Local brewery allows employees to smoke while brewing...

[CGVT]

As I said, call the health department. Your paranoia is comical.

 

[Baabaadoo]

You said you were unfollowing this thread.

I said that when the thread was heading in a immature conspiracy theory direction. Do I need your permission to rejoin the conversation?

It's funny how the discussion has turned to the government taking away your rights!

This is ultimately what this discussion is about. How involved should the government be in our lives? You know my answer.

All of that is a slippery slope. Choosing who to serve is what we used to have in this country, separate restrooms, back of the bus, etc.

The alternative is to tell businesses, as they are now, that they need to serve everyone and conduct themselves in a certain way. Why not allow the businesses to choose their own practices and service guidelines? We want a more innovative economy and informed populace? Stop telling them what to do. Give them the freedom to choose. We both know that overtly discriminatory policies will not survive today. People will go elsewhere and the business will loose all its money. Let the free market choose what works. Let uber kill all the taxi services. Let new tech kill other older items in the market. Our market is not as free as it should be and this discussion fleshes out why.

Historically, mass discrimination is legislated through government and people use it to do exactly what you are suggesting. Force people into their own world view. Let america be different and actually be free!

 

[thedon986]

You've heard of Typhoid Mary, right?

LOLOLOL. Can't make this stuff up!!

 

[ericbw]

LOLOLOL. Can't make this stuff up!!

I'm going to take that as a no.

 

[ericbw]

As I said, call the health department. Your paranoia is comical.

Paranoia? Not really, and in all likelihood, there's no disease being spread. But the scenario, it's someone *in commercial food production* that doesn't follow such an obvious guideline.

And like I said, it's not about smoking.

 

[mikescooling]

Smoking and brewing is wrong and offends me. Second had smoke I don't have to breath offends me. And this is the third pair of undies I've put on and all three have gone up my butt and that offends me. YOU reading this, who haven't even posted, you offend me.

 

[ericbw]

I said that when the thread was heading in a immature conspiracy theory direction. Do I need your permission to rejoin the conversation?



This is ultimately what this discussion is about. How involved should the government be in our lives? You know my answer.



The alternative is to tell businesses, as they are now, that they need to serve everyone and conduct themselves in a certain way. Why not allow the businesses to choose their own practices and service guidelines? We want a more innovative economy and informed populace? Stop telling them what to do. Give them the freedom to choose. We both know that overtly discriminatory policies will not survive today. People will go elsewhere and the business will loose all its money. Let the free market choose what works. Let uber kill all the taxi services. Let new tech kill other older items in the market. Our market is not as free as it should be and this discussion fleshes out why.

Historically, mass discrimination is legislated through government and people use it to do exactly what you are suggesting. Force people into their own world view. Let america be different and actually be free!

You don't need my permission, it's a free country.

I'm not in favor of a nanny state, but left unchecked, businesses will take short cuts on safety. And it's easy to say, "then don't go there," but that means that we all only look out for our own interests. We also have an obligation to look out for others. At least, in my worldview, we look out for each other.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who is in favor of allowing discrimination. Overt discrimination will survive today, it will just be different. Last year, we had the bathroom debate. A couple years ago, it was about who bakeries could choose not to make wedding cakes for. Next year it will be something else.

You're arguing for less sanitation just because you don't want the government telling you what to do?

 

[ericbw]

Smoking and brewing is wrong and offends me. Second had smoke I don't have to breath offends me. And this is the third pair of undies I've put on and all three have gone up my butt and that offends me. YOU reading this, who haven't even posted, you offend me.

You obviously are putting them on backwards.

The thread is actually a lively debate about the role of government and hand washing in our lives. It's not about being offended by smoking.

 

[ericbw]

I said that when the thread was heading in a immature conspiracy theory direction. Do I need your permission to rejoin the conversation?

I should clarify: I'm glad you're back!

 

[mikescooling]

Don't tell me what way to put my undies on, that offends me. But I will admit it's a good idea to wash my hands after I handle them, because they have been up my butt. You'll find most test are concerned with fecal contamination, and despite the uninforcable law of hand-washing, looking in the face of DPH sanctions E.coil still makes it way into unknowing consumers GI tracts. Further more even after hand washing it's only minutes or seconds until someone rubs their eyes, nose, what ever. As a matter of fact touching a key board and mouse are some of the most dastardly fomites. Luckily our brewer is going to boil everything in a closed system. Government has to be involved because not every business is motivated my a moral standing.

