National Smoking Ban?

[Stoopid_NewB]

As I posted earlier, employee health and safety are covered by OSHA, and second-hand smoke is not a hazard recognized by OSHA. Invalid point.

To begin with, OSHA does not have the power to completely ban smoking in the workplace. That takes an act of Congress.

But more importantly, you're flat wrong. From OSHA's website:

As you know, OSHA has a statutory responsibility to ensure that America's workers have safe and healthful workplaces. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or secondhand smoke can pose a serious health risk to workers. Unlike methylene chloride or ammonia, chemicals for which OSHA has set permissible exposure limits, ETS is not a necessary component of any manufacturing process or job.
Involuntary exposure to ETS is a public health issue that merits Congressional action. As you know, the Administration has taken a number of important steps to address this health hazard. For example, in August, 1997, the President issued an Executive Order directing that employees and visitors at Federal buildings not be exposed to secondhand smoke. But Congress can and should do more, and this Administration welcomes legislation in this area. Legislation could protect a broader spectrum of the population than an OSHA regulation, since OSHA's mandate covers only workers, and could be a quicker and easier way to achieve our goals.

The Administration supports Congressional efforts to include workplace smoking restrictions in comprehensive tobacco legislation. My testimony will describe OSHA's ETS rulemaking and present the Administration's belief that tobacco legislation should include provisions to restrict smoking in workplaces and other public facilities.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=TESTIMONIES&p_id=92

 

[Talga Vasternich]

To begin with, OSHA does not have the power to completely ban smoking in the workplace. That takes an act of Congress.

But more importantly, you're flat wrong. From OSHA's website:

As you know, OSHA has a statutory responsibility to ensure that America's workers have safe and healthful workplaces. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or secondhand smoke can pose a serious health risk to workers. Unlike methylene chloride or ammonia, chemicals for which OSHA has set permissible exposure limits, ETS is not a necessary component of any manufacturing process or job.
Involuntary exposure to ETS is a public health issue that merits Congressional action. As you know, the Administration has taken a number of important steps to address this health hazard. For example, in August, 1997, the President issued an Executive Order directing that employees and visitors at Federal buildings not be exposed to secondhand smoke. But Congress can and should do more, and this Administration welcomes legislation in this area. Legislation could protect a broader spectrum of the population than an OSHA regulation, since OSHA's mandate covers only workers, and could be a quicker and easier way to achieve our goals.

The Administration supports Congressional efforts to include workplace smoking restrictions in comprehensive tobacco legislation. My testimony will describe OSHA's ETS rulemaking and present the Administration's belief that tobacco legislation should include provisions to restrict smoking in workplaces and other public facilities.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=TESTIMONIES&p_id=92

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and no longer represents OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.
This statement is taken from the top and bottom of the link you posted.
Don't post half-truths that only serve your uses.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and no longer represents OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.
This statement is taken from the top and bottom of the link you posted.
Don't post half-truths that only serve your uses.

Don't post blatant lies. OSHA still recognizes second hand smoke as a serious health hazard. The only thing that changed regarding the document I posted is Bush was elected president. His secretary of labor ordered OSHA to withdraw their petition for Congressional action.

This is what OSHA currently has to say...


OSHA believes that data submitted to the record, and other evidence, support the conclusion that air contaminants and other air quality factors can act to present a significant risk of material impairment to employees working in indoor environments. Adverse health effects associated with poor IAQ may include sensory irritation, respiratory allergies, asthma, nosocomial infections, humidifier fever, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, Legionnaires' disease, and the signs and symptoms characteristic of exposure to chemical or biologic substances such as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, pesticides, endotoxins, or mycotoxins.

The Agency believes that available data support proposing regulation of IAQ, including exposure to ETS. Further stimulus for this determination was provided by conclusions reached in a report published in December, 1992 by the Environmental Protection Agency, addressing hazards associated with exposure to ETS. In that study, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders [Ex. 4-311], EPA concluded that exposure to ETS presents an excess risk of induction of cancer in humans. OSHA has submitted this proposed standard to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which is reviewing it in detail for purposes of submitting detailed comments to the docket.

