Ford limits where workers can smoke -oh brother

STLToday.com ^ | 11/04/2003 | Todd C. Frankel

[SheLion]

The Ford auto plant in Hazelwood started this week to restrict where its 2,500 workers can smoke on the job, ending the decades-long practice of allowing workers to light up almost anywhere.

The change was prompted by pressure from state officials and anti-smoking groups, who claimed the Ford policy violated Missouri's Clean Indoor Air law.

[Just another Joe]

Are we talking about smoking or ETS?

I haven't said that there is no risk to smoking. The risk is there like it or not and has been scientifically proven.
With ETS, using the same science techniques, the risk is unproven. If someone doesn't like the smell and doesn't frequent places where tobacco is smoked or an owner of a business decides that they can make more money by going smoke free that's one thing.
To ban the use of tobacco in a privately owned business that is not on govt property under the guise of health due to the dangers of ETS is totally uncalled for and downright disingenuous.
It is the first step, and maybe not even the first step, to total control of the populace through govt intervention.

[Quix]

I don't think it's totally uncalled for. There is troubling evidence.

I don't like the government control implicationis.

I suppose, given the givens, designate a few bars in a locale as smoke filled and be done with it.

I think restaurants are another matter.

I also don't like kids having lower IQ's and shorter lifespans unnecessarily.

Smoking around kids is not doing the loving thing.

My friend C's docs had some SHS data that I think any fair minded person would consider troubling at a minimum.

[CSM]

I agree that genetics is the single most important factor in contracting harmful diseases and health problems. That said, should we place restrictions on persons with genetic deficiencies with regard to having children? If someone is genetically predisposed to these health problems, should we not allow them to have children? If it saves just one child! Think of the savings that society would see with regards to health care costs.

Why has health problems such as asthma been on the rise, while at the same time exposure to SHS/ETS has fallen?

[Ditter]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that tobacco smoke is the ONLY thing that causes asthma. Asthma is a complicated disease & there are many inhalents that will bring on an attack. It just depends what the person is sensitative to. It could be cats, house dust, pollen, mold, weather change, or a thousand other things. Tobacco smoke is one of many.

[CSM]

I was using asthma as an example that is falsely attributed to tobacco smoke. I agree with you that any one of the health problems that are supposedly caused by tobacco smoke is caused by any number of things. If tobacco smoke caused all of the diseases attributed to it, then we would see a direct correlation instead of the sporadic statistics thrown around.

I would go so far as to claim (no proof for this claim) that the lack of exposure to SHS for children has actually weakened their immune system and now when they are exposed to these other contaminates they are unable to fight off the effects. Some studies have shown that exposure to SHS and to Pets in the home have resulted in a lesser occurance rate of these other diseases. Think of exposure to SHS as a vaccination to other diseases.

[cupcakes]

Agree with you that it is about choice and on that note Cracker Barrel doesn't seem to be hurting by not catering to your needs;-)
BTW, I am a NON-smoker, but will take first available if the restaurant is busy. Smoke doesn't bother me that much that I can't tolerate it for a brief time in a well ventilated restaurant.

[cupcakes]

What I find absolutely amusing is that people like myself who have NEVER smoked seem to be much more tolerable of smokers than those who have kicked the habit.

[SheLion]

What I find absolutely amusing is that people like myself who have NEVER smoked seem to be much more tolerable of smokers than those who have kicked the habit.

It's always been like that. I smoke because I enjoy it. If I didn't, I would quit. I've done that with prescriptions......if they aren't helping me, I stop taking them.

But what really amazes me is that right here, in Free Republic, we have some really rabid anti-smokers. And your right: they are mostly "former" smokers.

I believe that since they quit or HAD to quit for health reasons, they are miserable and want everyone else to be miserable. People just can't understand why some people can smoke and live to a ripe old age, while they cannot.

I feel bad for them, but heh! Cigarettes are a legal commodity and until the day they pull it all off of the shelves, I will continue smoking. Because I truly enjoy it. And I DON'T stink. LOL! And I am VERY respectful of people around me that do not smoke.

Thanks so much for your tolerance. It's greatly appreciate.

[Peace will be here soon]

I agree that genetics is the single most important factor in contracting harmful diseases and health problems.

Yes, I have no doubts about this. I just have to look at my family to know this is true.

---

That said, should we place restrictions on persons with genetic deficiencies with regard to having children? If someone is genetically predisposed to these health problems, should we not allow them to have children? If it saves just one child! Think of the savings that society would see with regards to health care costs.

I am not God, so I will let him make the decisions on what happens in the womb.

---

Why has health problems such as asthma been on the rise, while at the same time exposure to SHS/ETS has fallen?

Asthma may be on the rise because of how its diagnosed now. What was once considered and allergy is now called asthma. It is not an issue I know that much about though. But there seems to be some credible evidence that pregnant women who smoke, increase their chances of having asthmatic babies. I think lead paint has also come into play. I don`t have children so it not really on my radar screen.

---

But from your earlier posts. It sounds like Ford is causing alot of its own problems. Making non-smokers cover for someone on a smoke break is obsurd. If they are going to go with a no smoking policy, it should be just that. If your on the clock working in the building, that is what you should do : you work. No smoke breaks. But building little smoke rooms and such, they are just causing their own problems. You either let people smoke or you don`t. Pandering to both sides is only going to lead to big headaches.

I have worked in both environments. And non-smoking environments seemed to be the best. Nobody bitched and moaned, they just worked.