 

[corkybstewart]

You don't need my permission, it's a free country.

I'm not in favor of a nanny state, but left unchecked, businesses will take short cuts on safety. And it's easy to say, "then don't go there," but that means that we all only look out for our own interests. We also have an obligation to look out for others. At least, in my worldview, we look out for each other.
You're arguing for less sanitation just because you don't want the government telling you what to do?

Ford decided back in the 70's it was cheaper to pay victims' families a couple of million dollars than it would be to redesign exploding gas tanks. The problem with "allowing the market to police itself" is that we're gonna have to allow for a certain number of illnesse sand/or deaths to get the public attention needed for the market to correct. Assuming these problems ever make it in to the public's field of view.
Many regulations are silly and counter productive, but most of them originate from incidents that left people sick, injured or dead.
The brewery should put up a big sign" We hope our brewers and other employees smoking on the job doesn't bother you". That would hasten market forces coming in to play.

 

[Baabaadoo]

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who is in favor of allowing discrimination. Overt discrimination will survive today, it will just be different. Last year, we had the bathroom debate. A couple years ago, it was about who bakeries could choose not to make wedding cakes for. Next year it will be something else.

You're arguing for less sanitation just because you don't want the government telling you what to do?

I'm not arguing for less sanitation. I'm arguing for more freedom and allowing businesses to actually make their own decisions, but be forced legislatively into publicly divulging in a clear communicated manner what they're doing. They can make any decisions they want, but it should be lawfully mandatory for them to say that they are smoking X, Y, and Z while doing so.

You don't get it. If you're not in favor of a nanny state then why are you forcing people into a lifestyle (nannying) others? I'm saying those who own a cake business should be able to say go away I don't agree with your lifestyle/hair color. Money talks. Let it talk. As long as all people are equal (same unalienable rights-meaning not positive rights. You do not have the right to other people's money) under the law, let the owners decide who's money they are taking.

 

[ericbw]

Ford decided back in the 70's it was cheaper to pay victims' families a couple of million dollars than it would be to redesign exploding gas tanks. The problem with "allowing the market to police itself" is that we're gonna have to allow for a certain number of illnesse sand/or deaths to get the public attention needed for the market to correct. Assuming these problems ever make it in to the public's field of view.
Many regulations are silly and counter productive, but most of them originate from incidents that left people sick, injured or dead.
The brewery should put up a big sign" We hope our brewers and other employees smoking on the job doesn't bother you". That would hasten market forces coming in to play.

That's a great example! Who are we to tell Ford how to make cars?

Sometimes we need someone else to tell us the right thing to do.

 

[ericbw]

I'm not arguing for less sanitation. I'm arguing for more freedom and allowing businesses to actually make their own decisions, but be forced legislatively into publicly divulging in a clear communicated manner what they're doing. They can make any decisions they want, but it should be lawfully mandatory for them to say that they are smoking X, Y, and Z while doing so.

You don't get it. If you're not in favor of a nanny state then why are you forcing people into a lifestyle (nannying) others? I'm saying those who own a cake business should be able to say go away I don't agree with your lifestyle/hair color. Money talks. Let it talk. As long as all people are equal (same unalienable rights-meaning not positive rights. You do not have the right to other people's money) under the law, let the owners decide who's money they are taking.

Let me ask you this - If you got critically ill from eating contaminated food, and you found out that the producer did not follow the guidelines for sanitation, would you file a lawsuit? What if you found glass in your Coke?

If you extrapolate your position, it should be ok for a business to refuse service to someone because you don't like their lifestyle/hair color/skin color/gender/religion/national origin. We've worked long and hard to overcome discrimination. That's the slippery slope of removing regulations (especially when it comes to WHO a business serves).

Like Corky said, too many people have to suffer before the market corrects the problem, if it ever does.

 

[z-bob]

Sanitation at the mashing and boiling stages of brewing is highly overrated. But poor sanitation suggests sloppiness throughout the process. (sloppiness that may or may not exist)

I think mostly it's an image problem. Would you be upset if they were drinking beer instead of smoking?

If it helps, just pretend they are smoking weed instead of tobacco. :cross: That seems to be more politically correct these days.

 

[Jim311]

Don't they know that cigarettes can cause cancer?


