Well, yeah. I mean, it's at least in line with other ADA requirements. When I go to the grocery store, I almost always see empty handicapped spaces. They're unused a huge percentage of the time--and they could be used for other people (it's particularly bad when there is no other parking.) You should read the ADA. It says reasonable accommodations.... not anything regardless of cost to society. So some up front reserved spaces by the grocery store if reasonable. Banning peanut butter in the grocery store because of anaphylaxis is not.
In this case, depriving everyone of Wi-Fi would be an unreasonable detriment for society to suffer. Having to schlep your groceries an extra 20 feet isn't.
And smallpox! You forgot smallpox, dude. We know that was natural because it was present centuries ago. HIV of course is a man-made virus that was designed to kill all the black people and queers.
Could we also ban strip lighting, humidity, cigarette smoke, bonfires, barbecues and strong perfume since they all trigger debilitating migraines for me? The bolded one sure! The other's we could argue as being either not reasonable accommodations or not possible in the universe in which we live. But as cigarette smoke benefits no one, that one is on the house.
OK, we've established as above that 1) I am gay (though bf flies in the face of that as a sports disability and I did play ultimate a lot in college - so that's less of an excuse) and 2) he's drug me to both RiverCats and Kings games, but I would also like to add 3) that I worked overnight last night as an ER doc in a college town on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend.
While I didn't go RTFA you linked, your statement is nonsense. Have you read any reports about cows/people that live beneath high power electrical transmission lines? People yes. (I am told by my vet friend that I'm not a real doctor since I only treat one species.) In particular you might be interested in: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/1/1 But then I am guessing you are as likely to RTFA as the last. Why read something when you already know the answers!
I know my first post came across like an aggressive asshole, but this is a serious issue, that hasn't been researched properly by 3rd party researchers not somehow, albeit indirectly, have a conflict of interest. Actually you came off as an ignorant twerp trying to sound like an aggressive asshole.
So you suggest that publication in one of the best peer-reviewed medical journals by people from the University of Michigan Medical Center, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Children's Memorial - Chicago, Wyler Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Columbus, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Mayo Clinic, UMDNJ, with grants from the National Cancer Institute.... is um.... affected by a significant conflict of interest? From the international EMF-cabal?
That must be why pediatricians are always happy to side with industry to cover up dangers to kids when given enough money. Evidenced by the 'Joe Camel Memorial Pediatrics Lecture' on many med school campuses.
You are a moron. Pediatricians won't even lay off candy and video game makers, and you think they would some how be biased in favor of power companies?
It's amazing to me that you would throw out the granola/tree hugging image to discredit an argument trying to assure our health and safety. Especially, when we are now seeing many of the environmentalists outlooks on pollution and environmental tragedy come to fruition.
fucking amazing... No, what's fucking amazing is that you somehow equate environmental activism with believing pseudoscience. My (by choice small) house has solar, I drive a 5 year old hybrid (I'm considering a natural gas vehicle when the honda breaks eventually) and live walking distance from my work. I recycle, am a registered green, eat meat at most once daily, and try to maintain my life as carbon neutral as possible. However that doesn't mean that I am a whack nut who thinks that the modern environment is 'toxic', naturally occurring substances are inherently safe, or that hemp is a viable product.
If you have a (perceived) allergy to wi-fi, it makes sense to you that it should be banned. It may seem selfish, but that's how people are. That's certainly not how all people with disabilities 'are'. I've got asthma and a nasty anaphlactic allergy to bees and a certain antibiotic. I don't think that all flowers should be banned in public spaces because they attract bees and make me wheeze. Also as a physician I don't refuse to give my patients that antibiotic because of its danger to me. However, I do support banning smoking in public because 1) it makes me wheeze and 2) there is no beneficial effect of having public smoking.
Its a matter of looking at something with regards to relative benefits. It would benefit me to ban sulfa drugs and public flowers... but it would harm others and that is not a reasonable request from me.
If you have a handicapped sticker, you may not consider it significant for an able-bodied person to have to walk an additional twenty feet to get to his car. But, look at how many people risk the not-small fine to save those few extra steps. Again, people are selfish. I am much more inclined to see that as ignorance and laziness rather than selfishness or malice. People are not always aware of the results of their actions.
I am really disappointed with all you fucktards blindly bashing these people as 'low-tech' freaks, rather than considering they might have lower tolerances and could be 'the canary in the coal mine'. Gee, funny you should use those words, Mr AC.... since those are exactly the phraseology (as well as others you use such as 'saturation point' and 'perpetual exposure') that people in the 'multiple chemical sensitivity' and 'environmental illness' and 'EM radiation illness' communities use.
I'm a nerd and technophile myself, so i'm not a tech-hater, I'm just being realistic... oh yeah, redo the same questions/thoughts with cell phone frequencies.. I seriously doubt that since you probably would have referred to yourself as a geek. However, even if you have an iPhone encased in hemp so it doesn't irritate your sensitivities to outgassing toxins from plastic, you are obviously not a scientist. There have been many studies that show such sensitivity to or toxicity to EM radiation like this does not exist. (A systematic review of such studies can be found here: http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/67/2/224)
The responses here are not simply the dismissal by geeks of people who likely haven't the technological sophistication to successfully pick their nose. It is however dismissal of people whose purported sensitivity and disability have been disproved by good quality scientific research. Now go run-along back to your support group and let us laugh at you in peace, K?
nobody owes you a perfect environment, No, but we have decided as a civilized society that we will allow people with disabilities reasonable accommodations so that they can fully participate in society. We require places of public accommodation to have wheelchair access for a small minority of people who need it. We require employers to provide special assistance to employees who with accommodations can do the work. A blind programmer might require special equipment and programs that will cost his employer extra. However as a civilized society we require that.