For the reasons noted above, and discussed in the following sections, OSHA is proposing to address indoor air quality problems, including exposure to ETS, as set forth in this notice.

...

Conclusions

The epidemiological and clinical studies, taken in aggregate, indicate that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke may produce mucous membrane irritation, pulmonary, cardiovascular, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects in nonsmokers. Exposure to ETS may aggravate existing pulmonary or cardiovascular disease in nonsmokers. In addition, animal studies show that both mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke produce similar adverse effects.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13369

The link also documents specific health risks in dozens of pages of detail.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

OSHA still recognizes second hand smoke as a serious health hazard.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13369

The link also documents specific health risks in dozens of pages of detail.

OSHA has never recognized second-hand smoke as a serious health hazard, OSHA only proposed to. They have withdrawn these proposals every time.
I state this with the 2004 OSHA Compliance Guide sitting in front of me. It is my job to know if there are any significant changes in this Compliance Guide, and as far as second-hand smoke goes, there aren't. (I receive mailed updates and have access, as everyone else does, to the Federal Register)
You tried to prove me wrong with a proposal from 1997.
I show you that the proposal is not in effect.
You then find an OLDER proposal (Proposal publication date 04/05/1994) and say that I am lying.
...again from the link YOU provided...
Notice: On December 17, 2001 OSHA withdrew its Indoor Air Quality proposal and terminated the rulemaking proceedings, see Federal Register 66:64946.

Score:
Me 2
You 0
...keep trying

 

[Talga Vasternich]

And just so I'm not all negative, here is OSHA's current policy concerning second-hand smoke.
(I don't know how to post a link, but it's on OSHA's website...type "ets" in the search area and follow to "Standard Interpretations" section)

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

The bold highlight is my doing

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

OSHA has never recognized second-hand smoke as a serious health hazard, OSHA only proposed to. They have withdrawn these proposals every time.
I state this with the 2004 OSHA Compliance Guide sitting in front of me. It is my job to know if there are any significant changes in this Compliance Guide, and as far as second-hand smoke goes, there aren't. (I receive mailed updates and have access, as everyone else does, to the Federal Register)
You tried to prove me wrong with a proposal from 1997.
I show you that the proposal is not in effect.
You then find an OLDER proposal (Proposal publication date 04/05/1994) and say that I am lying.
...again from the link YOU provided...
Notice: On December 17, 2001 OSHA withdrew its Indoor Air Quality proposal and terminated the rulemaking proceedings, see Federal Register 66:64946.

Score:
Me 2
You 0
...keep trying

Maybe you're not lying. Maybe you're just that dumb. OSHA did not propose to recognize second hand smoke as a serious health hazard. They did recognize it. What they proposed was legislation to eliminate second hand smoke in the workplace. That proposed legislation was withdrawn for political reasons by political appointees.

OSHA is withdrawing its Indoor Air Quality proposal and terminating the rulemaking proceeding. In the years since the proposal was issued, a great many state and local governments and private employers have taken action to curtail smoking in public areas and in workplaces. In addition, the portion of the proposal not related to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) received little attention during the rulemaking proceedings, and much of that consisted of commenters calling into question significant portions of the proposal. As a result, record evidence supporting the non-ETS portion of the proposal is sparse.

Withdrawal of this proposal will also allow the Agency to devote its resources to other projects. The Agency's current regulatory priorities, as set forth in the Regulatory Agenda, include a number of important occupational safety and health standards. This document does not preclude any agency action that OSHA may find to be appropriate in the future.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=16954

So if you're keeping score, it currently stands at:

Reality: 3
You: 0

 

[Talga Vasternich]

They did recognize it.

You are incorrect.
I posted 2 minutes ahead of you with their official interpretation.
There may be hazardous chemicals in tobacco smoke, but they do not exceed permissible limits. This is no different that setting permissible limits of cyanide or arsenic or lead in drinking water.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

You are incorrect.
I posted 2 minutes ahead of you with their official interpretation.
There may be hazardous chemicals in tobacco smoke, but they do not exceed permissible limits. This is no different that setting permissible limits of cyanide or arsenic or lead in drinking water.