*goes back to drinking carcinogenic beverage*

 

[ericbw]

Sanitation at the mashing and boiling stages of brewing is highly overrated. But poor sanitation suggests sloppiness throughout the process. (sloppiness that may or may not exist)

I think mostly it's an image problem. Would you be upset if they were drinking beer instead of smoking?

If it helps, just pretend they are smoking weed instead of tobacco. :cross: That seems to be more politically correct these days.

I'll give this concession, since we don't know what the OP meant by "in the brewhouse." If they were smoking in a room where they were ONLY mashing, then it's not a concern. As long as they wash their hands after smoking and returning to other work.

Otherwise, drinking, eating, smoking - it's all the same in terms of potential cross-contamination with "germs" or allergens.

 

[Jim311]

Yeah but from a food preparation standpoint you wouldn't spit in the soup or smoke while you prepared it and then tell the inspector that it was cool because you planned to boil the soup afterwards.

 

[Mainer]

Holy hell, is this thread still going? I unsubscribed, but it still shows in my replies.
What's really left to say about this one? I mean, c'mon, we had run through pretty much every permutation of each argument a couple days ago.

 

[ericbw]

Then why are you back?

 

[brandonlovesbeer]

***Oops. Was reading and accidentally hit send.

 

[Braufessor]

Yeah but from a food preparation standpoint you wouldn't spit in the soup or smoke while you prepared it and then tell the inspector that it was cool because you planned to boil the soup afterwards.

It was cool when Dogfish Head did it
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DU1QvXghc8[/ame]

 

[Baabaadoo]

Let me ask you this - If you got critically ill from eating contaminated food, and you found out that the producer did not follow the guidelines for sanitation, would you file a lawsuit? What if you found glass in your Coke?

If you extrapolate your position, it should be ok for a business to refuse service to someone because you don't like their lifestyle/hair color/skin color/gender/religion/national origin. We've worked long and hard to overcome discrimination. That's the slippery slope of removing regulations (especially when it comes to WHO a business serves).

Like Corky said, too many people have to suffer before the market corrects the problem, if it ever does.

That is part of the law. They follow their set business guidelines that they set and its up to the customer to be informed. You're referring to no governmental regulation. I'm saying we shouldn't governmentally dictate how the free people run their business. The law would require the business to follow their guidelines, which would be enforced by audits and the customer's money. If they don't follow it, it's a clear violation and they would file a lawsuit. It's simple. If their product is sub-par, the competition will drive them out or the law suit(s) would kill the reputation and it suffers. You're straw-manning my argument. Please read more closely.

We do this type of certification based business already! I work in the biopharmaceutical industry. If we loose certifications from failing audits, our products aren't able to be sold in certain areas(ISO as one example). Non-governmentally sanctioned audits that permit the products to be shown that they meet a quality not dictated by the business. That way if you see for example (making up an example) NSB-national safe brewing certification on a brewpub you know that it's been audited into following policies that are widely recognized to be safe and kosher.

Under my position, it would be okay for a business to refuse service for any number of those reasons. Why not? It's their money! It's their business! We've worked long and hard to legislate people into submission? We're going to fine you to death if you don't sell your product/service to the people we tell you? This is freedom? This is justified? Sounds like socialism nanny state to me. Sounds hypocritical to me. How's it non-discriminatory (sound/good treatment of different people) to say you don't have a choice in how you run your business?

Oh, and yes. This approach to law would definitely render many governmentally sanctioned groups that control people useless. YAY! less taxes and I control more of my money. Less indentured servitude to the government. It would definitely rock the boat, but isn't that what America does? Hysterically (not lately), it gives the people a choice. Thats what the civil war was about and all of the major topics of any political issue are surrounded on. Choice.

 

[ericbw]

That is part of the law. They follow their set business guidelines that they set and its up to the customer to be informed. You're referring to no governmental regulation. I'm saying we shouldn't governmentally dictate how the free people run their business. The law would require the business to follow their guidelines, which would be enforced by audits and the customer's money. If they don't follow it, it's a clear violation and they would file a lawsuit. It's simple. If their product is sub-par, the competition will drive them out or the law suit(s) would kill the reputation and it suffers. You're straw-manning my argument. Please read more closely.

