Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Actually I think resturant owners should have a choice also. But that battle seems reasonably lost already. So I try to go along with it and rationalize why it shouldn't bother me, just like all the other restrictions. I don't have a choice.

But back to my other question. If I open a shop on the corner to charge smokers to smoke out of the bad weather, would you want to restrict smoking there. No non-smokers involved. If so why?

In essence, you are asking about the setting up of a smoking room.

I personally have no problem with the setting up of dedicated smoking rooms, with the understanding that what is supposed to happen there is smoking, including full understanding upfront for the staff who chose to work in a smoking room.

This is why I don't particulalry care about imposing smoking bans based on the idea of staff safety, but instead simply of the general health of customers. The point of a bar is to drink, the point of a restaurant is to eat. Smoking is a side activity of some customers. But if you set up a smoking room, then smoking is the point of the business, so whatever. Hell, it thins the herd of smokers faster.

Of course, here in NYC they banned indoor smoking on the "health of staff" arguement, even if the ban was always largely popular (over 60% support from the electorate), meaning that smoking rooms are banned in the City, well, except for 6 locales set up for Cigar smoking, which caters to a select (rich, VIP, politically connected) clientel.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
New Zealand, such an awful police state

Note the

[rah]

Then if it's ok to have a smokers room just for smokers, then I don't see the difference of allowing the smokers to drink while they're doing it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Then if it's ok to have a smokers room just for smokers, then I don't see the difference of allowing the smokers to drink while they're doing it.

Because that brings up the issue of how to license that, given that you need a liquor license. In order not to complicate matters, simply separate the two.

Heck, some enterprising owner could set up a smoking room, and a bar next to each other, so a smoker can smoke, then go drink, then come back and smoke. That way he gets even more business, and the bar customers can drink free of smoke.

[rah]

Licensing shouldn't be an obstacle.
If no non-smokers are involved, it shouldn't mater what else is allowed. It seems silly to have a club where you could smoke, but heaven forbid if you wanted a drink.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Licensing shouldn't be an obstacle.
If no non-smokers are involved, it shouldn't mater what else is allowed. It seems silly to have a club where you could smoke, but heaven forbid if you wanted a drink.

Why? The point is that the two activites are NOT somehow conjoined. There are many restaurants that open without liquor licenses, even though it makes even more economic sense for them to have licenses. Smokers are addcits, its not like the smoking rooms will lose business for being unable to cater to two vices instead of just one.

Licensing is always an issue. Be it liquor, or cabaret, or any other license, including some new "smoking room" license.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by rah
Then if it's ok to have a smokers room just for smokers, then I don't see the difference of allowing the smokers to drink while they're doing it.

I agree. Conceptually, you could look at every bar as a dedicated smoking and drinking room.

I hate cigarette smoke. I generally avoid bars because of it. I don't see that it has anything of any value to it. I personally LIKE smoking bans.

All that said, on a legal logical basis I don't see the basis for a total ban. Its a bit like freedom of speech. Within the range of what is permitted will be some expression that is hurtful or insulting or that has no redeeming value whatsoever. Yet such speech is permitted. There are some limits.

I actually find the restaurant/ bar distinction to be somewhat defensible if the difference is the presence of children. As a society we are saying that smoking is harmful and children will not be exposed to it in regulated businesses. Considering how most restaurants serve alcohol and many bars have a broad menu, it is probably not hard for a owner to choose to class his business as one or the other. The choice is simple

bar-- smoking -- no children allowed
restaurant -- no smoking, everyone allowed

The reality here in Calgary is that many places are both. Two areas have different characteristics and maybe a bit of a different "look" but its all one business and all the food comes from a common kitchen.

[rah]

For many, both drinking and smoking are conjoined.

I know many of social smokers that smoke only when they drink. On the other hand, I've stopped drinking on airplanes because I can't smoke. Many other of my friends that smoke have done the same. SO I think they're linked more than casually.

While I still believe that all owners should be able to choose, I will concede that the public health issue with resturants does make more of difference than I have previously voiced. BUT I DON"T HAVE TO LIKE IT

But having said all that, I still believe bars should have a choice. I would settle for designated smoking clubs/bars so at least I would have a choice to go someplace and have a drink while watching a sports event.

