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

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MRT144
the smoking in company vehicles thing should be something imposed by the company itself.

It goes with the banning of smoking in 'workplaces'. Company vehicles are considered workplaces.

I drive lots for work but drive my own vehicle so I am not affected by this (yet).

[Asher]

It does make sense in context.

Say you're in a gardening company truck...4 guys in a pickup truck, guy in the back cannot decide to smoke in the vehicle. That makes sense to me if the law is to ban smoking in the workplace, no?

[MRT144]

but youre glossing over the fact that a workplace can be different from company to company and that any general law that says no smoking in work places or yay smoking in workplaces will take that into account, or should.

If you cant see the difference between being an individual's workplace, and multiperson and customer workplace then theres no point in going further

[Lazerus]

yay !

[Bill3000]

Also I'd like to say anybody here who drives an SUV has no right to comment on smokers "polluting your air". I may be putting pollutants into the air of a bar/restaurant but you SUV drivers are melting my ice-caps and driving up gas prices all because you want to look cool.

Last time I checked, global warming and gas prices don't cause cancer. Second-hand smoke does. I'm pretty sure that most people's priority would be on their own health before the health of the planet and their money.

[Deity Dude]

We don't have these bans in Michigan yet thank God. We might be a little backward in our beliefs about personal freedom by the standards of governments that want to run your life from cradle to grave and then take your assets upon death.

It seems pretty much like common sense to me. If I don't like or am allergic to Chinese food, I don't go to Chinese restuarants. If I don't like hanging around Gay men trying to pick each other up, I don't go to gay bars. If I am not into a crowded bar scene, I don' t go to the bar. If I don't feel like being around smokers, I go to a nonsmoking section or a place that bans smoking altogether.

This is coming from a person who doesn't smoke cigarettes.

If left to the government, someone can always come up with some reason to ban something for public health reasons.

Since when did non-smokers have more rights than smokers and private business owners. If the government wants to ban stuff on government property I guess they have that right because they are the one administering it.

[Deity Dude]

By the way - does anyone find it ironic that they are banning smoking for public health reasons in a place that serves something that is not only worse for you than smoking, but far has worse consequences for society on an indirect basis (i.e. drunk driving/alcoholics' effects on those around them vs 2nd hand smoke)

[Asher]

Since when did non-smokers have more rights than smokers and private business owners.

Everyone's got the same rights to not have their health impacted by others.

Smokers can choose to harm themselves, but not other people.

That's really all there is to it.

[Bill3000]

It seems pretty much like common sense to me. If I don't like or am allergic to Chinese food, I don't go to Chinese restuarants. If I don't like hanging around Gay men trying to pick each other up, I don't go to gay bars. If I am not into a crowded bar scene, I don' t go to the bar. If I don't feel like being around smokers, I go to a nonsmoking section or a place that bans smoking altogether.

Problem with your common sense: Being around gay people, or not liking chinese food doesn't affect you. (And being allergic to chinese food doesn't affect you, as the sole analogy here would be other people around you eating chinese food) It's not a proper analogy. Smoking does affect nonsmokers, so that must be taken into account. In this case, health is far more of a priority than mere inconvinience.

By the way - does anyone find it ironic that they are banning smoking for public health reasons in a place that serves something that is not only worse for you than smoking, and has worse consequences for society on an indirect basis (i.e. drunk driving vs 2nd hand smoke)

How is it ironic? Drunk driving has quite harsh penalties. As well, the debate doesn't necessarily only apply to bars. My county bans smoking from all public places.

[MRT144]

the idea that there is real choice for non smoking establishments where bans are mandated is laughable. Id be willing to bet that in any given locale without such bans 90% of establishments are smoking, and at least half dont have a non smoking section. before the statewide ban in washington there was no mandate for seperate sections in bars, restaurants etc etc and at most only 15% banned smoking altogether.

the other thing that interesting is how out of the general population how little actually smokes but are catered to in these locales. i think that the psychological grip smokers have on businesses is greater than the economic grip.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
We don't have these bans in Michigan yet thank God. We might be a little backward in our beliefs about personal freedom by the standards of governments that want to run your life from cradle to grave and then take your assets upon death.

It seems pretty much like common sense to me. If I don't like or am allergic to Chinese food, I don't go to Chinese restuarants. If I don't like hanging around Gay men trying to pick each other up, I don't go to gay bars. If I am not into a crowded bar scene, I don' t go to the bar. If I don't feel like being around smokers, I go to a nonsmoking section or a place that bans smoking altogether.

But that's the point: Non-smoking sections ARE NOT isolated from the smoke. Have you ever actually eaten at a restaurant that had seperate areas? You're breathing the same damn air. I've heard of studies showing that an establishment's air circulation system doesn't actually remove enough from the bad air to make it qualify as good air.

[quote]This is coming from a person who doesn't smoke cigarettes.

If left to the government, someone can always come up with some reason to ban something for public health reasons.

And that generally comes about after medical studies are conducted and evidence collected to warrant such bans. Duh.

Since when did non-smokers have more rights than smokers and private business owners. If the government wants to ban stuff on government property I guess they have that right because they are the one administering it.

