How far should we go to accomodate those with problems?

[Monkeyleg]

After going 'round with Pax, Nualle, and others over on a TFL thread about smoking, I'd wanted to do a thread expanding upon the direction we were taking. Unfortunately, the timing of TFL's closing didn't allow for it. Now, here on THR, there's been a couple of threads about smoking laws that have generated some intense debate.

If the moderators will permit, I'd like to get opinions on how far as a society we should go to accomodate the physical problems of others, especially when those problems are found in just a tiny minority of the population. Ideally, we shouldn't even mention tobacco, since doing so would merely turn this into another smoking thread. (yawn).

Pax has a severe asthmatic condition that makes her vulnerable to things she breathes. Similarly, my niece has almost fatal reactions to peanut oil (which is present in more prepared foods than most realize).

Should we legislate the use of products sold or available to the majority based upon the reactions to said products by a distinct minority? For example, should restaurants be required to disclose in large lettering on their menus that such-and-such a dish contains peanut oil? Or, for that matter, MSG?

My father (age 86) has a hearing problem that makes him more sensitive to certain ranges of the audible spectrum than others. People talking in certain pitches makes him more even more irritable than he usually is. Should we somehow try to accomodate his condition, or should he accomodate himself to the rest of society by leaving the area when someone's voice upsets him?

Opinions, please.

 

[Jeeper]

The smoking bans have NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING TO DO with being allergic to smoke. They have NOTHING TO DO with conforming society to the needs of a few people. It is about the public deciding what goes on in its community. It is the same as any other zoning or health requirement. It is the same as saying that a strip club cant be next to a school. It is the same as a health code requiring that food be cooked to a certain temperature. Anyone arguing against a policy like the smoking ban MUST also argue that all zoning is wrong or you are being hypocritical.


As to your actual question
You bring up two seperate points. One is product liability and the other is relates to social interaction. Product liability has always been strict. A company should do what it can to alleviate the risks faced by the consumer. They are the responsible party in the end if the risk was foreseeable. You can never protect everyone.

The other situation you described is just a cheap shot at an analogy to the smoking ban and pax. The difference between this and the smoking situation is the magnitude of people that are affected. I have asthma but wouldnt try to have all the olive trees cut down because that is ridiculous. Society does have a right to decide what happens to itself.

 

[Chris Rhines]

My inital though -

WE shouldn't do anything. YOU can take whatever measures you prefer on your property, I'll do the same on mine.

- Chris

 

[G-Raptor]

At the risk of being calous, some people just have to deal with the fact that they have limitations that most people don't have. The world wasn't made to suit their special needs, and it shouldn't be. What is convenient for them is inconvenient for the rest of us.
My mother has been in a wheelchair for nearly a decade now. She lives in a "handicap" access apartment. It's great for her, it would be uncomfortable for me over a period of time.

It is the responsibility of people with limitations to understand what those limitations are and try to avoid situations that may be detrimental to them.

I think that public facilities, particularly government building should have reasonable accommodations for the most common disabilities; i.e. wheelchair ramps and braille (or audio) directories for the blind. I have no objections to "handicap" parking spots, but reserving the entire front row at the store is overkill.

I believe there is a town up around Chicago that passed an ordinance saying that EVERY new home had to be wheelchair accessible. The argument being that you never know when someone with a wheelchair might move in. The effect is that you raise the cost of new homes for everyone to accommodate a small percentage; not to mention the inconvenience you cause to others unnecessarily.

 

[Blackhawk]

Certainly not endorsing him or his other whacko theories, but Charles Darwin made an astute observation in saying what is now known as the "survival of the fittest" axiom concerning members of species.

The Nazis embraced that with open arms, and I'm certainly not endorsing their policies or whacko theories. In fact, many societies have deemed it expedient that those who could not "carry their load" shouldn't burden the rest of the society. There's a tribe I read about (Africa, I think) where the elderly and infirm are left (abandoned) by a tree with a few days provisions while the tribe moves on, and the members of the tribe fully expect and accept that happening to them should they live long enough to become infirm.

IOW, your questions is "What should OUR society accept in terms of accommodating those who cannot keep up with the healthier members?"

We now "warehouse" our elderly in pathetic nursing homes reeking of urine and wailing from the demented and dying instead of providing a warm, loving existence for them in our homes as their days wane. Being a caregiver is, however, extremely taxing on those family members who take on the duty, and the ultimate outcome is the usually nursing home anyway.

It's a cost/benefit/conscience analysis. We do it all the time, and by "we," I mean our society.

Know what "orphan drugs" are? They're "cures" and "medicines" that have been invented and proven to cure or alleviate the symptoms of rare diseases. They're not produced or marketed because not enough people are afflicted to justify the cost of producing them. Is that immoral, unreasonable, and unconscionable? Peanut allergies and severe asthmatic reactions might well be in that category, or worse, they may be in a category of rare diseases that no pharmaceutical company is willing to even look at because the numbers of those afflicted is so small. Those are business decisions, and drug companies are, after all, in it to make profits.