These are good things and show that we have evolved past the point in society where we would leave people with disabilities to suffer or die. Leaving nature to 'trim the unfit out' as you suggest borders on repulsive depending on your definition of 'trim out'.
However that isn't the reason that this request should be denied. It should first and foremost be denied because there is no such thing as an allergy to Wi-Fi. I can't say that I have a disease where I am required to get a massage, a steak, and get laid twice a day or I will die.... and expect society to provide for this me. Because such a disease does not exist.
Secondly though, this approaches the point where even if they had a true allergy, it would not be a reasonable accommodation. A blind person can expect to be allowed a fair chance to be a programmer, but not an airline pilot. When there is a significant detriment to enough people, accommodations cease to be reasonable. Banning public Wi-Fi would have a serious detriment to some segments of the population and therefore might not be a reasonable accommodation.
Pattern matching is a wonderful thing, and you are correct that it is a function of our intelligence and a product of evolution (for example avoiding eating things that make us sick.) However something else that developed out of our intelligence was logic and the ability to evaluate empirical evidence.
Last Tuesday I went to a Sacramento Kings game. The Kings were ahead one run and my boyfriend left to use the restroom. As soon as I put his glove on (as a defense against the crapload of fouls they were hitting at us) the other team scored two runs. When he left again to get a beer, I again put on his glove and the other team got another run. Pattern matching (and superstition) would lead me to believe that in future I should not put BFs glove on if he leaves, because the Kings will lose the game. However, logic and a basic knowledge of the physical universe tells me that this pattern is a false one.
In this case the individuals in TFA have again falsely matched a pattern. They certainly have symptoms from their illness (which is a type of panic attack, which can give quite impressive and scary symptoms.) However, instead of accepting the reality that their expectation of becoming ill on exposure to X is a self-fulfilling prophesy and accepting therapy aimed at breaking that false association, they insist that Wi-Fi (or chemicals or whatever) is causing their symptoms in a manner unrelated to their expectation of becoming ill. Medicine and society does them (and others with purported multiple chemical sensitivity) no help by continuing to feed their fears and psychopathology.
We are designed to match patterns, but we don't have to be ruled by these when they are in error. I don't think that my wearing BFs glove has any more power to influence the outcome of a Sacramento Kings game than Wi-Fi causes these people any serious ailment outside of panic attacks. Show me a reason that these are related, or do a prospective double blind or good quality epidemiological study showing a link and I might believe you. That study has been done to people with 'MCS' and 'sensitivity' to EM radiation and it shows their is no effect from the purported causative agents. We haven't done it with the Kings, but if you buy me a set of season tickets, I will be happy to undertake it for you.
That being said, natural drugs generally have little to no harm in comparison to many other synthetic drugs, mostly because huge pharmaceutical companies pay chemical engineers to find a cheap method to produce something found in nature, and thus their quantum structure, and even their chemical composition, can be altered so that the body does not respond well to it (but the drug works so they don't care). Natural does not equal safe, and synthetic does not equal unsafe. That is the same logical fallacy that suggests that organic vegetables are safer than (inorganic?) ones. Personally I would rather my lettuce be farmed with synthetic fertilizer than cow shit teeming with E. coli.
What suggests best whether something is safe or unsafe is its track record. Period. That's why, you are often better off with a drug older than yourself rather than anything that big Pharma is currently advertising on TV. Initial marketing of a drug is the 'Phase 4' of safety testing. Once something has been out there for a decade, enough people have taken it that we know what it does, how it does it, and what the risks are. At that point, you can better decide whether the risks for you outweigh the benefits.
Also during post marketing surveillance, if the FDA finds that a drug is unsafe, they yank it. That same safety measure is significantly more difficult with 'natural supplements'. In fact, despite considerable evidence of danger the FDA is unable to stop the sale of aristolochia an herb conclusively linked to kidney failure and cancer, yohimbe a sexual stimulant linked to heart and respiratory problems, bitter orange whose ingredients have effects similar to the banned weight-loss supplement ephedra, chaparral, comfrey, germander, and kava who are all known or likely causes of liver failure.
So don't make the logical error of assuming that just because something is natural, its safe. Hell, small pox is 'natural'.
OK, but you still didn't answer the question. Why? Why do you object to my question, or any of the examples you brought up? Um, are you just not reading my responses or is your cognitive dissonance defense that intense?
You asked:
Why do you object to allowing businesses to choose for themselves if they allow smoking indoors or not? I replied:
For the same reason that I object to allowing a business to decide for itself whether to follow other OSHA safety laws for its workers. For the same reason that I object to allowing a business to decide for itself what lead content is acceptable in their product. For the same reason that I would object to allowing a business to decide for itself whether it would allow blind customers to bring in their seeing eye dogs. That is an answer to your question. I believe you are either being intentionally obtuse because you are at the end of all logical arguments because I don't think anyone could be that dense and manage to not soil themselves in public much less operate a computer. But either way, I will spell out this concept you should have learned in high school civics.
The reason that I would object to a business being able to choose for themselves whether or not to accommodate service animals, follow OSHA safety regulations, violate product safety laws, or allow smoking that exposes people to ETS is: because as a civil society, we have a well established social contract. We have laws that regulate the behavior of individuals and corporate entities toward other individuals. To anyone with a grain of sense, this is a good thing. This is what keeps people from shooting you, keeps people from poisoning your children's food, and allows us the standard of living that we enjoy. It is exemplified by the statement: my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins.
