Author Topic: soo... do you think we should bew able to smke in indian casinos.. (Read 882 times)

Simaril · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2004, 07:03:36 AM »

Not all over the map -- making a non-simplistic point.

Risk management is balancing -- it is not a matter of "too dangerous/not too dangerous." This simplistic thinking has led to enormous anxiety and confusion in modern culture, and you're being led astray by assuming absolutes exist.

The science of epidemiology assesses risk by studying large numbers of people and watching outcomes -- and results are measured by attributable risk differentials. some things are major, clear risks with no benefit -- like heroin use as a pain reliever. Smoking isnt that clear cut, which is why its still legal. There are lots of people exposed to smoke, for example, who never get cancer -- I see them at my office every day. That doesnt mean smoking is safe, because we know the risk is real.

Banning smoking is a POLITICAL decision based on medical information. Some communities have decided the risk and annoyance to nonsmokers outweighs the freedom of smokers. Some communities have decided the opposite. It's their decision, adn there is no absolute black and white about it -- even if you wish there was.

If I dont want to be around smoke, I go to places that strictly limit their smoking sections. Its that simple.

And I stand by my statement about the Indian governing body -- they have every right to balance the statistical risk to their workers against the clear cut financial benefit, adn they dont want their gambling victiims to leave teh slots for a smoke. The workers have freedom to chose where they work, and I'll bet severe asthmatics find other places to make a living.

You have no business assuming that your assessment of risk/benefit should carry any more weight than the people with the actual responsibility. Is this liberal paternalism in full force?

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2004, 08:51:55 AM »

sim... all law must be based on reason and equality. It is that simple It is black and white and rights are absolute. If an activity is so dangerous that it is percieved to be a threat to human life that is so great that it trancends the very real property rights then...

That activity should be illegal. everywhere. Reason dictates that you not apply the law unequally. You may, while staying whithin the confines of reason and equyality, ban smoking from places that the citizens own.

If you ban it from private places then you must prove that the risk is so great (heroin, absynthe ecstasy etc..) that it can't be allowed at all.

further... you can't stay within the confines of equal treatment under the law if you allow it in some private places and not others.

The arguement about cost is spurious. the cost of smoking stays constant no matter what private place the smoking happens... be it your car or an indian casino... those "infected" come back to die a lingering and expensive death on our dime supposedly... If it is that bad it needs to be banned.

Any law that fails a reason test and an equality test is a bad law... that way leads to things like "hate crimes" where some are treated differently for the exact same crimes as others.

Also... indian casinos are not exempt from their states (the state they are in) health and saftey laws and building codes and a myriad of other laws that would negate any claim of autonomy by their multitude of precidents... again... the reason thing.

It is a slippery slope when you allow an elite to decide what is good or bad based on.... "Nothing is black and white... there are grey areas that are too difficult for the peasants to understand".

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #47 on:** July 16, 2004, 09:26:45 AM »

It was a slaughter...and they were on the losing end of it.

Dago · « **Reply #48 on:** July 16, 2004, 10:04:25 AM »

Quote

they have every right to balance the statistical risk to their workers against the clear cut financial benefit

Amazing. Amazingly ridiculous. Why would the casino have a right to risk their workers health and lives for profit? They don't! They do have the responsibility to protect their workers health and well being.

dago

Fishu · « **Reply #49 on:** July 16, 2004, 10:17:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I think the second hand smoke thing is either a myth or simply weeding out the terminally wussy who probly should not have lived thois long in any case tho..

Generally inhaling smoke is never good..
that includes inhaling smoke from fire place etc.
but I don't think it does that much bad on an occasion, otherwise campers would be more sick than they are.
However constantly inhaling smoke at your work can't be for good. (unless theres a very good air conditioning)

lazs2 · « **Reply #50 on:** July 16, 2004, 10:20:56 AM »

dago... they do not have the right to risk their employees health with a known risk that is illegal. They do have the right to allow a legal activity if it is disclosed to the workers beforehand.. In other words... if you take a job in a smoking club then you obviously need to take personal responsibilty for the risk

I would even go so far as to say that there should be a disclosure for people raised in the basements of their home who do not realize that there is a slight health risk associated with smoking... the risk varies from nonexistent to intense. some people are so sensitive that they probly shouldn't have survived this long while others are allmost imune.

A bee keeper should not have to remove bees from his bussines because of the risk to alergic employees.