Ancient societies dealt with leprosy by quarantining those afflicted. Not nice or compassionate to abandon people to fend for themselves as they predictably dissolved in a gruesome manner, but since they were out of sight, it was an acceptable solution for the society.

Smoking has only recently become a hot button issue leading to regulating places where it is proscribed. If enough outrage emerges over peanuts, etc., the same thing will happen.

Short answer is "I don't know."

 

[Ed Brunner]

I think it is reasonable to believe that handicapped people need some sort of access to certain facilities. The main question would be,what type of access and which facilities. Obviously there remain the questions of who decides and who is responsible to provide it.

The smoking thing is a whole 'nuther ballgame and it is a game. It has evolved into a game of restricting other peoples activities for the simple reason that a few do not approve. Does that sound familiar to gun owners.
Some people who smoke get lung cancer, but the vast majority do not.
Some people who do not smoke get lung cancer. Here is where it gets interesting. This could prove that smoking does not cause lung cancer. It certainly looks that way. But NO it proves that second-hand smoke is the cause, which makes it necessary to ban smoking altogether.
Does second hand smoke really cause lung cancer? Well, maybe some times it doesn't, but is still possible that sometimes it does.
You figure it out.

 

[Ed Brunner]

Something else I find interesting

Did you ever wonder why the people who want to control guns do not want to control automobiles which cause many times more injury and deaths?
The answer is they have cars.

Do you know why the anti-smoking folks don't want to ban alcohol which causes many many injuries and deaths?

Come on, grasshopper, you can do it!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Speaking strictly as a guy who doesn't see well, has lost a substantial portion of his hearing, and is contending with arthritis: my infirmities are mine to deal with, not yours, not anyone else's.

If I go to a restaurant with a menu printed in micro-type, I won't go back. When I deal with sales people who won't speak up and/or don't speak intelligible English, I go elsewhere. Being a smoker, I patronize restaurants with smoking areas.

The market can decide these matters infinitely better than government.

 

[JohnBT]

I'll agree to let 'society' ban smoking in public if 'society' also bans the wearing of all perfumes, colognes and scented lotions, as well as the burning of scented candles or incense in public.

John

 

[TexasVet]

Similarly, my niece has almost fatal reactions to peanut oil (which is present in more prepared foods than most realize).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ASK SOMEONE! That's all it takes.
A lot of you know I'm a gov't certified 60% cripple. If I have trouble getting into a place, I don't go. (I don't do a lot of stairs very well.) I most certainly don't go begging the government to help me , pretty please, make them spend their money to make my life easier. I have NEVER found a store or resturant that not going into it would destroy my life OR it's enjoyment.
If a store owner is smart, he'll accomodate the crips like me as much as is financially possible. But if he doesn't, that's his business, not mine and not the governments.

 

[4v50 Gary]

In Kali, "crips" be ah gang that fights with the bloods.

I think a warning symbol along with the individual with the disability having the responsibility of "asking" should suffice. Glad I don't have that reaction to peanut oil. No more peanut butter sandwiches (cheap & lazy man's lunch).

 

[Art Eatman]

IMO, the limit of governmental involvement in smoking should be that some provisions should be made to accomodate those who strongly object to it. That is, a no-smoking area in a restaurant, for instance.

I don't mind if a company sez its office building is non-smoking in its offices, if there's some provision for a smokers' lounge.

Peanut oil allergy? Isn't that sorta up to the sufferer to know what foods are likely to contain it, and not order those in a restuarant? Probably, few restaurant folks know, one way or the other.

Overall, however, it oughta be up to a business owner how he runs his business and not local government's.

I dunno. As people have become ever more powerless in the face of increasing government power, they are moe and more turning on one another in efforts to have some semblance of control over somebody else besides their kids--I guess they've given up on them. Sorta like the old psych experiments with overcrowding of lab rats.

Seems like a universal sport is hunting a victim group to join.

Art

 

[Monkeyleg]

Well, we're running about 50/50 in terms of people who can't seem to get off the smoking topic.

Less than 1/2 of 1% of the population has my niece's reaction to peanut oil. Should the government mandate that food manufacturers and restaurants provide warnings about peanut oil?

And now I'm going to drag Nualle and Pax into this argument without their permission (they're strong advocates; I hope they don't mind). Both stated--if I understand their positions correctly--that the presence of irritants willfully discharged should constitute "assault."

Is the restaurant owner who knows that some of his dishes contain peanut oil, and that perhaps one or two or three of his customers might have a reaction, guilty of "assault?"