Freedom is not infinite. Even freedom of speech has a point past which is it no longer inviolate, such as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. When an exercise of a freedom seriously endangers others it is appropriately limited. So if a business owner's exercise of his rights to freely run his business endanger the public good, these are appropriately limited.
Actually, there's also no such thing as a "right to not be exposed to smoke," Bodily integrity is a basic human right. If you want a particular example, try the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
So you have a right to security of person which includes freedom from me physically harming you for example by splashing acid in your face. Similarly, I have that same right to freedom from you harming me by exposing me to the toxins you choose to ingest.
If you want to talk about legal rights rather than human rights, in the US the American's with Disabilities Act says exactly that: As a person with a disability worsened by ETS, I have a legal and enforceable right to a workplace and public accommodations free of ETS. Period. End of discussion.
In fact the ADA's passage in 1990 was a big impetus for smoking bans. While non-smokers on flights hated the fact that smoking on flights was allowed, it was flight attendants' and passengers with disabilities made worse by ETS rights to reasonable accommodations that was a bigger impetus. And as the ADA was used to gain smoke free bars in the US for the same reason. Moreover the specter of lawsuits against employers by non-smoking employees who developed smoking related ailments after long term ETS exposure would be enough for any employer to fear continued exposure of their employees to ETS. Once you know its a workplace toxin, you are responsible for its effects unless you protect your employees.
So you are quite wrong. You have no 'right to smoke', but I have the right (both ethical and legal) to be free from ETS.
Would *you* accept the counter argument of, "Well, it's the law, so... HA HA, Suck it!" as a response to your arguments? Um, I don't have to since the law is squarely on my side.:)
Why do you object to allowing businesses to choose for themselves if they allow smoking indoors or not? For the same reason that I object to allowing a business to decide for itself whether to follow other OSHA safety laws for its workers. For the same reason that I object to allowing a business to decide for itself what lead content is acceptable in their product. For the same reason that I would object to allowing a business to decide for itself whether it would allow blind customers to bring in their seeing eye dogs.
If we were talking about any other toxic chemical or talking about people who were blind rather than people who have pulmonary disabilities, this would not even be a question. The only reason that its raised is because the people who want to include that toxin happen to be profoundly addicted to it and don't seem to care if their offensive habit threatens the health of others.
I'd agree to the stipulation that any smoking establishment would have to post a Government-Mandated sign on the front door saying whatever you wanted about smoking and the potential negative effects, etc. But no fees taken with the threat of violence behind them (i.e., taxes) to disincentivise smoker-friendly enterprises should be allowed.
Could you agree to that? Even if a business posted a government mandated sign that said: we don't allow service animals or wheelchairs here because we are total douchebags that still should not exempt them from accommodating people with disabilities. Even if a business posted a government mandated sign that said: we include dangerous levels of lead in our food because we really don't care about your health they still should not be exempt from the laws regulating lead content. Even if an alcoholic had a neon sign saying hey, I'm a prick and I am probably driving drunk he shouldn't be allowed to drive under the influence.
So no, I couldn't agree with that. But fortunately I don't have to. Those of us who don't want to be poisoned by ETS are in the strong majority and in developed countries we have for the most part we finally decided smokers will not be allowed to inflict ETS on the rest of us. You may as well give up and start working on solving your addiction problem.
You don't experience repression when you use a moderated message board. You go there BECAUSE it's moderated. It's a choice. No, most people don't select a board to post on (or a public forum in general) because its moderated/censored. You are not here because you thought: gee, I want to post on an uncensored board, but because of the content on/. Moderation/censorship may be a nuisance that you choose to accept because you need what the board provides. I don't choose to travel to China because its a repressive society, but because I want to observe or compete in the Olympics and that's where its being held.
In this case the OP was using a great example because its such an esoteric topic. In my case, there is one message board that exists that covers a particular area of my medical practice (I treat a lot of transgender patients... that ain't exactly asthma or diabetes,) so there is only one board that I know of that serves health care providers who treat transgender patients. Fortunately the moderator doesn't usually do anything, but if she did, it might be an issue because its the only game in town.
Public intoxication is probably your best example. However, people are allowed to drink pretty much where and when they want as long as they don't get out of control or drive. That's when the authorities step in. A drunk is a direct danger to those around him, especially behind the wheel. You can't say the same for a smoker, which is where this example falls apart. Yes you can say exactly the same for a smoker. While a drunk driver inflicts an impressive injury on a small number of people, a smoker who constantly adds to the ETS burden inflicts innumerable smaller injuries that when added up over the course of a lifetime are just as damaging as being struck by a drunk driver.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and say its not true, but you sound more ignorant than proponents of 'Intelligent Design' and deniers of global warming. The World Health Organization, the US NIH, the CDC, the US EPA, the US Surgeon General, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the US National Cancer Institute, the American Heart Association,the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and numerous other scientific and professional organizations are clear on this point: Environmental Tobacco Smoke is a significant danger. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics states in their policy: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B107/4/794
United States, 43% of children aged 2 to 11 years are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, which has been implicated in sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight, asthma, middle ear disease, pneumonia, cough, and upper respiratory infection. If a child dies of SIDS he's just as dead as if he's killed by a drunk driver. It may be (to quote Al Gore quoting Upton Sinclair) an inconvenient truth for you to realize that your actions harm the health and welfare of others, but it does not change the facts: When you smoke near a pregnant woman, you may cause her to miscarry or cause her to have a premature delivery. When you smoke near an infant, you place that child at risk for SIDS. When you smoke near someone with asthma, CF, or other pulmonary problems, you shorten their life span. When you smoke near perfectly healthy adults you increase their risk for developing COPD.
