Bouncer Dies, and Family Blames City's Smoking Ban

[Solly]

"Public house"

[Spec]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yeah, well, **** you too, you ****ing ****!

Ummmm, why are you so offended? You consider yourself part of the stupid citizens? I pitty you.

Oh and second, Toronto is not a reference.......it's Canada's shamed city IMO.


Spec.

[Sava]

I agree with Asher, public places should be smoke-free. But private establishments should have the right to dictate their own status.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Smoking is a legal activity. Telling private business owners that they can't allow certain legal activities within their walls is simply unfair. Why should the government be allowed to dictate such a thing to someone on their own property?

Because people can't be experts on every product they consume we have government regulations to provide safety. A relevant example may be restaurants (and other public places) being required to meet health and safety requirements, you can't have hazardous chemicals on the floor or floating in the air. In its wisdom, NYC has decided cigarette smoke is a hazardous substance.

[Narz]

People are such morons. It's sad that this poor guy's death is made the secondary issue (his idiot relatives' blaming the city being the first).

I can't wait to get back to NY (I'm flying back Friday)!! It'll be so nice to be able to go to favorite billard's place and relax and be able to play chess without all the smoke! I bet I'll win my money back from the various guys I've lost to in the past (instead of my allergies being my disadvantage, their addictions will become their disadvanatage; also I've been studying a bit).

Perhaps they can sue the city to pay for their losses.

- Narz

[Sava]

If you don't like smoke, don't go to the restaurant. Fatty food is just as deadly as cigarrette smoke. Heart disease, IIRC, is the biggest cause of death in America. So what's next? Should we make fast food illegal?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava

Should we make fast food illegal?

Nahhh... the fat people will just sue the fast food restaurants for selling them the food they ask for...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher

Smoking in public places is a health risk to everyone around them, and is therefore a public issue and can be banned accordingly in public places.

Then again, some would argue that government laws for human safety and health shouldn't apply to private facilities, but I'd disagree.

I like seeing restaurants abide by health regulations, and I like seeing restaurants abiding by a smoking ban for the safety of patrons.

There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that second-hand smoke is a health risk. Citations of such a risk invariably go back to the EPA's study in the early 1990s, which is horribly flawed and contradicted by numerous other independent studies. In 1998 a U.S. judge vacated most of the report, saying that they had arrived at a conclusion and then made up a study to support it. So the study carries no official weight at all, yet laws come out still based on it... brilliant!

[Carver]

Originally posted by Sava
I agree with Asher, public places should be smoke-free. But private establishments should have the right to dictate their own status.

It's a health issue, not just for patrons but for workers. Someone metioned a toxic waste plant; well at a toxic waste plant they at least try to contain the waste as best as possible and prevent employes from inhaling or otherwise ingesting the toxic substances. Likewise a bar should be required to do everything possible to prevent its employees from ingesting harmful substances.

The "if you take the job, don't complain" argument is not valid. The reality is employees and employers do not have equal bargaining strength. Government regulation can be seen as a form of collective bargaining where the people say "we will not work under these conditions." This is a great example of where without collective bargaining the employees would suffer horribly.

[Narz]

Originally posted by Sava
If you don't like smoke, don't go to the restaurant. Fatty food is just as deadly as cigarrette smoke. Heart disease, IIRC, is the biggest cause of death in America. So what's next? Should we make fast food illegal?

Restaurants are for food. If you said "If you don't like smoke, don't go to the cigar club" perhaps you'd have a point. People who eat too much only hurt themselves but smokers influence all those around them with their smoke.

[Sava]

I'm not so concerned about the restaurant part. In fact, I've been to a ton of restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections. I don't see a need to ban all the smoking. But the bar thing bugs me. What the hell kind of free country is this if I can't go into a bar, have a beer and smoke a cigarette. (I don't smoke BTW, but I'm just saying)

[Spiffor]

Boris :
Are you a smoker ?

Curiously, the non-smoker I am is all for anti-tobacco regulations, even if I think such a regulation is unrealistic in bars.
Despite the facts there are some real hazards coming from second hand smoke (i.e the allergies and the oversensitivity), the health hazards aren't the real issue.

When you're a non smoker, smoke is a huge pain in the ass. It stinks. It stings the eyes. It makes you cough in big quantities. It hinders you to enjoy anything that could smell good or taste good (such as a meal at a restaurant, or a drink at a bar).

You know what ? If I piss on you, it is not dangerous for your health. Yet, I don't see it being allowed to piss on people. Go figure.

[Narz]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that second-hand smoke is a health risk. Citations of such a risk invariably go back to the EPA's study in the early 1990s, which is horribly flawed and contradicted by numerous other independent studies. In 1998 a U.S. judge vacated most of the report, saying that they had arrived at a conclusion and then made up a study to support it. So the study carries no official weight at all, yet laws come out still based on it... brilliant!

I seriously doubt there is no conclusive evidence that 2nd hand smoke is a health risk. I figure it's just so obvious that no one has bothered to prove it. If your friend was allergic to cats would you toss eight longhaired cats in his lap and then argue that all the evidence states that pets are good for your health?

Every law does not need scientific backing. Some things are just common sense, blowing smoke in someone's face is akin to pissing in their beer mug, they have to absorb it despite what the EPA study says.

[Zero]

I hated people smoking near me and blowing smokes on me EVEN WHEN I USED TO SMOKE.

Hey, I dont mind smelling my own gas... but when somebody else did it I would be pissed.

[Narz]

@ Spiffor, I see you beat me to it (the analogy)