There are numerous medical conditions which most of us can't predict. How many people have severe reactions to the fertilizer that we put on our lawns? I know some who do, but they haven't sued me yet. (Yet...)

What makes these questions intriguing (at least for my mushy mind) is that most of us on THR talk about how our Republic was designed to protect the minority against the majority.

So how do we reconcile that minority protection against the majority interest, and fit it into our belief system?

 

[Blackhawk]

What makes these questions intriguing (at least for my mushy mind) is that most of us on THR talk about how our Republic was designed to protect the minority against the majority.

Maybe many on THR talk that way, but the truth is quite the opposite.

Those in government are always the minority. Our republic is designed to protect the majority from the oppression and tyranny of the minority in control of government.

(I'd also be extremely surprised if those hypersenstive to peanut products number 1,400,000 in the U.S.)

To your question:

So how do we reconcile that minority protection against the majority interest, and fit it into our belief system?

We don't. Our NATIONAL belief system is that everyone is created with equal opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in our national creed is there an obligation for the strong, wealthy, and healthy to care for the weak, poor, and sick. We do it due to moral convictions, and charitable actions are entirely voluntary under our national creed.

If we're going to proceed further down the slippery slope of trying to legislate morality, we're in for a lot more trouble than we're already in.

 

[nualle]

Is the restaurant owner who knows that some of his dishes contain peanut oil, and that perhaps one or two or three of his customers might have a reaction, guilty of "assault?"

No. As TexasVet and 4v50 Gary said, just asking about the peanut oil should suffice. The percentage of people with nut allergies, though small, is significant enough that a prudent business owner would provide some warning (like the symbol Gary mentioned). Many do.

Should a government require that? No.

If, however, a restaurant provides inaccurate information (e.g., when asked about ingredients, the waiter goes to the kitchen then comes back and says "there is no peanut oil in this," when there really is peanut oil in it) and that leads to an allergic reaction that requires emergency medical treatment... then the restaurant should accept liability for the harm done.

If a customer who has an allergy neglects to ask, then has an allergic reaction, that's a whole 'nother issue. They've taken their own voluntary risk. (An analogous situation might be a diabetic who eats too many sweets at a restaurant.)

My argument for "assault" only applies when the person harmed did not volunteer to participate in the action that harmed him.

 

[Strings]

And I was hoping to stay out of this...

Saying "they voluntarily took the risk" now brings up a double edge: if you have asthma, then aren't you "voluntarily taking a risk" by walking into a bar that allows smoking?

I really can't think of any other topic that seems to cause so much trouble (although abortion comes close). Seems to me that "voting with you wallet" would make much more sense...

 

[nualle]

if you have asthma, then aren't you "voluntarily taking a risk" by walking into a bar that allows smoking?

Certainly. But you're not voluntarily taking a risk by walking on the public sidewalk that the bar's door opens onto... or waiting at any city bus stop... or through the front doors of just about any office building in the U.S.

I have never once said I was for smoking bans. What I'm for is smokers taking responsibility for the effects of their smoke on nonsmokers who never volunteered to be affected.

 

[Ed Brunner]

Can't allergies be treated???

One of my sons had allergies as a child and they were treatable. If they are not treatable it is rather selfish to expect everyone else to change their lives to accomodate you.

One of the rules of the game of life is that you have to play in the uniform you were issued. Some things you can change, some you can't.

If a stranger asked you to sell your guns and give him the money so he try to find a cure for his allergies, how would you answer and why?

 

[nualle]

I can't speak for the peanut allergy but I do know a little about milk allergy (& lactose intolerance) -- my wife has it. IIRC, she both lacks the enzyme to digest lactose (milk sugar) and she is allergic to casein (milk protein). For the first condition, they have over-the-counter pills to provide the enzymes temporarily. As far as I know, the second condition isn't treatable except by entirely avoiding milk -- usually easily enough done, but we do sometimes run into unpleasant surprises.

Monkeyleg, I think you and I are still disagreeing on what's basically at issue. If I read you correctly, you think it's an issue of making accomodation for minority (even minscule minority) conditions. I think it's taking responsibility for real harm done.

 

[Strings]

but Nualle

The only thing I've seen proven so far about second-hand smoke is that it irritates people (please don't tell me about lab tests: those rats get cancer if you look at them cross-eyed).

Most of the office buildings *I've* been in don't allow smoking. And the sidewalk is (theoretically) open air, so the smoke SHOULD be more diffuse (not to mention lost by other parts per million in modern Urbania)...

Don't get me wrong: even as a smoker, I dispise the smell of lingering smoke. And I fully understand people with asthma having issues with cigarette smoke...

Unfortunately, I can't think of any other topic (well, BESIDES guns) that has people so upset...