And you do these things not because you are a bold individualist. Not because you respect individual freedoms. Not because you are a rebel. You do it because You. Are. An. Addict.
Well, as I understand it, aside from discrimination issues, a proprietor of an establishment CAN refuse you service for just about any reason. Remember the "Soup Nazi"? That stuff is true, if they don't want to serve you and you piss them off, they can ban you from the place and arrest you for tresspassing if you choose to come back. Ever see the "No Shirts, NO Shoes, No Service" signs? Yep...those aren't regulations...they are rules of the house. I argue that owners of private businesses DO have the right to not serve you...and until recently, they had the choice on whether to allow a legal activity (smoking) in their place. Great, no problem then. Those of us who have pulmonary problems (asthma, but also COPD, Cystic Fibrosis, etc) should be able to safely access these private businesses. One of the protected classes along with race that establishments cannot fail to serve is people with disabilities. Since smoking (especially as prevalent as it was in the era before public smoking bans) is a significant barrier to access for people with more severe pulmonary disabilities, that alone is a good reason we should just keep things non-smoking.
According to the CDC and WHO, rates of asthma are between 5-10% of the adult population (more in kids, but then some kids 'grow out of it'). About 4% of the population has COPD (albeit about 85% of these are current or former smokers.) Add to this the number of people who have other various pulmonary and cardiovascular problems adversely effected by ETS that is a good 10-15% of the population. So I think its a reasonable assumption that the chances that someone with a disease adversely effected by ETS would want to be in a restaurant with 40 people in it is pretty close to 100%.
So given that there is no one with a disability who suffers by making restaurants/bars/stores smoke-free, but a significant proportion of the population either suffer injury or are prevented from going to these places by ETS, its a no-brainer whose 'rights' should prevail. A restaurant no more has the right (civil or ethical) to deprive a cystic fibrosis patient a safe place to eat than it does someone with a wheelchair or someone who is black access to the facility. It may be inconvenient to them to provide that and it may cost more, but as long as its a reasonable accommodation such as a smoke free environment, it must be provided.
And yes, I really do enjoy the fact that it makes smokers have to schlep outside or do without. For all the years I was required to choose to either stay outside or let my lungs suffer, its really quite pleasurable to watch smokers have to do what they subject those of us with chronic lung disease to for too many years. Its almost as pleasurable it will be for my partner and I to get married in CA next month. It will be just a little bit sweeter knowing that there will be people at Concerned Women For America and Focus on the Faggots who will be apoplectic with rage at the thought.
So from all the non-smokers in the world who now enjoy clean air in restaurants and bars: nany-nany-boo-boo. Same goes for CWFA and FoF: Pffffft.
How about you just don't go to places that you don't want to go to? Too much smoke for you? Don't go there! So by your same logic, if you don't like me taking a dump in your coffee, don't go to a coffee shop where I decide to take a dump.
But fortunately, people like me (non-addicts) are in the majority, we have science on our side, and we make the rules. Don't like being unable to feed your addiction? Stay in your own home.
So how is that Google's fault? They cooperated with a violent and repressive regime? It doesn't matter if they got the right guy or the wrong guy. If the 'getting' could reasonably be assumed to involve torture, you shouldn't help regardless of the veracity of your information.
People have been steadily increasing in rates of asthma, though the rates of smoking have declined. In my lifetime I have never smoked inside a building besides a bar or a private residence (and this is very rare). Some bars are even smoke free, depending on your state. The point of #4 is that there are myriad other factors contributing to asthma, exacerbations, COPD, and other respiratory diseases. My estimate is diesel exhaust, relaxing air quality standards, and other pollution that you cannot see. So by your logic since driving drunk causes a lot of accidents we shouldn't regulate driving while on a cell phone. However, while your estimate may be that smoking is less of an issue that is not born out by actual research. Urinary cotinine levels in non-smokers (which is a great measure of environmental tobacco smoke exposure) correlate well with asthma severity.
politically correct attitude of the US appalls me someone that smokes tobacco is not accepted as a person and a human being. Actually I have a lot of sympathy for smokers. I'm an ER physician and I also volunteer two days a week at a primary care clinic that serves uninsured patients. Its a deadly and profoundly addictive habit that is more difficult to abstain from than alcohol and meth. However, I don't help my meth addicted patients by providing them with an easy way to continue abusing.
So I don't think that we do a good service to smokers by allowing them to freely exercize their addiction in public. Especially if its something that threatens the health of other people.
Second hand smoke is annoying, even as a smoker I am bothered by it, but it is a well-funded and erroneous myth that it is responsible for some "45,000" deaths a year. That's ridiculous--no one's death certificate lists "Second-hand smoke" as the cause. The numbers were obtained by masquerading heart attack sufferers as "victims of second-hand smoke." So the worker-safety issue is a fallacy. Again, its nice that you feel that way, but epidemiological research thinks you are full of shit. Google scholar: urinary cotinine + (whatever smoking associated disease you like - asthma is easy because it has a shorter lag.) However, in my purely anecdotal experience: as soon as I graduated medical school and stopped waiting tables to get by, my use of albuterol MDIs fell from 1 a month, to 3 a year.
Like it or not, you do hurt others with your addiction. If you want help stopping I would be happy to, but if you want enabling, you are not going to get it.
