Owners of Bars and Restaurants should give Employees an OSHA approved mask?

[kster]

When it comes to the Second Hand Smoke owners should supply employees a mask. Instead of making all these laws, It would seem to solve a lot of problems. They could even supply them to customers that want to hang out, but don't want to breath in SHS.

There are lots of companies that supply their employees masks, Hazmat,Welders, Fireman, Techs the list goes on and on.


On second thought why didn't OSHA force bar owners to supply masks to their employees, in the first place, if second hand smoke is as dangerous as the Government says it is?

:shrug:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. Might put a bit of a damper on the whole eating & drinking thing

[kster]

3. More concerned with employees

but yes it would put a damper on eating, drinking would be less of an inconvenience. LOL

[KansDem]

25. You could have a theme..."Dining on Mars"

Do the whole decor in a Martian landscape, then put your employees in space suits. The customers could sit around, eat and drink, and have a cigarette just like they were on Mars, and the employee "costumes" would be actual working, clean-air environmental suits protecting them from smoke!

Just imagine the possibilities...



DAMN!!! Looks like Mickey D's has beat me to it...!!! :grr:

[wuushew]

2. Why single out bars?

Most places besides the doctor's and the grocery store are optional.

[kster]

7. They keep making smoking bans on bars, which they say

are protecting the employees of the bars, an OSHA Approved mask that an employee can choose to wear or not would settle the dispute. Every one else in the bar are adults they have the right to be there or not. The owner has the right to choose if he/she wants their bar to be a smoking or a non smoking establishment.

[wuushew]

8. that is true of every type of business, I fail to see the distinction

bars are not special.

[TahitiNut]

4. I have yet to see an anti-smoker wearing one - despite the claims of danger.

:shrug:

[kster]

28. Because the antis have read the British Medical Journal

and they know better, but they still need to force their beliefs on everyone else.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=enstrom&searchid=1063712558723_4332&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

[TahitiNut]

35. Ahhh... those inconvenient truths, again.

Funny how self-righteousness is license to lie. :shrug:

[wuushew]

5. Modifying smoking behavior has no material cost.

A person simply walks outside.

Fabricating millions of respirators doesn't seem an effective use of resources for a given end.

[Heidi]

6. Yep. That's what I (a smoker) do.

There's no valid reason why others should be exposed to my nasty habit.

[kster]

9. Exactly "modifying behavior" If the

non smoker walks in and finds its a smoking establishment they can simply go find a non-smoking establishment.

I should say "anti smoker" cause I know many non-smokers who could care less either way.

[greenvpi]

10. Go somewhere else.

You have that point correct! If you don't like smoking don't go to a restaurant that allows it. Smoking bothers me a lot so I went about two decades without going regularly to restaurants. I'm healthier and wealthier (ok, so that's relative) for it.

[dmallind]

15. Where?

Presumably you are going to a bar to enjoy the amenities such as a selection of draft beers, a menu you enjoy, large TVs, pool tables and dartboards or trivia games and video golf, live acts or DJs etc etc in the company of others. I mean if it was just the booze it's a lot cheaper to drink at home.

Previous to all these bans I lived in the Twin Cities. There were precisely TWO non smoking bars in a metropolitan area of over two million people. One was a tiny (50 people would have been shoulder to shoulder with no room to move) microbrewery in the northern St Paul suburbs that had no entertainment beyond hideous caterwauling loud jazz muzak. Another was a dive bar in a not particularly savory part of Minneapolis.

So anyone who wanted to "simply go somewhere else" unless they lived near and enjoyed either of those two options was SOL.

Even if that were not so, why is a smoker's "right" to pour out carcinogens and poisons into the air more important than a nonsmoker's right to not be forced to breathe in those carcinogens in a public accommodation. I'm surprised at the suddenly libertarian extremism of many DUers when faced with questions of public accommodation and "private" property. Perhpas bars should be able to decide whether they want to follow the hundreds of existing laws to protect the health, safety and comfort of the public in businesses open to them. Raw poultry stored over the desserts? Hey it's a private business - you can always go somewhere else! Not offering toilet facilities? Just go down the road if you don't like it! No pest control and glasses never cleaned? It's your choice to go in there!

[kster]

19. Simple, you talk to the proprietors in the neighborhood

you tell them that you have a group of non-smokers that would like to go to a place that is non-smoking, the Proprietor will try to accomodate he will give you, lets say, one day a week where his bar becomes non-smoking for the day. It will probably be his slow day but none the less he/she will try and accomodate, especially if he/she sees a market for having a day or two having non-smoking.

That way no one forces their beliefs on anyone.

[dmallind]

20. Yeah right

Why not go to the proprietors in the neighborhood and ask them to set aside one day a week where they only let in men (like non-smokers, a majority of bargoers) and turn away all their female customers just to make you happy.

Bar owners are never going to turn away ANY customers unless they legally have to. It's a me-too industry and they are scraping for every person they can find.

[tabasco]

33. Smokers are simply in denial

of what they are doing to themselves and what they are doing to others.

[JDPriestly]

11. That would really be hilarious. I'd love to see that.

Recommendation for the most humorous post of the day.

[XboxWarrior]

12. I live near Cripple Creek, CO (gambling town)

The casinos here just got their smoking banned, but prior to that, I used
to play a little Texas Holdem'.