You're not allowed to grow weed on your own property. You need an Exotic Pets license to own a tiger. I dare you to talk your way out of a speeding ticket for doing 100 in a 65 (no, I've not done this nor would want to) at a time when there isn't a lot of traffic sharing the road. The government is charged with ensuring public health and safety. Tobacco has been shown to be very deterious to public health, so the government (this thread was about two PUBLIC initiatives btw) is well within it duties regulating its use.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Asher

Since when did non-smokers have more rights than smokers and private business owners.

Everyone's got the same rights to not have their health impacted by others.

Smokers can choose to harm themselves, but not other people.

That's really all there is to it.

This is gonna go back and forth forever. Why does it have to come to the point where the only acceptable option is those convenient for non-smokers. There are many options.

Why can't a private business put up a sign that says "We Smoke in Here - If you are worried about 2nd hand smoke Please don't Enter" and then let adults make decisions on their own about whether or not they want to go there or work there.

Please don't give me the hazordous for the employee crap. Lots of people have hazardous jobs. As long as the hazards are made aware to people ahead of time they can choose whether or no to take the job. Think about firemen, police officers, soldiers, athletes etc they all have hazardous jobs. Now someone will say that those jobs serve a public good instead of helping a private business or that the employees are well insured. OK, think about a convenience store clerk who earns minimum wage. In Detroit, a convenience store clerk is 5 times more likely to get murdered on the job than a police officer. (and probably 100's of times more likely to murdered on the job than a non-smoking waitress is of developing lung cancer) Should we outlaw 7/11's now.

MY wife is allergic to MSG - she doesn't try to outlaw it. She just doesn't go into places that serve it and she doesn't get a job in an MSG plant.

I am not for banning any of these sorts of things but, at least if it was made illeagl the ban would make sense. So what if there is a black market. Does teh government really need to "feed off the addictions of others" That never stopped them from banning marijuana, alcohol, prostitution or gambling at various times. BTW there currently is a black market in cigs in the US. Certain states have such high taxes people bring them in from other states and sell them illegally.

[MRT144]

and i think part of where this becomes a bit of an idiotic issue is people are complaining that its property rights because its a legal activity yet many of them wouldnt make the case if smoking was illegal.

because of this though and legality of smoking we are in limbo so to speak. i think that laws prohibiting smoking have to be evaluated on their own merits, and not rely on different property right issues as precident because the situation and status are different.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


This is gonna go back and forth forever. Why does it have to come to the point where the only acceptable option is those convenient for non-smokers. There are many options.

Why can't a private business put up a sign that says "We Smoke in Here - If you are worried about 2nd hand smoke Please don't Enter" and then let adults make decisions on their own about whether or not they want to go there or work there.

non smokers outnumber smokers. non smokers are directly affected adversely by the minorties decisions. business owners wont establish smoking bans thenselves due to economic loss fears and a paradigm that is entrenched in their minds. non smokers have no choice because of the majority of business owners decisions.

the proposed remedy is less harmful to the majority than the status quo. asking patrons to step outside is less harmful healthwise and as any economic studies show not hamful to the majority of businesses. and this is what the remedy is.

Please don't give me the hazordous for the employee crap. Lots of people have hazardous jobs. As long as the hazards are made aware to people ahead of time they can choose whether or no to take the job. Think about firemen, police officers, soldiers, athletes etc they all have hazardous jobs. Now someone will say that those jobs serve a public good instead of helping a private business or that the employees are well insured. OK, think about a convenience store clerk who earns minimum wage. In Detroit, a convenience store clerk is 5 times more likely to get murdered on the job than a police officer. (and probably 100's of times more likely to murdered on the job than a non-smoking waitress is of developing lung cancer) Should we outlaw 7/11's now.

we should ban guns in that case because that is the cause of harm. but across the board bans rarely accomplish their goals, if ever. the idea that there is some standard of absolutist law though is idiotic and unfeasable. selective laws that target specific aims shouldnt be viewed in these absolutist terms either. targetted bans on smoking, guns, and other things actually work.

MY wife is allergic to MSG - she doesn't try to outlaw it. She just doesn't go into places that serve it and she doesn't get a job in an MSG plant.

she isnt forced to be exposed to msg because msg isnt like smoking. it doesnt have the same means of consumption and same usage in the industry. smoking in bars etc doesnt lend itself that choice because you cant avoid it unless you go to non exsistent non smoking bars where there isnt a government mandate.

if your wife only had the ability to choose from chinese or staying home or experiencing the reaction of her alergy she would start to be compelled to suffer.

[Cort Haus]

I don't see why the free market can't regulate which bars, restaurants etc are smoke-free and to what extent. If someone puts as sign saying "Smoking Here" or "No Smoking Here" people can decide for themselves where they want to go.

For employees, they can choose too, and the market should raise the wage / health cover for jobs in the less popular smoking establishments.

Smoking establishments with better ventilation would be more desirable, leading to incentives to introduce it.

While I can understand calls to limit smoke in enclosed public spaces, calls to outlaw it outside in the fresh air is a drastic step. The suggestion that a whiff of smoke at a bus stop can give you cancer, and by extension accusing the smoker of being a murderer (it says so on the packet) seems hugely overblown.