OK, quick question: If I wanted to start a business that provided a place where people could come to smoke cigars, how could I possibly make that accessible to people who are allergic to smoke? Except that smoking establishments are not a niche. It was the norm in the time before smoking bans. If there was a law allowing smocking in establishments that had to pass a high bar (high fees, licensing) so that it would be available but rare, I would be OK with that. However if you allow unregulated smoking in restaurants/bars it will de facto be nearly 100% smoking.
Well, no one is holding a gun to your head to make you patronize a place that allows smoking, nor are they forcing anyone to work there. Freedom of choice? Remember that? Personal responsibility? If a person wants to open a smoke free place....they can make the choice on that and people that can't stand 2nd hand smoke can easily patronize that place...vote with your dollars. Until smoking is made illegal, this should be the case. Great, you can smoke anywhere you want, but then you have to pay my college, k? Since my parents were dirt poor I put myself through college and medical school. One of the only jobs that I could work (largely because scheduling it around school was hard) was waiting tables. In the 80's and 90's in NC this meant heavy environmental tobacco smoke exposure.
I took personal responsibility and made the choice to be successful. However that should not require me to place my health at risk because an addict like yourself has so little self control that you can't go an hour without feeding your addiction.
You are using trite phrases to cover up the fact that you can't control your own cravings for your drug. You got addicted when you were a teen, because you caved to peer pressure and wanted to look cool. Then when it started to get expensive you tried to quit, but you just didn't have the willpower. Then it started to make you a social pariah when society started to tell you your foul habit was not allowed. So you tried to quit again, but again you failed. Then the price started to get to the point that you could not afford things you wanted or maybe even needed, and you tried again. But again found out that the addiction, and not you were in control.
As all this happened you began getting really effing annoyed when people challenged you on your addiction. So you started to make arguments. Its a choice. I have 'smokers rights'. Its about personal responsibility. If you are smart you may have come up with one or two on your own. But more likely you are simply parroting tobacco company propaganda.
It SHOULD be a choice for adults to make...much like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle...if you're over 18 and can afford the insurance...you should be able to act like an idiot if you want to. And please..don't give me the the "it raises insurance rates for all". I live in LA, and we went from a no helmet law, back to a helmet law. I challenge anyone to see if the insurance rates decreased due to this?? Actually I could give a rats ass about insurance rates. I'm an ER doctor. The 'price' I see from lack of helmet (and seatbelt) use is far greater than money. Its death, paralysis, amputations, brain damage, etc. However from a societal perspective, it is also the cost in manpower for the 2 weeks in the ICU and 6 months in rehab. Its also the cost that when you don't get up from laying your bike down because you failed to wear a helmet, the EMS rig that is scraping you up is out of service. That increased use of emergency services delays response times in the entire system. Your use of an ER bed and nursing makes everyone in the ER wait longer.
Same with smoking...smokers pay more for health insurance, and the extra taxes they pay on tobacco...should more than cover the extra 'expenses' you say they have. That's what sin taxes are for arent' they? Except that the real cost of tobacco is actually higher than that differential. Each pack of cigarettes that are smoked cost the US just over $7. That's after the taxes are removed. The real raw cost is over $10 per pack.
That aside, I wonder if the guy with the asthma owns a car. I think the exhaust of typical city traffic, and having to breathe that all day, is far worse than spending an hour or two in a restaurant where someone is smoking at the next table (at least part of the time). I do. Honda civic hybrid. Ultra low emission: you can basically take a drag off the exhaust pipe safely. However I have that not because of my asthma, but because 1) I'm cheap, and 2) Its better for the environment.
The "smell" argument that's often brought up even proves this, IMO: you're so used to breathing exhaust fumes all day, that you'd have to spend a full day in nature before you notice it again (for a couple of minutes) when you get back home. One should be able to step straight from a forest into a city center, and see if he still doesn't smell it then. And pulmonary health (not just for asthmatics) is one of the reasons we have emissions standards. Though auto emissions is not (by far) the biggest cause of asthma. However, even if it was that is an innane argument in this case. Just because we have exposure to the carcinogenic effects of sunshine, that is no reason not to avoid having a spent uranium waste latte. There are any number of avoidable and unavoidable triggers for asthma. Just because you can't avoid some doesn't mean you should ignore them all. And exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is quite avoidable.
A smoker doesn't notice tobacco smoke because he's used to it. In the same way, our asthma patient is so used to breathing exhaust fumes that he doesn't notice them, so he blames it on that whiff of smoke that he does notice. Then how is it the case that urinary cotinine levels in non-smoking asthmatics (which is a direct measure of environmental tobacco smoke) can predict severity of disease? Urinary cotinine indicates how well one is able to smell?
Though my own anecdotal experience directly contradicts your argument. My mother was a two pack a day smoker my entire childhood. I was exposed to ETS heavily as a child and by your reasoning, since I was much less able to detect it by smell (since I was around it so much) than I am now, my asthma should have been better then than now. And when I was putting myself through college and med school waiting tables (in North Carolina in the 80's and 90's - so I was heavily exposed to ETS) my asthma should have been much better because I was again, unable to smell it very well. However, the exact opposite is true.
ETS is a huge trigger for asthma, probably is the cause a lot of childhood asthma, and unlike pine pollen and car exhaust is entirely 100% avoidable if we just disallow smoking in shared public places.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, depriving everyone of Wi-Fi would be an unreasonable detriment for society to suffer. Having to schlep your groceries an extra 20 feet isn't.
...and cool. Its time we stopped giving pseudoscience the 'benefit of the doubt'. If its moronic, call it out as such.
