Local brewery allows employees to smoke while brewing...

[kombat]

You can get lung cancer without being a smoker. And the woman with COPD is also morbidly obese.

I'll concede that breathing in all that smoke certainly didn't make them any healthier. I'll even concede that it probably even contributed to their illnesses. But who are these people? A couple random, obscure stories you dug up several pages deep in a Google search? If you give me a second, I'll cherry-pick a couple of stories about people who got flesh eating disease from swimming in bacteria-ridden Mexican rivers. Does a couple of rare cases justify a blanket ban? The justification I've seen posted claimed "second hand smoke" has killed millions. But of course, it's nowhere near that.

As I've shown, it's trivially easy to come up with names of actors, athletes, politicians, or family members who've died from relatively obscure things like Parkinson's or AIDS. And yet you had to dig up a story about some woman none of us know, none of us have ever met or even heard of, a woman who was obviously otherwise very unhealthy to begin with and whose maladies may or may not be related to her mother's smoking habit, to make your point.

If it's such a scourge, where are all the victims? That's all I'm asking. I'm actually fine with banning smoking indoors, mainly for employee health workplace expectations, but when the lefties go so far as banning it in outdoor spaces (patios, parks, beaches), that's a considerable overreach, in my opinion.

 

[passedpawn]

Sure, it stinks, but so do farts. They won't kill you.

If you've had corona, you just KNOW those Mexican brewers are tooting up a storm during the boil. Man. Far more egregious than smoke IMO.

 

[Baabaadoo]

If it's such a scourge, where are all the victims? That's all I'm asking. I'm actually fine with banning smoking indoors, mainly for employee health workplace expectations, but when the lefties go so far as banning it in outdoor spaces (patios, parks, beaches), that's a considerable overreach, in my opinion.

I agree. No complaint from me here. As I said, I think the government has gone too far in many regulatory aspects, as I mentioned previously. I think businesses should be able to choose how to run, who to serve, and how they manage their products, but they should be required to publicly post those practices in many available areas.

 

[beerguyfrmsd]

Hmmmm smoking in brewhouse = Carafa addition recipe . If they want to smoke in the brewhouse that is okay with me, but I just will not buy their brew.

 

[ericbw]

It's about hygiene practices, not hand washing. Hand washing is small component of that ensemble. It's sad that I need to outline that; unless you're just trolling?

You said you were unfollowing this thread.

I'm specifically talking about 21 CFR, 117.10. Handwashing, yes, but also not eating, drinking, chewing gum, or using tobacco in an area where food is produced, packaged, utensils washed, etc.

 

[ericbw]

You can get lung cancer without being a smoker. And the woman with COPD is also morbidly obese.

I'll concede that breathing in all that smoke certainly didn't make them any healthier. I'll even concede that it probably even contributed to their illnesses. But who are these people? A couple random, obscure stories you dug up several pages deep in a Google search? If you give me a second, I'll cherry-pick a couple of stories about people who got flesh eating disease from swimming in bacteria-ridden Mexican rivers. Does a couple of rare cases justify a blanket ban? The justification I've seen posted claimed "second hand smoke" has killed millions. But of course, it's nowhere near that.

As I've shown, it's trivially easy to come up with names of actors, athletes, politicians, or family members who've died from relatively obscure things like Parkinson's or AIDS. And yet you had to dig up a story about some woman none of us know, none of us have ever met or even heard of, a woman who was obviously otherwise very unhealthy to begin with and whose maladies may or may not be related to her mother's smoking habit, to make your point.

If it's such a scourge, where are all the victims? That's all I'm asking. I'm actually fine with banning smoking indoors, mainly for employee health workplace expectations, but when the lefties go so far as banning it in outdoor spaces (patios, parks, beaches), that's a considerable overreach, in my opinion.

These were first page results. But I see that you still haven't looked at the links to the CDC or NIH articles? Just looked at the picture of the woman and came to a conclusion?

You have to look at those articles before you can intelligently say, "Where are all the victims?"

This isn't about "lefties" taking away your cigarettes. It's about sanitation in a food production facility.

 

[ericbw]

@Kombat, apparently you missed the earlier post where I debunked all your underdeveloped concerns and then some. This isn't about imposing your will on others. It's about meeting a standard that you claim to be, which is currently defined by governmental law. Read my linked post for a detailed explanation on that philosophy.

For the record, I shouldn't have to provide a link to celebrities who have died from tobacco, but I will to appeal to ignorance:

https://quitsmokingwithvivian.wordp...lebrities-who-died-of-tobacco-related-causes/
https://smokeaway.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/227-famous-people-who-died-because-they-smoked/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rs-lung-60-day-parents-second-hand-smoke.html

Read the link CDC link in my post #111 for more information on the toxic effects of smoking.

As far as the law on banning smoking, I am philosophically not a fan of the government controlling how businesses are ran, but I hate that a this as a divider in most restaurants is going to stop any of the toxic smoke coming from the smoking sections into a non-smoking section.

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

 

[CGVT]

OMG!!! He touched his mouth!!!!

Smoking while working in a brewery is probably against health regulations and certainly is not good for business.

If it bothers you, don't go there, call the health department, tell your neighbors, hide you wimmin and chillens, whatever.

But FFS, get over it, dude. It's not the end of the world

Lighten up, Francis. Damn.

 

[ericbw]

I agree. No complaint from me here. As I said, I think the government has gone too far in many regulatory aspects, as I mentioned previously. I think businesses should be able to choose how to run, who to serve, and how they manage their products, but they should be required to publicly post those practices in many available areas.

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.

 

[ericbw]

OMG!!! He touched his mouth!!!!

Smoking while working in a brewery is probably against health regulations and certainly is not good for business.

If it bothers you, don't go there, call the health department, tell your neighbors, hide you wimmin and chillens, whatever.

But FFS, get over it, dude. It's not the end of the world

Lighten up, Francis. Damn.

You've heard of Typhoid Mary, right?

This is a discussion, so discussing it is what is happening here. If that bothers you, "get over it, dude."

 

[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?