I am not anti-smoking, I hope you do realize that. If a business wants to go smokeless, more power to them,... if they don`t, more power to them.

[Ditter]

You are so wrong. Where to begin. It all has to do with the "genes". I WAS exposed to all those things, cats, feather pillows, housedust, tobacco smoke, pollen & developed allergies to ALL of the above. Tobacco smoke causes me to have an asthma attack now at age 63, just like it did when I was 6. Others were exposed & did NOT become allergic to them. "Genes." Get it?

[Peace will be here soon]

BTW, I am a NON-smoker, but will take first available if the restaurant is busy. Smoke doesn't bother me that much that I can't tolerate it for a brief time in a well ventilated restaurant.

You have never sat next to my cigar smoking bunch of relatives. Oh, the horror of looks they get when they light up !! Even from the cigarette smokers !! LOL !!

[CSM]

Did you read my posts. If so you would be able to see that I attribute "genes" as the single biggest determination of health. That said, many risk factors exist that will increase a person's risk to contracting a disease. If you know that your genetic history has a tendancy to show that you might get high blood pressure and heart disease, you would be well advised to avoid the activities that increase the risk of contracting high blood pressure and heart disease. If someone has a genetic history (therefore predisposition) of emphasyma, then they would be better off not smoking and increasing their risk of contracting that disease.

[CSM]

"I am not anti-smoking, I hope you do realize that. If a business wants to go smokeless, more power to them,... if they don`t, more power to them."

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your attitude with regards to private property. We are on the same side of that issue.

Think of Ford as being between a rock and a hard place. The policy that they advocated was working very well, then the government got involved and forced a change. To ensure that they still had an option available to their employees, they installed the smoking rooms. The government forced them to do something differently than they otherwise would have done.

I work in a completely smoke free building, and I support their decision. The government had no influence in the decision for my building to be smoke free. I find it personally inconvenient to stand outside in our 5 degree weather, but I can't say their rights were infringed upon. Only my personal preference was infringed upon. I will support their rights over my preference any day.

[cupcakes]

YOu know, I am a non-smoker and I know the smell you speak of. I think the only thing I see a bit off kilter with what you are saying is that you are really being dramatic. The smell you speak of I have ONLY smelled on long time smokers who do the dirty habit in their homes. Young folks who haven't been smoking for long and those that don't do it in their homes just don't have the same stench as people who have polluted their homes with 30 years of that sticky yellow dust that settles. Add to that people who are not that cognicent of their own personal hygiene or keeping their homes clean and yeah, it stinks really bad(and believe me I know, I had to stay in my mil's home for 2 months when we first moved here--the house had the stench of cigarettes smoked for 40 years there). I find a big difference between that home and one of someone who smokes outdoors only or the smell of a smoker who uses mints and brushes their teeth regularly vs someone who rarely brushes their teeth and smokes.

[cupcakes]

Hey She, I think a lot of that is genetic. My grandpa died last years at 81 after a quick bout with intestinal cancer. Seems like the years of eating the meat fat off of the bone caught up with him, but I think that was more to do with his body being less efficient at 81, enough so to counteract good genes. Heck, he made it to 81, I'm glad he got to do something he always enjoyed--eat and eating fatty meats at that. And he was a fit man, he walked daily and worked in his garden up until about 78 or so.

[cupcakes]

Hey Cav ex-smokers with lung problems(or not) see lots of improvment in their lungs especially in the first year. Hang in there, I bet it continues to improve.
I do understand why you quit though. I'm sure the same phenomena happens for some if they are obese and find out they have heart disease or diabetes. They realize the good times, so to write, are up and it is time to alter their lifestyle. Something similar has happened to me. I am pregnant with my 3rd and last and got hypertension early this time, which makes it a good possibility I am hypertensive even when not pregnant. I'm only 34. I do need to lose weight, but even more important, I need to find a way to manage my stress. It really has opened my eyes about worrying about me only and letting the family members with nasty attitudes roll off my back or get out of my life. I don't have something specific like a cigarette to give up and God knows stress is everywhere, but I've realized it is vital that I manage it and am starting a regular work out program after the birth of this baby to help facilitate that and it should have a nice side effect of weight loss to boot;-) Prayers that your health will continue to improve.

[Ditter]

What I see in your posts is desperation, as the places where you can smoke become fewer & fewer. You have now started trying to convince people that a lack of tobacco smoke is bad for them. Sorry, thats just not realistic.

[CSM]

You should read all the posts from now on. I show clear examples and you offer no counter to those examples. How do you explain the increases in these diseases while the exposure to contaminates has decreased? I am not limiting it to ETS/SHS only, in fact I would include all types of "dirt" as positive in building immune systems in growing children. These clean "freak" parents that ensure that children never get dirty and never touch an unsanitized surface are causing more harm than good. Without a properly developed immune system and without the body learning to rid itself of contaminates, the body is inherintly weakened.

Children are sicker now than ever and they are suffering from afflictions such as asthma and allergies now more than ever. Yet, we seem to be entirely wrapped up in offering them an environment free from risks. You connect the dots.

[Ditter]

I think you are lumping together, viruses, bacteria & allergy. Allergy falls in a different catagory. You are born with the gene that predisposes you to allergy. It has nothing to do with being too clean & sanitary.

[Ditter]

Allery is an *over active* immune system. The more of the offending substance you come in contact with the worse the reaction. The body reacts irrationaly to ordinary substances that other people are not affected by. Asthma is one of the reactions along with headache, runny nose, rashes etc. Has nothing to do with dirt.