And smallpox! You forgot smallpox, dude. We know that was natural because it was present centuries ago. HIV of course is a man-made virus that was designed to kill all the black people and queers.
OK, we've established as above that 1) I am gay (though bf flies in the face of that as a sports disability and I did play ultimate a lot in college - so that's less of an excuse) and 2) he's drug me to both RiverCats and Kings games, but I would also like to add 3) that I worked overnight last night as an ER doc in a college town on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend.
So you suggest that publication in one of the best peer-reviewed medical journals by people from the University of Michigan Medical Center, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, Children's Memorial - Chicago, Wyler Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Columbus, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, the Mayo Clinic, UMDNJ, with grants from the National Cancer Institute.... is um.... affected by a significant conflict of interest? From the international EMF-cabal?
That must be why pediatricians are always happy to side with industry to cover up dangers to kids when given enough money. Evidenced by the 'Joe Camel Memorial Pediatrics Lecture' on many med school campuses.
You are a moron. Pediatricians won't even lay off candy and video game makers, and you think they would some how be biased in favor of power companies? It's amazing to me that you would throw out the granola/tree hugging image to discredit an argument trying to assure our health and safety. Especially, when we are now seeing many of the environmentalists outlooks on pollution and environmental tragedy come to fruition. fucking amazing... No, what's fucking amazing is that you somehow equate environmental activism with believing pseudoscience. My (by choice small) house has solar, I drive a 5 year old hybrid (I'm considering a natural gas vehicle when the honda breaks eventually) and live walking distance from my work. I recycle, am a registered green, eat meat at most once daily, and try to maintain my life as carbon neutral as possible. However that doesn't mean that I am a whack nut who thinks that the modern environment is 'toxic', naturally occurring substances are inherently safe, or that hemp is a viable product.
Its a matter of looking at something with regards to relative benefits. It would benefit me to ban sulfa drugs and public flowers... but it would harm others and that is not a reasonable request from me. If you have a handicapped sticker, you may not consider it significant for an able-bodied person to have to walk an additional twenty feet to get to his car. But, look at how many people risk the not-small fine to save those few extra steps. Again, people are selfish. I am much more inclined to see that as ignorance and laziness rather than selfishness or malice. People are not always aware of the results of their actions.
Damn, two in one post. I could make a reference to gay men lacking the sports-gene, but BF defies that stereotype.
That's why he has the glove. He actually wants to catch balls... I just don't want to die of head trauma.
Point well taken.
The responses here are not simply the dismissal by geeks of people who likely haven't the technological sophistication to successfully pick their nose. It is however dismissal of people whose purported sensitivity and disability have been disproved by good quality scientific research. Now go run-along back to your support group and let us laugh at you in peace, K?
These are good things and show that we have evolved past the point in society where we would leave people with disabilities to suffer or die. Leaving nature to 'trim the unfit out' as you suggest borders on repulsive depending on your definition of 'trim out'.
However that isn't the reason that this request should be denied. It should first and foremost be denied because there is no such thing as an allergy to Wi-Fi. I can't say that I have a disease where I am required to get a massage, a steak, and get laid twice a day or I will die.... and expect society to provide for this me. Because such a disease does not exist.
Secondly though, this approaches the point where even if they had a true allergy, it would not be a reasonable accommodation. A blind person can expect to be allowed a fair chance to be a programmer, but not an airline pilot. When there is a significant detriment to enough people, accommodations cease to be reasonable. Banning public Wi-Fi would have a serious detriment to some segments of the population and therefore might not be a reasonable accommodation.
Pattern matching is a wonderful thing, and you are correct that it is a function of our intelligence and a product of evolution (for example avoiding eating things that make us sick.) However something else that developed out of our intelligence was logic and the ability to evaluate empirical evidence.
Last Tuesday I went to a Sacramento Kings game. The Kings were ahead one run and my boyfriend left to use the restroom. As soon as I put his glove on (as a defense against the crapload of fouls they were hitting at us) the other team scored two runs. When he left again to get a beer, I again put on his glove and the other team got another run. Pattern matching (and superstition) would lead me to believe that in future I should not put BFs glove on if he leaves, because the Kings will lose the game. However, logic and a basic knowledge of the physical universe tells me that this pattern is a false one.
In this case the individuals in TFA have again falsely matched a pattern. They certainly have symptoms from their illness (which is a type of panic attack, which can give quite impressive and scary symptoms.) However, instead of accepting the reality that their expectation of becoming ill on exposure to X is a self-fulfilling prophesy and accepting therapy aimed at breaking that false association, they insist that Wi-Fi (or chemicals or whatever) is causing their symptoms in a manner unrelated to their expectation of becoming ill. Medicine and society does them (and others with purported multiple chemical sensitivity) no help by continuing to feed their fears and psychopathology.
We are designed to match patterns, but we don't have to be ruled by these when they are in error. I don't think that my wearing BFs glove has any more power to influence the outcome of a Sacramento Kings game than Wi-Fi causes these people any serious ailment outside of panic attacks. Show me a reason that these are related, or do a prospective double blind or good quality epidemiological study showing a link and I might believe you. That study has been done to people with 'MCS' and 'sensitivity' to EM radiation and it shows their is no effect from the purported causative agents. We haven't done it with the Kings, but if you buy me a set of season tickets, I will be happy to undertake it for you.