We do this type of certification based business already! I work in the biopharmaceutical industry. If we loose certifications from failing audits, our products aren't able to be sold in certain areas(ISO as one example). Non-governmentally sanctioned audits that permit the products to be shown that they meet a quality not dictated by the business. That way if you see for example (making up an example) NSB-national safe brewing certification on a brewpub you know that it's been audited into following policies that are widely recognized to be safe and kosher.

Under my position, it would be okay for a business to refuse service for any number of those reasons. Why not? It's their money! It's their business! We've worked long and hard to legislate people into submission? We're going to fine you to death if you don't sell your product/service to the people we tell you? This is freedom? This is justified? Sounds like socialism nanny state to me. Sounds hypocritical to me. How's it non-discriminatory (sound/good treatment of different people) to say you don't have a choice in how you run your business?

Oh, and yes. This approach to law would definitely render many governmentally sanctioned groups that control people useless. YAY! less taxes and I control more of my money. Less indentured servitude to the government. It would definitely rock the boat, but isn't that what America does? Hysterically (not lately), it gives the people a choice. Thats what the civil war was about and all of the major topics of any political issue are surrounded on. Choice.

Bottom line is that under your position, if a business doesn't want to sell to someone because if the color of their skin, that's ok.

That seems like a bad idea.

Government regs keep us safer.

 

[passedpawn]

Bottom line is that under your position, if a business doesn't want to sell to someone because if the color of their skin, that's ok.

That seems like a bad idea.

Government regs keep us safer.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

 

[Baabaadoo]

^thank you @passedpawn

I don't think he know what he's actually aware of the logical fallacy he's making.

@ericbw, How does government regs keep us safer? Statistically speaking, what force has killed the most people? Government. Why? Because the people who make the best decision for me is myself. I asked you previously to read closely. Please address the portions of my previous statement that you quoted which address the imperialistic logic you use.

A debate isn't much of a debate if you don't actually address the premises of your logic that I undermine. You don't make much of a case if you keep restating your position.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I've read through most of this thread and can see some concerns (health, etc) about smoking but where do we stand re: farting near wort? I wonder if maybe that is the source of some off flavors!?

 

[soccerdad]

Are they hiring?

 

[ericbw]

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

Yes.

 

[bob1852]

I've read through most of this thread and can see some concerns (health, etc) about smoking but where do we stand re: farting near wort? I wonder if maybe that is the source of some off flavors!?

Science has the answers you seek...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121900/

 

[Pkrd]

Are they hiring?

Don't you read the news?
Smokers have a life expectancy of like 6 days. They'll certainly be hiring by next week.

 

[afro_lou]

...Statistically speaking, what force has killed the most people? Government. ...

Don't mean to jump in on your tet a tet, but care to back up that claim? Purely in the interest of science and logic.

 

[ericbw]

Don't mean to jump in on your tet a tet, but care to back up that claim? Purely in the interest of science and logic.

There's no evidence to back it up. There's a philosophy behind it. The philosophy is that government goes too far in controlling our lives.

So even if it is safer to have regulations, there are people who feel it's an unfair trade off.

That's a philosophy, which is fine. I just happen to think it's a philosophy that puts the weakest members of a society at greater risk.

 

[ericbw]

Don't you read the news?

Smokers have a life expectancy of like 6 days. They'll certainly be hiring by next week.

It's not about smoking.

 

[applescrap]

Great read, and lots of great points. Even though this situation is commercial, I cant help but think of all the pictures of where and how most people brew. Hell, I brew outside, that cant be too sanitary. I am sure all the garages i have seen would pass usda regulations. I know, i know, this is different its commercial for the public.

If I have to take a side, I would say smoke f...in out back, but what kind of hypocrite would i be then. While golfing, I chain smoke cigars, i piss every three holes, grab clubs that are never clean, and then drink beer and take down a bag of peanuts. Now I dont know about you all, but that is seeming a little gross. If you have a problem with the smoking, due to hand sanitation, i cant fault you, i do too. That being said, you are likely being a little hypocritical/hypochondriac about all this imo. I chug diet rock stars for crying out loud, and i am worried about a smoker touching a mash paddle. Ever taste your cooking spoon, ever eat something without washing your hands? Think about all the stuff you touched and all the other people who touched it and everything that was on it before you ate something without washing your hands. This thinking leads people to the bubble. If I were to swab a house, a toothbrush, etc...there would be a lot more to worry about. Yes, it's unsanitary (absolutely), but it seems being human is as well. How about animals in the brewhouse? How clean are they? How about pet owners? I am sure some of you pet and love your animals and then eat a slice of pizza, while watching a football game. Would animal in brewhouse be worse? Or they are accepted because people love dogs, not smoking.