No, I posted their official notice of withdrawal. You posted a political statement they later issued. OSHA concluded that second hand smoke presents a serious health risk. Thus the word, "conclusion."

You'll notice that their conclusions were supported by over 100 pages of scientific research. And you'll also notice that your political statement was not supported by a shred of such evidence.

Reality: 4
You: 0

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Fortunately, OSHA (as well as USDA, FDA, EPA....) has to put these proposals up for review. They then receive input from those both for and against. They then make their determination based on this process.
OSHA is saying that they will not enforce a non-smoking workplace, and in a brief statement they say why. What more do you want them to do?

I will quote the OSHA website again concerning the Standard Interpretation I quoted earlier:
"OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information."
Seems funny to me that when we quote the same website that yours it is a "CONCLUSION" and when I quote it it is a "political statement". The proposals you quote are not, by definition, official and the Standard Interpretation that I quote is.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

Fortunately, OSHA (as well as USDA, FDA, EPA....) has to put these proposals up for review. They then receive input from those both for and against. They then make their determination based on this process.
OSHA is saying that they will not enforce a non-smoking workplace, and in a brief statement they say why. What more do you want them to do?

I will quote the OSHA website again concerning the Standard Interpretation I quoted earlier:
"OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information."
Seems funny to me that when we quote the same website that yours it is a "CONCLUSION" and when I quote it it is a "political statement". The proposals you quote are not, by definition, official and the Standard Interpretation that I quote is.

What you don't seem to understand, or don't want to admit, is that they are not proposing that second hand smoke presents a serious health risk. They have concluded that based on scientific evidence. What they proposed was regulations based on those conclusions.

By this notice, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to adopt standards addressing indoor air quality in indoor work environments.


Reality: 5
You: 0

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

A pm from Talga. Sorry, but I'd rather keep your humiliation public

I'm sick of going back-and-forth with you in the thread. What part of
"In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."
do you not understand?
OSHA will not address the issue.
In one of your posts (that you obviously didn't read) OSHA states that they have better things to do than try to pursue this.
Just admit that you want smoking banned because you don't like it and be done with it. I'd respect that more than dragging cancelled OSHA proposals out of the archives, dusting them off, and saying "OSHA says so" when OSHA currently does

What you're quoting is a memo issued by a political appointee. It contains no scientific or medical evidence to justify it. Simply put, it was politically motivated. Contrast that with OSHA's well-documented, scientifically-backed conclusion that second hand smoke presents a serious health risk and your argument has no merit.

Regarding OSHA having more important things to do, the only thing they've done under Bush is kill other regulations.

The demise of the decade-old plan of defense against tuberculosis reflects the way OSHA has altered its regulatory mission to embrace a more business-friendly posture. In the past 3 1/2 years, OSHA, the branch of the Labor Department in charge of workers' well-being, has eliminated nearly five times as many pending standards as it has completed. It has not started any major new health or safety rules, setting Bush apart from the previous three presidents, including Ronald Reagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1315-2004Aug14.html

And no, I don't want smoking banned simply because I don't like it. I want it banned in confined public places because it presents a serious health risk, as has been scientifically proven.

Reality: 6
You: 0

 

[TheUnknownIdeal]

Another case of the Nanny State telling us whats best for us. Bartenders and Waiters are adults. Adults can make rational desicions based on their needs and wants. An individual needs a job but doesnt want to be exposed to second hand smoke. Solution is that they get a job in a non-smoking work environment.

For the record there is 0 evidence that second hand smoke has hurt any person at anytime anywhere. I challenge you to show me one solid statistic.
The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of smoking. The research suggests that people who live with smokers for decades may face a slightly higher risk of lung cancer. According to one estimate, a nonsmoking woman who lives with a smoker faces an additional lung cancer risk of 6.5 in 10,000, which would raise her lifetime risk from about 0.34 percent to about 0.41 percent. Studies of secondhand smoke and heart disease, including the results from the Harvard Nurses Study published in 1997, report more-dramatic increases in disease rates—so dramatic, in fact, that they are biologically implausible, suggesting risks comparable to those faced by smokers, despite the much lower doses involved. In any case, there is no evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke has any impact on your life expectancy.