 

[nualle]

The only thing I've seen proven so far about second-hand smoke is that it irritates people (please don't tell me about lab tests: those rats get cancer if you look at them cross-eyed).

Personally, I don't feel qualified to challenge the professional opinion of the CDC on this one. This opinion is medical, their valid area of expertise.

I also know my experience. My immune system reacts to others' smoke by increasing my mucus production. It is reacting to something real that it perceives as a threat. When I get home and blow my nose, the mucus is black. That's the stuff my system caught and filtered out, but some of that muck also reached my lungs. I know because of my incapacity to take a full breath soon after breathing someone else's smoke. (I'm trained as an opera singer -- I know what a full breath feels like.) These symptoms are not mere irritation. They are medical, though mild compared to more severe conditions like pax described on a TFL thread. And, for the record, I have never had asthma. My pulmonary health is normal.

And the sidewalk is (theoretically) open air, so the smoke SHOULD be more diffuse

One would think so, but it's often not so. The diffusion of the smoke into the air is probably a function of the wind speed through the area. And, because standing in calm air is more pleasant than standing in a stiff breeze (especially if conversation is also happening), smokers seem to gather behind windbreaks. That means they emit their smoke precisely where the wind will take longest to diffuse it. As a result, the smoke often lingers long after they've gone.

 

[Chipper]

How about some more pro-active free-market solutions? The symbols on menus is an excellent idea. There is plenty known about certain food or foodstuff allergies and other medical conditions that do not allow for the digestion of certain types of fats and other compounds. Why not open a restaurant that caters to these conditions? It could be a restaurant that focuses on the special needs people or it could offer foods and meals aimed at special needs along with standard fare for everyone else. Of course, the extra costs would need to be passed along to the patrons but it would be a small price to pay for those who seek to be included in the usual affairs of people without those special needs.

I am intimately acquainted with digestive problems as I have lost a nephew to MCADD. MCADD stands for medium chain acyl-coenzymeA dehydrogenase deficiency. MCADD is an inherited error of fatty acid metabolism. The MCAD enzyme is a homotetramer, most common in the liver. The MCAD enzyme catalyzes the first step of the medium-chain fatty acid cycle. Without it your body is basicly unable to process the most common of fats, even those found in breast milk. Your liver becomes clogged and you die. It is rather rare.

I now have another nephew with MCADD. Fortunately the condition was detected early and he survives and thrives. Great adjustments were needed in the immediate family's menus and due consideration is given to menus when we all get together, which is quite often. Care must be exercised when we go out to eat together. My nephew and his family have done well in integrating these special needs into their lives and make no demands on others to accomodate their needs. Obviously certain categories of choices have been limited but they remain fully capable of enjoying life.

On the smoking thing, in the area that I live in some did open a smoke-free nigtclub. It was an average place with DJ, lights, dancing and an outdoor patio. Nice, low-crime area with easy access and ample parking. Before opening the place was thoroughly cleaned to rid it of the dreaded "tobacco smell" and redecorated some with mirrors, new paint and new furnishings. The guy started with a good advertising campaign and emphasized his unique selling point of being a smoke-free establishment. Pricing was equivalent with other smoking establishments. It was all by the book to make a successful run. The business closed in less than two years simply due to lack of support from the market. There simply were not enough people patronizing this nightclub and those that did patronize it did not imbibe as much as smokers.

Now, I do not know if there is some scientific study somewhere that correlates smoking and drinking. I do know from observation that both non-smokers and ex-smokers will willingly partake of tobacco products after a couple of drinks. I also observe that bars and nightclubs that accomodate smokers do stay in business longer because the are able to do what businesses do, and that is, to make a profit. I do know that restaurants which are smoke-free do tend to hold their own in competition with smoking restaurants. I also note that the more successful non-smoking restaurants have put some effort and planning into the HVAC system and/or their selection of space to accomodate smokers so smoke wouldn't drift so much or at all into non-smoking areas.

So, there are solutions and compromises that are affordable and practical to accomodate a diversity of patrons. If we are to keep the current scheme of government then it would be better if that government offered tax-breaks and other incentives for the market to do what it does best which is provide what people actually want.

Chipper

 

[Ed Brunner]

nualle

I am not a medical person by any stretch of the imagination. If you are producing black mucus I doubt it is from tobacco alone. The only time I had black mucus was when I worked in a carbon company.

Not directed at you specifically, but a lot of people can't distinguish between what annoys them and what poses a threat. Our benevolent government has used our contributions to create, enable and attempt to rescue more classes of victims than you could imagine. This has created another type of class warfare for them to have to direct instead of solve.

Ain't it wonderful?

 

[Blackhawk]

nualle:

I'm trained as an opera singer ...

Kewl...!

What's in your repertoire?

 

[nualle]

Blackhawk: Thanks for the interest. :blush: Your answer's in your PM.