There was one guy that hated teh smoke......he wore a mask one night
to a tournament, and all I could do was laugh hysterically, like Cartman
laughed at the Midget.

He never came back.

Now in Colorado, the only place you can smoke inside, is the Denver Airport
Bar. (and those "smoker friendly" shops)

[JDPriestly]

24. I have never been to a Hooters,

but imagine women dressed as they do in Hooters with gas masks. I expect to see that in a movie soon.

[kster]

26. OK, we'll make an exception for hooters

:rofl:

I'm not for forcing an employee to wear one just giving them the option.

[trumad]

13. Light em if you got them!

[taterguy]

14. Is that what happens to a lung exposed to automobile exhaust?

[wuushew]

16. Probably something also unpleasant.

But it seems to me that auto emissions are getting ever cleaner and fewer thanks to government regulation. I can't wait to till the oil runs out and then comparison becomes mute. Assuming society doesn't collapse the future of transportation will be much greener and quieter thanks to the electric motor.

If the libertarians had their way California air quality would still be stuck in the 1960s.

[trumad]

29. Nice try with the rationzliation...

I encourage you to continue to smoke---heck--- 3 packs a day if you want... Really--- go for it.

[taterguy]

30. Flip flopper!

And pointing out that tobacco is not the only threat to healthy lungs is just a basic, albeit frequently disregarded fact.

[trumad]

31. Keep smoking baby....

[LanternWaste]

17. Replace one law with a new chapter of OSHA regulations?

Replace one law with a new chapter of OSHA regulations (plus the inevitable 3500 pages of errata and the re-indexing)? One seems simple, one doesn't.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Those Regs Already Exist Though

Ask anyone who's ever been in a metal fabrication shop, or a chemical plant, or a coal fired power plant.

The regs requiring employers to provide respiratory PPE already exist. It's not replacing one law with another. It's using an existing law rather than passing a new one.
The Professor

[LanternWaste]

21. I was under the impression that OSHA protocol mandate new regs

I was under the impression that OSHA protocol mandate new regs if older, already in-place policy is to be implemented at new industry.

But that may be out of date, as I haven't had to worry directly about OSHA since 1995 when I responsible for it at a Radiation Cancer Treatment Center.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Well, Actually, You Are Correct

However, that only requires a statement of administrative law specifiyin that said industry is now covered by rall current regs for the workplace hazard extant.

So, it's a sentence declaration, then the existing regs apply.

It doesn't require a separate writing of regs.

So, we're both right! Now, that's convenient. Violent agreement!
The Professor

[Justin54B20L]

23. Alright, lets get a few things straight here first.

First of all, OSHA did not ban environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) from those establishments. Laws banning ETS stem from legislative petition drives, and were adopted by voters in that particular state as an issue on a ballot.

Secondly, OSHA does not have any regulations addressing ETS as a whole. Any regulatory control would be exercised from 29CFR1910.1000 Air Contaminants. This regulation would address the permissible exposure limits (PEL) to the different chemicals contained in ETS. This is all moot however, because OSHA currently is not applying the General Duty Clause to ETS.

And thirdly, bar and restaurant owners would probably shit themselves if they had to implement a Respiratory Protection Program (RPP) pursuant to any inception of protective mask use to employees. There are a myriad of requirements a company has to achieve in order to satisfy RPP requirements. Its far more effective (by both time and resource consumption) to effect engineering (eliminating or reducing source emissions) or administrative controls (worker exposure times) than to implement a RPP.

[kster]

27. If the Proprietors had

both the time and resources to implement a Respiratory Protection Program (RPP) then what?

[The Straight Story]

32. Stats are screwed up IMHO (w/example)

Example: My mom smoked most all her 70 years of life. She did not die because she smoked, but because she died and smoked they recorded her death as smoking related (ie she smoked and she died).

My dad/me/sister/bro all lived with mom and she smoked, when I die (or one of them) it will be noted that mom smoked and that they died from 2nd hand smoke (even if it is not related).

Statistics tell people what they want to hear :)

[alfredo]

37. The thing is, tobacco weakens the immune system. A bacterial infection

could take hold and their immune system may not be strong enough to fight the infection. Restricted blood flow from nicotine puts strain on the heart.

[kwassa]

34. Outlaw smoking

It has no positive purpose as a deadly addictive drug.

No reason to be.

[TahitiNut]

36. Yeah. Because that worked so well with alcohol.

:eyes:

Besides, we need more people in prison. That's the problem with America - we don't have enough criminalized behavior.

Heil Hitler.

[kwassa]

38. We don't have enough criminalized behavior

Seig Heil Smoking Hitler!

we could have a whole Division of Smoking Prisons.

I like this idea.

[Jed Dilligan]

39. That will be great for tips nt

[TahitiNut]

40. I've noticed that a chilly breeze works better.

:evilgrin:

[Jed Dilligan]

41. I see it's not the cute smile that wins your heart...

[TahitiNut]

42. Actually, it's the repartee ... and the tush.

:rofl: I'm waiting for a Hooters competitor to open up ... "Brews, Burgers, Butts, and Banter"

[Jed Dilligan]

43. Oh, really?

The "cool breeze" sent my mind northward, to more... erectile regions.

[TahitiNut]

44. As intended ... "Gee! Sure must be cold!" is banter. Badinage.

I'm an ecumenical appreciator ... but tend to be more "A" than "T."

[Jed Dilligan]

45. So you like 'em coming, and going...