you, a&e] about smoking).
|
slynne
|
|
response 10 of 155:
|
Apr 11 20:15 UTC 2002 |
I agree that it is pointless in many places to even have a "non-
smoking" section at all which is why I suggested making establishments
choose to be either all smoking or all non smoking. I'll bet that most
places in Ann Arbor would go non smoking.
|
keesan
|
|
response 11 of 155:
|
Apr 11 20:25 UTC 2002 |
You could have two rooms, one with clean and one with dirty air, but one of
the problems is that waitpersons have to go into the smoky areas of
restaurants. Should two sets of waitpersons be hired and the ones with dirty
lungs paid extra?
|
slynne
|
|
response 12 of 155:
|
Apr 11 20:42 UTC 2002 |
Again, is that something you want the market to decide or something
that should be legislated?
|
scott
|
|
response 13 of 155:
|
Apr 11 20:56 UTC 2002 |
At the moment the market has decided that service workers are disposable
serfs. All hail the market!
|
oval
|
|
response 14 of 155:
|
Apr 11 21:25 UTC 2002 |
i'd bet of all the carcinogens that go into my body everyday, cigarette smoke
is the least of my problems. that being said, i (even as a smoker) do not like
being in a bar or restaurant with poor ventilation. if i'm in a french
restaurant where basically the whole restaurant is a smoking section, i will
ask the table near me whether they mind if i light up. people need to stop
shitting on smokers, and if they really are THAT concerned about the quality
of air they breathe, there's a lot bigger problems.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 15 of 155:
|
Apr 11 22:18 UTC 2002 |
As unwelcome as the long-term effects of second-hand smoke exposure may be,
I'll grant that they're dwarfed by risk factors I assume through my own
behavior.
However, If I'm around smokers for any length of time I can pretty much
count on allergy symptoms that will last a few days -- not some distant
far off possibility of health problems so catastrophic that it's impossible
to envision them, but the near-certainty of reeking all the way home and
then feeling crappy for a couple of days because of someone else's
compulsive behavior.
|
void
|
|
response 16 of 155:
|
Apr 11 22:36 UTC 2002 |
Ever been someplace where you're not huffing car exhaust all day? Did
you feel lousy for a couple days because that crap was working its way
out of your system?
|
oval
|
|
response 17 of 155:
|
Apr 11 22:53 UTC 2002 |
i am SO sick of car drivers pumping their nasty fumes into the air I have to
breathe everday. summer's approaching and the smog is simply unbearable. it
makes me feel like crap, and smells too. i am so sick and tired of people
compulsively deciding to get a dog, so that if i have to be around one, i get
torturously itchy eyes, asthma, and sneezing that lasts for days.
|
jared
|
|
response 18 of 155:
|
Apr 11 23:52 UTC 2002 |
re#12
Some times common sense needs to be legislated.
eg: moving over for emergency vehicles. not everyone was doing it
therefore the state of michigan legislated it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 19 of 155:
|
Apr 12 01:16 UTC 2002 |
I am tired of smokers shitting on people. I feel sick for up to week if I
have to be near an active smoker for even a few minutes. The poisons in the
smoke kill the cells lining your respiratory passages, which are supposed
to keep bacteria and other things out.
This explains why radon-caused cancer rates are much higher in smokers - their
cilia are dead so are not keeping out the particles with radon on them. The
same may be true for asbestos workers.
In addition to the nicotine and tar, cigaret smoke is high in carbon monoxide,
which prevents red blood cells from carrying oxygen (it binds with them
irreversibly so you have to grown new ones to get enough oxygen to your
brain).
|
other
|
|
response 20 of 155:
|
Apr 12 03:21 UTC 2002 |
it's 98% psychosomatic. change your mind, you'll feel better.
|
mdw
|
|
response 21 of 155:
|
Apr 12 04:03 UTC 2002 |
Actually, carbon monoxide doesn't bind irreversibly. I think the
half-life is something like 4 hours or so, while the lifespan of a
typical red blood cell is more like 2 weeks. One of the treatments for
carbon monoxide treatment is "hyperbaric" therapy - which basically
means they put you into a pressure vessel and pump in lots of extra
oxygen. For a normal person, that would be an invitation for oxygen
poisoning, which is quite dangerous; but in the case of carbon monoxide
poisoning, the higher pressure oxygen speeds the displacement of carbon
monoxide, and gets more oxygen where it's needed in meanwhile. Keep in
mind when they say half-life, that doesn't mean it all goes away in
twice that time. It just means there will be 1/4 the amount in twice
the period, 1/8 in 3 times the period, etc--there are very likely
detectable amounts of carbon monoxide days afterwards, and maybe even up
until whatever the lifespan is for red blood cells.
For all the unpleasantness of carbon monoxide, I suspect it may be
something the body can adapt to -- so far as I know it's not a
carcinogen, at least. What bothers me a lot more is nicotine, which is
thoroughly bad news end to end, and much worse than most other
pollutants the average person gets exposed to.
|
swargler
|
|
response 22 of 155:
|
Apr 12 04:08 UTC 2002 |
Chicago passed a similar law many years ago and I was so glad I wouldn't have
to deal with the butt hackers nasty jones in the workplace. Keep your
addiction to your selves thankyou. I don't think this should apply to bars
and have mixed feelings about restaurants. I do think some provision would
be acceptable for apartment buildings but condos should have a clear policy
stated before you buy in. The times they are a changing, and in this case
it is for the better.
|
russ
|
|
response 23 of 155:
|
Apr 12 04:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #0: It wouldn't require "very good air handling equipment", it
could be done quite easily with separate air handlers and good
exhaust ventilation. My "smoke eater" system which is used by all
three of the lower Michigan SF cons was fairly cheap to build and
does, by all accounts, a bang-up job of smoke control. All a
business would have to do is set up the air handlers and partitions
to minimize smoke drift and they'd be all set; with tricks like
swinging doors to reduce the paths for drift they'd be able to get
away with a much smaller blower than I use.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 24 of 155:
|
Apr 12 04:26 UTC 2002 |
When I took guitar studies, I did note that many guitarists smoke
(more, it would seem, than other instrumentalists). I don't. I don't
mind if I need to be sociable and it's outside, but I really can't
stay in a smoke-filled room. I gamed (dice) with some people that
did, and it was difficult to bear. My friends who owned the house
understood. We all have our vices, yes-- I have mine, but it's
moderately reasonable to ask others not to share theirs with you.
|