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

[Guynemer]

Last year, Columbus banned all smoking in bars and restaurants.

Since then, not a single establishment has closed due to the ban.

[rah]

But there is no proof that if they still had the choice and there were smoking and non-smoking bars, that they all wouldn't have made more money.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by rah
I can honestly say that with the exception of grabbing a quick drink in an airport, that I have never gone to a bar where smoking was prohibited. My choice. I'm a good customer, I spend a good sum of money, tip well, and I'm not a mean drunk, usually since I don't go overboard. I am even actually considerate of others when I'm smoking whenever possible.

Now the arguement I always hear, is that the owner won't suffer if a no smoking ban is in place because I will be replaced by non-smokers that will magically go and spend more money in their bar.
The owner should have the choice of which of thes two patrons he wants to serve. Me, or some whiney crusader who while satisfying his own booze vice is celebrating his victory over allowing someone else to satisfy their own vice only because they don't enjoy that vice. They're probably really loud drunks (based on the egos on display in this thread) who's opinions are more important than others. And in the end, they're probably lousy tippers.

I think owners should be allowed to decide. IF there is really more money to make, the market will choose.

Essentially thats the situation in Calgary right now . Smoking still goes on in most "bars" but a few have switched to non-smoking and still seem to do well. "Restaurants" and by that I mean any place that wants persons under the age of 18 to be allowed inside, are non-smoking.

The reality is that many smokers go to bars in inclement weather even if they don't necessarily want alcohol since it is just about the only indoor place downtown that they can smoke

[rah]

And I don't think it's as big of an issue with resturants.
I go to a resturant to eat, not smoke.
I go to a bar to drink and smoke. I don't do one without the other.
And just because an establishment doesn't close, doesn't mean it's making the same amount of money.

It's like when Chicago raises gasoline taxes. The fringe gas stations don't close, they just lose business to the place a few blocks farther away.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by rah
And I don't think it's as big of an issue with resturants.
I go to a resturant to eat, not smoke.
I go to a bar to drink and smoke. I don't do one without the other. .

Hmmm-- but in many cases it isn't always that easy to distiguish between some restaurant and some bars. They both serve wide varieties of alcohol and food. I'd be willing to bet that there are a few dozen places in Calgary that have attributes of both but right now the distinguishing feature is smoking/admittance of minors.

[Flubber]

Oh and a question to the anti seatbelt law folks--

How do you feel about a government law/order/command that you must evacuate your home for a hurricane? Should the state/nation be able to compel you to evacuate or should you be allowed to legally refuse on the grounds that it only affects your own health and safety?

I just thought this example topical and wondered where the people strong on individual rights would fall on that one.

[rah]

Originally posted by Flubber



Hmmm-- but in many cases it isn't always that easy to distiguish between some restaurant and some bars. They both serve wide varieties of alcohol and food. I'd be willing to bet that there are a few dozen places in Calgary that have attributes of both but right now the distinguishing feature is smoking/admittance of minors.

Yes, you're correct there. I was just talking about my habits. If eating in a resturant I have no problem going outside or over to the bar to have the one cig I'm likely to smoke during the experience. But If i'm there to exclusively drink, I'm having more than 1 cig and don't like being inconvienced especially in bad weather.

And yes sometimes I do stop at bar just to have a cig in bad weather. A few of the owners that I talked to said it a nice addition to their sales during the slower parts of the day, and are profiting from it.

[Velociryx]

to the notion of the government forcing me to leave my home "for my own good."

If its not a crime scene, and I own it, and I want to stay....I'm staying. If they make me leave and I REALLY want to stay, I'll sneak back.

Hand in hand with that, those who choose to stay and ignore the risks to their health and safety have NO leg to stand on if they get hurt. I don't wanna hear them whining about it and asking Uncle Sam to pay their doctor bills later.

-=Vel=-

[rah]

I'm with you on that one, with one exception.
And it's a gray area. Those incapable of making a rational decision. Some might say that anyone that wants to stay is not rational, but I don't agree with that definition. My concern is over some older folks that may not be able to understand the danger. It would be hard to set hard fast rules on this though.

[CerberusIV]

Now that we're onto smoking rather than seatbelts...

Ireland banned smoking in bars over a year ago. First result - bar sales declined. But wait, no-one is really sure whether that is because the smokers are staying away or whether it's a long term trend towards people drinking at home. The licensees association is whining but the drinks manufacturers aren't - so they are probably making up the sales through off-licences and supermarkets.

Second result - the respiratory functions of bar staff have improved markedly (they tested people before and after). Now don't give me the BS that they have a choice. Many are from eastern europe and work in the hotel and catering trade because it's better paid than where they came from (and where they usually intend to go back to once they have made enough money). The wages for that kind of work certainly are not sufficient compensation for the increased risk of lung cancer.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
to the notion of the government forcing me to leave my home "for my own good."

If its not a crime scene, and I own it, and I want to stay....I'm staying. If they make me leave and I REALLY want to stay, I'll sneak back.

Hand in hand with that, those who choose to stay and ignore the risks to their health and safety have NO leg to stand on if they get hurt. I don't wanna hear them whining about it and asking Uncle Sam to pay their doctor bills later.

-=Vel=-

Vel

I figured that that is what you would say. You are consistent in your viewpoint that an individual is responsible for their own safety and therefore the state has no business mandating those things.

In the same vein, if you stayed, I assume the state would have no obligation to come get you if you later called on your cell phone seeking rescue... Would it be ok for them to say that you need to seek a remedy from private resources??


Lastly what of the children ??? If we grant a competent adult the right to put themselves into clear danger, how far does that right extend to their offspring?

[rah]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Second result - the respiratory functions of bar staff have improved markedly (they tested people before and after). Now don't give me the BS that they have a choice. Many are from eastern europe and work in the hotel and catering trade because it's better paid than where they came from (and where they usually intend to go back to once they have made enough money). The wages for that kind of work certainly are not sufficient compensation for the increased risk of lung cancer.

Yes, they had a choice and they chose higher wages over the risk.
The same for coal miners, steel workers, prostitutes etc.
Then there are the people that choose higher risk for things other than money like policemen, and firemen.
Unless you're a slave, you have a choice.

People have been taking risks for their families for years, and this is no different.

It's not BS just because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, they had a choice and they chose higher wages over the risk.

Ultimately this risk ends up consuming public resources in terms of medical care. Even if they paid for this care all by themselves, there is a large public interest in NOT having people have to spend tons of money on such care.

[rah]

While to some degree, I agree, this is about where we draw the line. The government has some resposibility towards safety in the workplace, and has oraganizations to deal with it. But to expect the government to remove ALL DANGER in the workplace is just silly and dangerous to all our liberties.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but to remove a clear health risk such as smoking, which by extension has clear economic benefits (we spend way too much on health care as it is), isn't silly at all.