Shell fish and other foods can kill some people but...It is up to the sensitive person to be aware of their sensitivity and to avoid the shellfish..

The example of the BBQ is germain... it is an exact paralell... it is a dangerous activity that is a luxury and has a potential to kill simply by being around its smoke.

and curval.... what difference does it make about how lopsided a batttle/war was?

lazs

Simaril · « **Reply #51 on:** July 16, 2004, 01:52:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Amazing. Amazingly ridiculous. Why would the casino have a right to risk their workers health and lives for profit? They don't! They do have the responsibility to protect their workers health and well being.

dago

I must not have been clear. The decision in balancing the cost and benefit was made NOT by the profit taking casino owner, but by the governing body that had jurisdiction. Significantly, in this case that body has financial interest in the ruling -- but also significantly, the indian workers in the casino are share holders. As members of the tribe they get direct or indirect income from the casino's profits. How do we define that responsibility tree?

Also, what most americans miss is that from epidemiologic standpoint EVERYTHING has risk. Driving your car risks your life; by your argument, or by laz's, it should be banned. Eating industrially grown food has risk, living in Colorado has risk (Granite naturally has low level radiation, so living in Colorado has radiation risk equal to, say, 3-5 Chest Xrays every year).
Should Colorado be depopulated because it isn't "safe"? That's the logical consequence of "zero risk" thinking. And since just being alive carries smal but defined risks, where do we draw the lines for "safety"?

This line of thinking is exactly why people get frustrated with the media. They hear reports that too many carbs are bad, then they hear that fat is bad for your heart, then they hear that too much protein can damage your kidneys. So are people supposed to stop eating? All those facts are true -- but without understanding of risk and benefit, individual facts are uninterpretable, and intelligent decisions can't be made.

Understand that I am not a relativist. Philosophically I beleive in the existance of absolute truth, not subject to private iunterpretation. But many decisions in life also take in to account personal values. Should a relative be taken off life support? Well, what are the relative's feelings about technology and quality of life? If they believe that even an impaired life has great value, and they'd love ot see their grandkids graduate -- even if from a wheelchair -- then maybe they should continue treatment. If they repeatedly said they dont want to be kept alive artificially if there's only a small chance they'll make it home, then that needs to be respected.

These complex decisions aren't as clean as you'd apparently like, but complex decisions are reality -- simplistic ones make good sound bites but often bad policy.

Curval · « **Reply #52 on:** July 16, 2004, 01:55:27 PM »

The difference is that some concessions should be afforded to the Native Indians. I think allowing them casinos in which people are allowed to smoke is reasonable based upon the wholesale slaughter that they were put through.

What is your big beef with Indians anyway? It appears that you are bitter about something.

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** July 17, 2004, 09:03:03 AM »

sim... I agree with you. Risk should be decided by the people who take it and the governing body. To tell people they can't smoke or worse, to not allow people to smoke in private bussines is abhorent. It is no differnent than the other risks you mention. it is simply part of the demonizeing of something... law by media.

We pay the health costs associated with people living in colorado and overeating.... and BBQ etc. We accept these risks.... for now. the trend of protecting people from themselves is odious.

curval... Are you saying that it is allright to treat indians differenrtly than everyone else?

I have no problem with the indians. They are simply an obvious hypocracy of the left and those who would protect us from ourselves... Those who would point their PC finger at us to shame us into acting as they feel is correct.

The hypocracy is that smoking has been demonized to the point that we have destroyed private property rights to eradicate it (while leaving it legal to collect taxes)

Points have been mad about how deadly it is... To deadly to allow in any place the public may be... They will bring back the seed of cancer or worse with them in the form of second hand smoke for all of us to pay for in the years to come. The poor workers.... what about them? They are forced to work for the white debil in an atmospher that is too dangerous to continue to allow....

but then... we have the indians... all of a sudden the same jerkoffs who want to ban smoking from every public place... well... damn it! these are INDIANS (so what if most of em are named guido)...

All of a sudden the do gooders get perspective... Smoking is not all that bad... who cares about the workers they knew there was smoking when they signed on to workat the casino... Why is everyone making such a big deal of it?

Course... the next lawsuit against the tobacco industry will have them singing the same ol tune again.

sim and curval... Law must have reason and equality. There is no reason involved in banning a legal activity at a private bussines and there is no equality in allowing one race to be treated worse than another.

It really is that simple.

lazs