Okay...just gotta ask

[Cid]

That's just wrong as far as I'm concerned. Drinking is a far more destructive past time. Why couldn't there be an accepted legal THC limit just like booze? We seem to accomodate slightly impaired drunk drivers. Why not slightly stoned drivers? Instead the legal limit is O. Marijuana stays in the system about thirty days. Technically, you are driving under the influence a month after smoking a joint.

I'm reading the label on my prescription narcotic painkillers. It says, "May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may intensify this effect. USE CARE (capitalized for effect0 WHEN OPERATING a car or dangerous machinery.

Use care! The recommended dose turns me into Jello Man. I can barely operate a toaster, never mind dangerous machinery or a car.

I can down a few beers and pop a few pills as long as I "use care", but I can't drive a month after smoking a joint? .....and heaven forbid someone smoke weed and practice law!

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Heaven forbid! But, ironically, it sure calmed me down during law school.

[Cid]

Sox, do you think the bans and the education have led to people demanding smoke free restaurants? I think sometimes the public needs a little or a big nudge in the collectively right direction. I don't anyone can argue that smoking isn't unhealthy in any form.

[jmq]

I would be happy to provide you with details on the general duty clause of OSHA that deals with this issue, but then I would have to charge you $350.

I'll take a stab at it (for free!)

OSHA standards require employers to take measures to control the dangers of specific hazards or operations such as noise or confined space work. OSHA understood that it would be impossible to foresee and create a standard for every hazard in the workplace. So they added a section to the law requiring employers to protect against other foreseeable hazards not covered by a specific OSHA standard. This backstop is called the “General Duty” clause, and it states that employers must furnish a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to death or serious physical harm to employees”

So, for a hazard to be covered by the general duty clause it must be “recognized.” Over the years, OSHA has issued interpretation letters indicating specific hazards that could be considered “recognized,” including most notably ergonomic risks, heat and cold stress, and workplace violence. (Side note: the ergonomics interpretation was in response to one of the first things that the Voldemort administration did in 2000 was to kill the pending ergonomics standard).

By contrast, OSHA has said that it wouldn’t generally consider the risk of terrorist attack to be a recognized workplace hazard covered by the clause, so there is a “foreseeable-ness” component to this too (although it is interesting to note that the insurance industry no longer seeks to write the Workers Comp coverage of companies in places like Manhattan where there are significant “employee concentrations” in buildings that are within 1000 ft of certain landmarks).

Maybe if the local jurisdictions hadn’t taken the lead, smoking would’ve gained some traction as a “recognized hazard” that warranted an interpretation letter that would’ve resulted in federal OSHA enforcement actions.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Nicely done.

As a side note, we have developed many work place violence policy and prevention plans for our clients because it is a foreseeable risk and would fall within the general duty clause.

If that is covered, I can't see why second hand smoke in the workplace would not be.

I think jmq is right, if the issue had not been taken up at local levels, it sure would have been ripe for OSHA. But, that still may happen. My understanding is that the DOL has had its budget expanded on the enforcement side.

[soxfan22]

Sox, do you think the bans and the education have led to people demanding smoke free restaurants? I think sometimes the public needs a little or a big nudge in the collectively right direction. I don't anyone can argue that smoking isn't unhealthy in any form.

Absolutely! An informed public generally gets it "right". I have no problem with the government running information campaigns around the dangers of smoking, just as they do over drug use, drunk driving, etc.

Again, it's that slippery slope, IMO. Why is it not a law that one must wear sunscreen? Certainly skin cancer has become a major public health issue. However, the public has become aware of the dangers through education campaigns, and now I don't know anybody who doesn't wear sunscreen at the beach, and many even wear the SPF shirts as well.

Somebody said earlier on in this discussion that the reason we have government smoking bans is because of the potential damage inflicted on the other person. But why stop there?

NYC passed a ban on trans-fats. There is no health risk to another person, only to yourself if you choose to indulge. Why implement the ban? Is it due to the overall cost to the healthcare system (which IMO, is pretty un-quantifiable in the sense that we have a dead guy who died at 48 of CAD...Was it the alcohol? The trans-fats? The stress? The wife - kidding? The cocaine? All of the above)?

For me again, it always goes back to my belief that you can't legislate risk...If you do, then you have no risk/reward scenario. And what fun is that? Not to say there is "reward" in enjoying a MaCallan in a smoke filled bar (The MaCallan = reward...2nd Hand smoke = not so much)...But damn it if my Cheez-Its don't taste as good as they once did when they had Trans-fats.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Then don't regulate the nuclear facility that you mentioned being near your home. Simply warn people of the risks and let social Darwinism apply.

If one wants to bear the risk, who is the government to interfere.

[soxfan22]

Pete...Nuclear facilities aren't regulated?

You're kidding me.