The bottom line is anyone who lacks handwashing and sanitary regard in this professional, commercial environment seemingly would lack all kinds of other stuff, especially in denver or la. But in the south where some of this stuff has been accepted to this day that might not be true and this person could be a great brewer.

 

[Steveruch]

I've read through most of this thread and can see some concerns (health, etc) about smoking but where do we stand re: farting near wort?

I've heard of using carbon dioxide and nitrogen; methane's a new one on me.

 

[Lefou]

This could give entire butt a whole new meaning.
I'm just getting over Doritos flavored beer and yeast screaming. What's next?

 

[Baabaadoo]

There's no evidence to back it up. There's a philosophy behind it. The philosophy is that government goes too far in controlling our lives.

So even if it is safer to have regulations, there are people who feel it's an unfair trade off.

That's a philosophy, which is fine. I just happen to think it's a philosophy that puts the weakest members of a society at greater risk.

Still have yet to prove the philosophy wrong. You still straw-man it and claim to have slain something that you don't understand. I'll prove it by proving yet another uninformed opinion wrong:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Note: Many citations and information linked on the bottom of this source. Biggest notable tragedies are stalin, pol pot, mao, and hitler.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
university of hawaii democide statistics. Excessive volume of information. TONS of figures and tables to make it pretty easy to understand for lazy people.

The point of the above information is that government has estimated to killed 260 million of its own people in the 20th century. It's statistically more likely to loose your life due to health problems, as noted here. Government in the 20th century has killed more than all deaths combined due to traffic accidents, war, homicide, and alcohol. Idk why I attempt to explain all this. It isn't like you've actually yet to provide philosophical or factually based statistics. Another groundless claim of yours that I have undermined that you'll ignore most of.

Remove government from dictating how to run my life and let my business be exactly that. Mine!

 

[ericbw]

I have no intent of proving your philosophy "wrong." I simply disagree with it being the best way for the most people. It's awesome for you. Your value is maximum individual liberty. Mine is maximum society benefit (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one).

I didn't create or claim to slay a straw man. Repeating the term "straw man" doesn't make a stronger argument.

I'll go read your links now, because I have an open mind.

 

[ericbw]

Great read, and lots of great points. Even though this situation is commercial, I cant help but think of all the pictures of where and how most people brew. Hell, I brew outside, that cant be too sanitary. I am sure all the garages i have seen would pass usda regulations. I know, i know, this is different its commercial for the public.

If I have to take a side, I would say smoke f...in out back, but what kind of hypocrite would i be then. While golfing, I chain smoke cigars, i piss every three holes, grab clubs that are never clean, and then drink beer and take down a bag of peanuts. Now I dont know about you all, but that is seeming a little gross. If you have a problem with the smoking, due to hand sanitation, i cant fault you, i do too. That being said, you are likely being a little hypocritical/hypochondriac about all this imo. I chug diet rock stars for crying out loud, and i am worried about a smoker touching a mash paddle. Ever taste your cooking spoon, ever eat something without washing your hands? Think about all the stuff you touched and all the other people who touched it and everything that was on it before you ate something without washing your hands. This thinking leads people to the bubble. If I were to swab a house, a toothbrush, etc...there would be a lot more to worry about. Yes, it's unsanitary (absolutely), but it seems being human is as well. How about animals in the brewhouse? How clean are they? How about pet owners? I am sure some of you pet and love your animals and then eat a slice of pizza, while watching a football game. Would animal in brewhouse be worse? Or they are accepted because people love dogs, not smoking.

The bottom line is anyone who lacks handwashing and sanitary regard in this professional, commercial environment seemingly would lack all kinds of other stuff, especially in denver or la. But in the south where some of this stuff has been accepted to this day that might not be true and this person could be a great brewer.

I think it's one thing to do those things for yourself - you accept the risk. In a commercial (or any group) situation, I think we all should look out for the risks of others.

I do most of those things, too!

For what it's worth, if I'm cooking for others, I don't taste what I cook and then use the spoon again. Clean spoon each taste. If it's for me, no problem. If anyone else is eating, even family, I keep it clean.

I don't think animals in the brewhouse is good either. That's just me.