Damn anti smoking fanatics! Bars can't serve food and allow smoking? WTF!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

It doesn't matter.

Why?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What about a bar where all the employees smoke and all the patrons smoke?

If it's in agreement between everyone there, then I have no qualms with it occuring. And hey... if that's truely the case... they'll be smoking anyways right?

But what about when someone applies for an opening as a waitress at that bar... do they have a right to turn her away if she's a non-smoker to preserve their 100% smoker workforce and patrons? (If yes, do you feel an employer has the right to turn you away for being a smoker?)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
But the main argument against the ban is the whole bars and clubs being private property.

Why is it?

Here it is banned on private property for private clubs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why?

Because now we're getting to a point where you're asking for specialized cases.

If you're saying it should be legal for a place to exist if all employees smoke and all customers smoke, then I think that's just stretching the point. It's an obscure case.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Here it is banned on private property for private clubs.

With public business licenses and/or liquor licenses.

It's not banned, for instance for Uncle Jim's Poker Tournament on truly private property with truly private clubs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aeson
Your analogy needs some sort of extraneous device that some of the skiers bring to the slopes, which has no practical use in regards to skiing or maintenance, which causes these health concerns.

People are being drawn by business promotion and peer pressure to climb perfectly harmless, if left alone, mountains and some of them get theselves killed. Directly. No delay waiting for cancer.

Let's protect them from themselves.

[Flip McWho]

Re: Fundamental Right to Smoke.

You do have the fundamental right to smoke, nobody is taking that away from you (unlike people who wish to exercise their fundamental right to smoke some MJ, which causes less public harm than ciggies, and alcohol for that matter). Nobody is even taking that right to smoke away from you in a private place. (can you be prosecuted for smoking at a mates place even if they don't want you too? Sure you wouldn't because thats just disrespectful).

So again, why is a bar and club considered a private place when a hairdressers isn't? A private hospital isn't? What's the difference between any of these business' besides what service/product they offer?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Aeson


If it's in agreement between everyone there, then I have no qualms with it occuring. And hey... if that's truely the case... they'll be smoking anyways right?

But what about when someone applies for an opening as a waitress at that bar... do they have a right to turn her away if she's a non-smoker to preserve their 100% smoker workforce and patrons? (If yes, do you feel an employer has the right to turn you away for being a smoker?)

People are getting fired from jobs now because they smoke.

So, I say yes to both.

ACK!

[Flip McWho]

Here it is banned on private property for private clubs.

Asher's already beaten this one, but you're avoiding what I asked.

Why is a bar and a club a private place?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Asher's already beaten this one, but you're avoiding what I asked.

Why is a bar and a club a private place?

The difference is that, hospitals and hairstylists have already decided, without government interference, to not allow smoking.

Bars and restaraunts should have that same right.

ACK!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aeson


If it's in agreement between everyone there, then I have no qualms with it occuring. And hey... if that's truely the case... they'll be smoking anyways right?

No, they won't if the proprietors obey the law where the zealots have had success. As I said, it is banned here in private clubs, all smokers or not.

But what about when someone applies for an opening as a waitress at that bar... do they have a right to turn her away if she's a non-smoker to preserve their 100% smoker workforce and patrons? (If yes, do you feel an employer has the right to turn you away for being a smoker?)

Why not? Is smoker or non smoker a protectred class under some human rights code I have never heard of? Incidently, smokers (at home) have been denied jobs in the US and it has been so far upheld as perfectly reasonable.

On that topic, saying that Albert Einstein can't work in our physics department because he smokes on his own time seems like something a policy maker should be fired for.

But I agree a bar owner has the right to say that there will be no smoking. I disagree with the gubmint telling all bar owners how to run their premises.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ming


And then if that is a true... a pragmaticist should never uee the "majority has spoken argument" as a support point in his arguments, because it is inconsistent with their beliefs

the majority (power wise) speaks and thats the fact. right or wrong. sometimes right sometimes wrong. but the decision of the majority should be guided by this approach. and i aim to help that.

[notyoueither]

Here's an absurdity.

I employ a few people. All of them smoke. That wasn't the intention, but is how it worked out.

I rent 2 bays to run a business. One bay is public and no smoking is allowed. The other bay has seperate ventilation and I have allowed people to smoke where they please. All of them smoke.

Bylaws was recently by. Smoking must be eliminated. Everywhere. No matter if every single person who works there is a smoker.

As a smoker, and someone with property rights, I can't even have a private office where only I work where I can smoke.

[Asher]

No, they won't if the proprietors obey the law where the zealots have had success.

I would just like a simple reality check.

People who oppose smoking in public places aren't zealots. Smoking is an optional activity that hurts people around them. IMO it's the people who keep insisting on smoking in public places that are the zealots. Not only is it a rather rude thing to do, it's risking other people's health for their own enjoyment.

Such ardent opposition to what I'd hope would be courtesy is zealotry over people not wanting to deal with it.

[Flip McWho]

Let's protect them from themselves.

If we wanted to do that we'd ban smoking full stop. This isn't about that, it's about smoking in a confined public place, that is open to regulation because it is a public place, privately owned.

Is smoking indoors essential to the function of a bar or club as a business?

Personally, and I suspect some people on the antismoking side would agree, I've got nothing against smokers setting up a smoke that exclusively sells tobacco/cigarettes. Now in this business I've got nothing against smokers being allowed to partake inside, buy a ciggie and park at a bench and try it before you buy a bag kinda thing. This business caters solely for tobacco smokers, it's its purpose for existing. A bar exists to serve alcohol, not ciggies. The public health cost of smoking in bars and clubs was debated and weighed up against the smokers in a very easy to grasp argument.

1)Smoking in a comfined public place permeates second hand smoke throughout that place.
2) Second hand smoke negativelly affects those in said confined place
3) The quantity of people negativelly affected is greater than the negative affects to the smoker (i.e walking outside).

Therefore in public places where the government can regulate, smoking is restricted to outside areas, where ventilation is adequate to lower the risk from second hand smoke without totally banning your addiction, which I stress, nobody who supports this move is currently advocating.