We haven't built a new one in this country in 30 years because of the regulation.

And because of that, you and I pay for it in our energy bills.

[jmq]

As a side note, we have developed many work place violence policy and prevention plans for our clients because it is a foreseeable risk and would fall within the general duty clause.

Pete - I am assuming that companies who would actively seek work place violence policy and prevention plans either already have all of their other ducks in a row and is one of those “best practice” companies when it comes to worker health and safety, or, they’ve had actual issues with it in the past. Although, in my experience, it’s quite rare to see WC claims in this area.

Most well managed companies get the fact spending money to do things safely pays off in many many tangible and intangible ways. Exxon, Dupont, and many Rx companies have robust environmental and occupational safety & health programs/departments and stellar safety records as a result, not because the govt makes them do it, but because it makes business sense.

However, there are still a fair amount of companies where you need the “OSHA stick” to make things happen. Unfortunate but true. And, technically speaking, OSHA standards are only minimum standards.

[Bug]

Did someone say Pot Brownies??????

XOXO
Bug

[soxfan22]

Does everybody on here smoke herb?

Good Lord, you guys are funny!

I myself, have never indulged. Just never really felt like I was missing anything, but to each his/her own!

[Cid]

"As a side note, we have developed many work place violence policy and prevention plans for our clients because it is a foreseeable risk and would fall within the general duty clause."

Man, that must be a heck of a sales pitch to sell that load of BS. I have some questions about that if you're selling it to me. How do you quantify the success of such a program? No one has been shot this year? Does a meeting and a handout regarding the warning signs of a wacky co-worker really make the workplace any safer? Do you guarantee my protection from liability if I implement it? If not, what's the value to me? Maybe I'd prefer societal Darwinism to eliminate both the loose cannon in cubicle 3a and the bitchy office manager that everyone always complains about. Is it really a foreseeable risk that some nut job is going to snap at work and become violent? That's like saying it's a forseeable risk that a large meteor might come from the sky and wipe out your business and all its employees. Therefore we should develop a plan to negate that risk. It's all silliness and defies common sense.

I used to sell OSHA/VOSHA (state of VT) compliance packages for a chemical supply company. Essentially, it worked like this. We would offer a free workplace assessment in the course of our regular delivery. If they agreed, we'd walk around their facility and scare the shit out of them by pointing out all the potential violations. We had a checklist and we would total the fines at the maximum for violations. Their eyeballs got really wide as they would reach for their checkbook. $1800 and a few days later I would return with $29 worth of workplace safety signs that overstated the obvious and gave a half hour safety lecture that basically told them what they already knew.....don't be an idiot around the chemicals. It might maim or kill you. Many, many times when I went back to teach the class and I would hear something like this, "I've been here for 35 years and we've never had an OSHA/VOSHA inspector visit us. Why are they making us do this bullshit now?"

Also, who exactly determines what falls under the general duty clause? Is it a political appointee, a committee or board or is it at the discretion of the Director of OSHA? I'm curious.

[Cid]

Does everybody on here smoke herb?

Good Lord, you guys are funny!

I myself, have never indulged. Just never really felt like I was missing anything, but to each his/her own!

It's freaking amazing some of the people who smoke weed. You're like.....no way! That's why all this fuss about it is so stupid. It's so horrible for you and a scourge to society yet many people from all walks of life are doing it. It's kinda like porno. It's a multi-billion dollar industry, but nobody will cop to watching it. I certainly don't.......

[sherban]

Terry- How's your thread going....

What does a nuclear plant and sunscreen have to do with smoking? Ya'll are all over the map. A nuclear plant doean't give off harmful fumes and the sun is a naturally occuring phenomenon...how does that relate to blowing smoke in my kids lungs at a family restaurant?

I like Pete's darwinism theory.

Prohibition and illegal drugs have some similarities...the big profits come from supply and demand that is influenced by the law.

It is all about the money...follow the money and find the answer.

Leagalize and sink or swim...change the supply and demand model and redirect the cash.

[soxfan22]

I think you've missed my point, Sherban. What I was hoping to get across, is the fact that there is risk all around us. And truth be told, much of it is regulated by the government.

Sunscreen - if the general idea around smoking bans is the general welfare, then why just limit it there? Why not make it a law that one must apply sunscreen? It is a law in most states that bikers must wear helmets, no?

The smoking ban is just like the helmet laws...Just like the trans fat bans...It all just makes me think of F.A. Hayek.

Sherban, I'm sure that you did not allow someone to "blow smoke" down your children's lungs? You are forgetting the most powerful tool that you have at your disposal, which is your right to choose. Patronize those restaurants who already do not allow smoking, and as I demonstrated in this thread, that was already happening.

Everything is regulated these days, right down to the size water tank you are allowed to have on your toilet.