[Az]

I know many of social smokers that smoke only when they drink.

That would be me.

[Velociryx]

In short, the possible benefits in savings in health care costs born by society easily outweight the ability of people to get hooked on nicotine by burning tabacoo leaves.

Well...this was about the only GePap comment worth even dredging up. The rest was more of the same blind ignorance of the facts.

Savings in health care costs, says you. That's your argument for the no smoking thing, eh?

Interesting, given the following:
In 1990, Americans spent 697.5 Billion on health care

By 1995, that amount had grown to 988.5 Billion

In the period from 2000-2004, health insurance premiums increased, on average, three times faster than wage increases for the same period.

Ahhh, but I forgot. You work in government, or used to. Thus, when you refer to that vast health care "savings," what you really mean is a "slower rate of increase."

Uh huh.

So the money savings on health care argument goes out the window.

What else do you have? Studies offering definitive proof that people have been keeling over from the inhalation of second hand ciggarette smoke? Is there even ONE fatality on record as having been directly caused by ciggarette smoke?

And this is your big bugbear....your poster child for saving and improving public health?

Good gods man, the anti-flatulence law I mentioned earlier would likely have a bigger impact, and at least it'd get a chuckle or two.

Further, you wouldn't need an outright BAN to see 80-90% (or more) of the so-called "benefits" of your anti-smoking crusade....what's wrong with allowing smokers the odd haven here and there? But that's not what your real agenda is, although you attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up all the vast riches to be reclaimed by just doing this one small thing.

Try again.

Oh...and in case you're curious, the numbers for auto insurance follow the same trend as the ones for health insurance, thus negating your argument about the vast savings to be reaped by buckling up....but again, nice attempted dodge.

-=Vel=-
PS: You could always make Apolyton history and just admit you're wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az

I know many of social smokers that smoke only when they drink.

That would be me.

You smoke?

[GePap]

at Vel.

Am I to take seriously someone who uses the fact that healthcare costs in the country have grown as his proof that anit-smoking legislation is a failure?!?!?

I guess it would be a waste of time to discuss all the myriad reasons for this increase in cost because it would fly in the face of your ideological crutch.

I am done wasting my time "discussing" with you. rah and others are more reasonable and actually get the point.

[Velociryx]

Now there's a surprise.

You touted the savings to society in health care costs as the reason (the only reason you mentioned, actually) for the law.

Trouble is, health care costs have been going through the roof for decades, and show no signs of stopping.

In light of this, it becomes impossible to point to even a penny's worth of savings, because there aren't any savings to be found.

I realize that it's a tough thing to grasp, but do try and get your mind around it.

When costs INCREASE, No savings.

The very best you could argue is that the law has helped slow the rate of increase, but I've seen no numbers whatsoever to support that.

It's not that I don't understand that other factors are causing the cost of health insurance to rise, it's just that the rise totally negates any "savings" you could possibly lay claim to.

The evidence is the evidence, and it ain't on your side, but that's okay. I didn't expect anything from you other than parroting back the same old worn out line that you prolly heard somewhere on talk radio.

Try thinking, rather than parroting what somebody else said, and remember, just cos you heard it on talk radio....that don't necessarily make it so, 'k?

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah

But having said all that, I still believe bars should have a choice. I would settle for designated smoking clubs/bars so at least I would have a choice to go someplace and have a drink while watching a sports event.

In terms of licensing issues, if you create a smoking room license and allow it to be mixed with a liquor license, there would be huge competition, and likely a lot of corruption around the issue.

As for the idea that many people only smoke when they are drnking, well, isn;t then banning the combination of the two one of the BETTER ways to get people to stop smoking?

[GePap]

Reasons for the rise in health care costs:

1. Rise in the cost of modern treatments
2. Rise in the cost of medicines and increased used of expensive pharmaceuticals.
3. Aging population increasingly afflicted with more expensive to treat chronic ailments.

When the cost of medicine increases and the use of medicine increases and the need for medicines increase, then the price of healthcare will increase as well.