What suggests best whether something is safe or unsafe is its track record. Period. That's why, you are often better off with a drug older than yourself rather than anything that big Pharma is currently advertising on TV. Initial marketing of a drug is the 'Phase 4' of safety testing. Once something has been out there for a decade, enough people have taken it that we know what it does, how it does it, and what the risks are. At that point, you can better decide whether the risks for you outweigh the benefits.
Also during post marketing surveillance, if the FDA finds that a drug is unsafe, they yank it. That same safety measure is significantly more difficult with 'natural supplements'. In fact, despite considerable evidence of danger the FDA is unable to stop the sale of aristolochia an herb conclusively linked to kidney failure and cancer, yohimbe a sexual stimulant linked to heart and respiratory problems, bitter orange whose ingredients have effects similar to the banned weight-loss supplement ephedra, chaparral, comfrey, germander, and kava who are all known or likely causes of liver failure.
So don't make the logical error of assuming that just because something is natural, its safe. Hell, small pox is 'natural'.
The reason that I would object to a business being able to choose for themselves whether or not to accommodate service animals, follow OSHA safety regulations, violate product safety laws, or allow smoking that exposes people to ETS is: because as a civil society, we have a well established social contract. We have laws that regulate the behavior of individuals and corporate entities toward other individuals. To anyone with a grain of sense, this is a good thing. This is what keeps people from shooting you, keeps people from poisoning your children's food, and allows us the standard of living that we enjoy. It is exemplified by the statement: my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins.
Freedom is not infinite. Even freedom of speech has a point past which is it no longer inviolate, such as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. When an exercise of a freedom seriously endangers others it is appropriately limited. So if a business owner's exercise of his rights to freely run his business endanger the public good, these are appropriately limited.
That's why.
So you have a right to security of person which includes freedom from me physically harming you for example by splashing acid in your face. Similarly, I have that same right to freedom from you harming me by exposing me to the toxins you choose to ingest.
If you want to talk about legal rights rather than human rights, in the US the American's with Disabilities Act says exactly that: As a person with a disability worsened by ETS, I have a legal and enforceable right to a workplace and public accommodations free of ETS. Period. End of discussion.
In fact the ADA's passage in 1990 was a big impetus for smoking bans. While non-smokers on flights hated the fact that smoking on flights was allowed, it was flight attendants' and passengers with disabilities made worse by ETS rights to reasonable accommodations that was a bigger impetus. And as the ADA was used to gain smoke free bars in the US for the same reason. Moreover the specter of lawsuits against employers by non-smoking employees who developed smoking related ailments after long term ETS exposure would be enough for any employer to fear continued exposure of their employees to ETS. Once you know its a workplace toxin, you are responsible for its effects unless you protect your employees.
So you are quite wrong. You have no 'right to smoke', but I have the right (both ethical and legal) to be free from ETS. Would *you* accept the counter argument of, "Well, it's the law, so... HA HA, Suck it!" as a response to your arguments? Um, I don't have to since the law is squarely on my side.
If we were talking about any other toxic chemical or talking about people who were blind rather than people who have pulmonary disabilities, this would not even be a question. The only reason that its raised is because the people who want to include that toxin happen to be profoundly addicted to it and don't seem to care if their offensive habit threatens the health of others. I'd agree to the stipulation that any smoking establishment would have to post a Government-Mandated sign on the front door saying whatever you wanted about smoking and the potential negative effects, etc. But no fees taken with the threat of violence behind them (i.e., taxes) to disincentivise smoker-friendly enterprises should be allowed.
Could you agree to that? Even if a business posted a government mandated sign that said: we don't allow service animals or wheelchairs here because we are total douchebags that still should not exempt them from accommodating people with disabilities. Even if a business posted a government mandated sign that said: we include dangerous levels of lead in our food because we really don't care about your health they still should not be exempt from the laws regulating lead content. Even if an alcoholic had a neon sign saying hey, I'm a prick and I am probably driving drunk he shouldn't be allowed to drive under the influence.
So no, I couldn't agree with that. But fortunately I don't have to. Those of us who don't want to be poisoned by ETS are in the strong majority and in developed countries we have for the most part we finally decided smokers will not be allowed to inflict ETS on the rest of us. You may as well give up and start working on solving your addiction problem.
In this case the OP was using a great example because its such an esoteric topic. In my case, there is one message board that exists that covers a particular area of my medical practice (I treat a lot of transgender patients... that ain't exactly asthma or diabetes,) so there is only one board that I know of that serves health care providers who treat transgender patients. Fortunately the moderator doesn't usually do anything, but if she did, it might be an issue because its the only game in town.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and say its not true, but you sound more ignorant than proponents of 'Intelligent Design' and deniers of global warming. The World Health Organization, the US NIH, the CDC, the US EPA, the US Surgeon General, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the US National Cancer Institute, the American Heart Association,the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and numerous other scientific and professional organizations are clear on this point: Environmental Tobacco Smoke is a significant danger. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics states in their policy: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B107/4/794 United States, 43% of children aged 2 to 11 years are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, which has been implicated in sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight, asthma, middle ear disease, pneumonia, cough, and upper respiratory infection. If a child dies of SIDS he's just as dead as if he's killed by a drunk driver. It may be (to quote Al Gore quoting Upton Sinclair) an inconvenient truth for you to realize that your actions harm the health and welfare of others, but it does not change the facts: When you smoke near a pregnant woman, you may cause her to miscarry or cause her to have a premature delivery. When you smoke near an infant, you place that child at risk for SIDS. When you smoke near someone with asthma, CF, or other pulmonary problems, you shorten their life span. When you smoke near perfectly healthy adults you increase their risk for developing COPD.