The second part of this irrational goubment overberringness is the fact that bars and restaraunts are private property and the owners can permit any act that would be legal anywhere else. Since almost all of the epidemiological evidence about the health effects of secondhand smoke relates to long-term exposure in the home, the fact that this is the one place exempted from current and proposed smoking bans suggests a residual concern for property rights. Yet business owners have property rights, too. If the government respected their right to establish rules about smoking on their own property, potential employees and customers could take such policies into account when deciding where to work or which businesses to patronize. Whether secondhand smoke is a health hazard or merely a nuisance, such a voluntary system is the most appropriate way to deal with the conflicting demands of smokers and nonsmokers, since it allows for diversity and competition, rather than simply imposing the will of the majority on everyone.




Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government. -Pierre Joseph Proudhan

Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
- Karl Popper

No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude. - Karl Popper

 

[Talga Vasternich]

A pm from Talga. Sorry, but I'd rather keep your humiliation public
What you're quoting is a memo issued by a political appointee.

Again proving you cannot or choose not to read.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
(I also asked and found how to post a link:wink3
I posted OSHA's Standard Interpretation directly off of the OSHA website. This is not a memo, this is the department's official interpretation of 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants which govern air quality in the workplace. Specific and detailed information concerning what is limited, see http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992
Try to read the whole thing.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

Again proving you cannot or choose not to read.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
(I also asked and found how to post a link:wink3
I posted OSHA's Standard Interpretation directly off of the OSHA website. This is not a memo, this is the department's official interpretation of 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants which govern air quality in the workplace. Specific and detailed information concerning what is limited, see http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992
Try to read the whole thing.

Yes, try to read the whole thing.

"MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS STATE PLAN DESIGNEES"

Memo is short for memorandum. In case you didn't get the memo :thumbsup:

Reality: 7
You: 0

 

[zodiac66]

PMs are meant to make a point in private.

Didn't someone either get a good tongue lashing or banned for doing something like that way in the past?

SN..that was totally wrong and it was reported.

 

[Freet]

NewB,

I have been down this road before and I will save you having to go down it.

PM stands for PRIVATE message. For this to work both the sender and the receiver must feel confident that the message sent/received is between them only.

In this light DO NOT offer private messages received by you to the forums again.

Consider this your warning.

Oh, and one other thing; Keep the sarcastic remarks to yourself.

 

[Stoopid_NewB]

NewB,

I have been down this road before and I will save you having to go down it.

PM stands for PRIVATE message. For this to work both the sender and the receiver must feel confident that the message sent/received is between them only.

In this light DO NOT offer private messages received by you to the forums again.

Consider this your warning.

Oh, and one other thing; Keep the sarcastic remarks to yourself.

I must have missed that in the rules. Um wait, no I didn't.

http://forums.diabloii.net/rules/

Any other unlisted rules I should know about?

 

[superdave]

I must have missed that in the rules. Um wait, no I didn't.

http://forums.diabloii.net/rules/

Any other unlisted rules I should know about?

Anything we didn't say above, we hereby say herein and henceforth. Verily.

^you missed this?^

btw...your post was a perfect example of the sarcastic remarks that freet warned you about...you won't win this, just drop it or pm freet(be assured he won't make public YOUR private message.)

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Yes, try to read the whole thing.

"MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS STATE PLAN DESIGNEES"

Memo is short for memorandum. In case you didn't get the memo :thumbsup:

I asked you to read the whole thing, and you proved you didn't read the whole thing, because if you had you would have seen in the blue-outlined box at the top a qualifying statement about Standard Interpretations that I already posted and will not post again.
Anyway....
I have shown that OSHA's official policy/regulation concerning second-hand smoke is that it is, under normal circumstances, not a hazard due to the acceptable levels of chemicals that may be in the air (Standard Number: 1910.1000 and 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants). You have not disproven anything about OSHA's current policy/regulation.
This thread is about government banning smoking on private property. You have done nothing to show that the government has any right to do that.

 

[Freet]

I must have missed that in the rules. Um wait, no I didn't.

http://forums.diabloii.net/rules/

Any other unlisted rules I should know about?

You really want to go there?