And you do these things not because you are a bold individualist. Not because you respect individual freedoms. Not because you are a rebel. You do it because You. Are. An. Addict.
According to the CDC and WHO, rates of asthma are between 5-10% of the adult population (more in kids, but then some kids 'grow out of it'). About 4% of the population has COPD (albeit about 85% of these are current or former smokers.) Add to this the number of people who have other various pulmonary and cardiovascular problems adversely effected by ETS that is a good 10-15% of the population. So I think its a reasonable assumption that the chances that someone with a disease adversely effected by ETS would want to be in a restaurant with 40 people in it is pretty close to 100%.
So given that there is no one with a disability who suffers by making restaurants/bars/stores smoke-free, but a significant proportion of the population either suffer injury or are prevented from going to these places by ETS, its a no-brainer whose 'rights' should prevail. A restaurant no more has the right (civil or ethical) to deprive a cystic fibrosis patient a safe place to eat than it does someone with a wheelchair or someone who is black access to the facility. It may be inconvenient to them to provide that and it may cost more, but as long as its a reasonable accommodation such as a smoke free environment, it must be provided.
And yes, I really do enjoy the fact that it makes smokers have to schlep outside or do without. For all the years I was required to choose to either stay outside or let my lungs suffer, its really quite pleasurable to watch smokers have to do what they subject those of us with chronic lung disease to for too many years. Its almost as pleasurable it will be for my partner and I to get married in CA next month. It will be just a little bit sweeter knowing that there will be people at Concerned Women For America and Focus on the Faggots who will be apoplectic with rage at the thought.
So from all the non-smokers in the world who now enjoy clean air in restaurants and bars: nany-nany-boo-boo. Same goes for CWFA and FoF: Pffffft.
But fortunately, people like me (non-addicts) are in the majority, we have science on our side, and we make the rules. Don't like being unable to feed your addiction? Stay in your own home.
So I don't think that we do a good service to smokers by allowing them to freely exercize their addiction in public. Especially if its something that threatens the health of other people. Second hand smoke is annoying, even as a smoker I am bothered by it, but it is a well-funded and erroneous myth that it is responsible for some "45,000" deaths a year. That's ridiculous--no one's death certificate lists "Second-hand smoke" as the cause. The numbers were obtained by masquerading heart attack sufferers as "victims of second-hand smoke." So the worker-safety issue is a fallacy. Again, its nice that you feel that way, but epidemiological research thinks you are full of shit. Google scholar: urinary cotinine + (whatever smoking associated disease you like - asthma is easy because it has a shorter lag.) However, in my purely anecdotal experience: as soon as I graduated medical school and stopped waiting tables to get by, my use of albuterol MDIs fell from 1 a month, to 3 a year.
Like it or not, you do hurt others with your addiction. If you want help stopping I would be happy to, but if you want enabling, you are not going to get it.
I took personal responsibility and made the choice to be successful. However that should not require me to place my health at risk because an addict like yourself has so little self control that you can't go an hour without feeding your addiction.
You are using trite phrases to cover up the fact that you can't control your own cravings for your drug. You got addicted when you were a teen, because you caved to peer pressure and wanted to look cool. Then when it started to get expensive you tried to quit, but you just didn't have the willpower. Then it started to make you a social pariah when society started to tell you your foul habit was not allowed. So you tried to quit again, but again you failed. Then the price started to get to the point that you could not afford things you wanted or maybe even needed, and you tried again. But again found out that the addiction, and not you were in control.
As all this happened you began getting really effing annoyed when people challenged you on your addiction. So you started to make arguments. Its a choice. I have 'smokers rights'. Its about personal responsibility. If you are smart you may have come up with one or two on your own. But more likely you are simply parroting tobacco company propaganda.
It SHOULD be a choice for adults to make...much like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle...if you're over 18 and can afford the insurance...you should be able to act like an idiot if you want to. And please..don't give me the the "it raises insurance rates for all". I live in LA, and we went from a no helmet law, back to a helmet law. I challenge anyone to see if the insurance rates decreased due to this?? Actually I could give a rats ass about insurance rates. I'm an ER doctor. The 'price' I see from lack of helmet (and seatbelt) use is far greater than money. Its death, paralysis, amputations, brain damage, etc. However from a societal perspective, it is also the cost in manpower for the 2 weeks in the ICU and 6 months in rehab. Its also the cost that when you don't get up from laying your bike down because you failed to wear a helmet, the EMS rig that is scraping you up is out of service. That increased use of emergency services delays response times in the entire system. Your use of an ER bed and nursing makes everyone in the ER wait longer. Same with smoking...smokers pay more for health insurance, and the extra taxes they pay on tobacco...should more than cover the extra 'expenses' you say they have. That's what sin taxes are for arent' they? Except that the real cost of tobacco is actually higher than that differential. Each pack of cigarettes that are smoked cost the US just over $7. That's after the taxes are removed. The real raw cost is over $10 per pack.
Though my own anecdotal experience directly contradicts your argument. My mother was a two pack a day smoker my entire childhood. I was exposed to ETS heavily as a child and by your reasoning, since I was much less able to detect it by smell (since I was around it so much) than I am now, my asthma should have been better then than now. And when I was putting myself through college and med school waiting tables (in North Carolina in the 80's and 90's - so I was heavily exposed to ETS) my asthma should have been much better because I was again, unable to smell it very well. However, the exact opposite is true.
ETS is a huge trigger for asthma, probably is the cause a lot of childhood asthma, and unlike pine pollen and car exhaust is entirely 100% avoidable if we just disallow smoking in shared public places.