I really, really hate smokers

[snoopy369]

Ben, I suggest you go outside and take a look at the 'real world'. I think you'll find it works rather like I say it does.

Do you suggest we abolish all workplace health laws, overtime, etc.? Do you, really, want to go back to that world? This is the world of "The Jungle" and Oliver Twist and whatnot, mind you. Where children work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines, and people dying on the job was a daily occurrence.

I'd rather not, thanks.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not how employment law works, Ben. We don't say "You can make your employees dig coal from the ground twenty two hours a day with no gas masks, if you tell them that's what they'll be doing ahead of time", do we?

If they accept, what's the issue?

Employment law enforces standards on everyone, because if those standards weren't enforced it would be harmful to employees. You should not have to choose between your health and taking a job - and do not doubt that some would have to. Not being willing to work half of the restaurant would inevitably mean a decrease in employer flexibility, and you know they'd select for people who were willing to.

That's how the real world works Snoopy. I've never had a job where I was bound by the cumbersome 'rules' of employment standards. If I don't like the job, I don't take it. If the job is not good for my health, I quit and find a better job. If I want to work OT, I do. If I don't want to come in to work, I stay home.

My employer likes the fact that he has the flexibility to adjust my hours to what he needs, and hire me for the jobs that need to be done. In return, he recognises that certain things are important to me, and I'm willing to give up other things in order to get them.

I really don't see the need for employee standards. Minimum wage is meaningless to me. Health and benefits plan, I'd rather take care of that myself. Pension, etc.

The only reason for these standards are twofold.

1. Level the playing field. Folks who aren't willing to work hard get protected by the union rules against firing.

2. Lines the pocket of the lawyers who are involved, raises taxes and costs on the employer and makes the unions happy. I'd like you to name one benefit of employee standards that has helped me.

[snoopy369]

For Illinois it could be a matter of timing - the law came into effect not long before our recession/depression/****ty economy started, so you can't really separate the two causes easily. I don't doubt that they've been hurt hard - but are they being hurt hard because of the smoking ban or not, is hard to tell.

[Asher]

Last year when the law went into effect the sports bar business dropped off so bad that they made an exception for sports bar and reinstated smoking until the superbowl was over. The casinos in Illinois have suffered greatly since the law changed and it has cost the state millions of dollars in lost revenue and they're trying to figure out some type of loophole to save themselves. So for all those non smokers that said it would not only not have a negative impact but a positive one, were of course proved to be full of **** (in Illinois at least. There's no accounting for all the weirdos in California ).
Not in Illinois. The Jury is still out on Resturant data since it varies from area to area but I'll admit that it has improved in SOME places, but it's not universal.

Activities that go along with smoking, like drinking, gambling, and bowling have been hurt quite hard. Attendence in sports bars, casinos and bowling alleys is off. And there is no doubt that it's attributed to the new smoking laws here.

I call bull****.

They banned that kind of stuff in bars here years ago. Everyone said it'd kill the bars. Afterwards we heard about how all these bars are closing.

Yet I know of none that have actually closed, and most of them are so ****ing busy all the time (especially during hockey games) that there's lineups to get in.

It's all drama, lies, and spin. to rah.

[Sprayber]

I've been interested to see how much people will actually pay for them. When I was in the military I would get numerous requests to buy for people while I was on base. I'm not sure if the Post Exchange still sells them for less or not.

[Boris Godunov]

Just consider it a stupidity tax.

Given that the costs of smoking to the public are quite large, I don't have any objection to hefty cigarette taxes.

[Sprayber]

My state is considering another 50 cent increase in the tax on cigarettes. On a certain level I feel some sympathy for smokers in that they are a cash cow for local governments and they are treated as outcasts but my sympathy only goes so far.

[Boris Godunov]

So long as my employer notified me before accepting a job that the place was full of asbestos, it should be OK!

[snoopy369]

So an employer cannot be straight up with his employees and tell them that the expectations of the job is that they would have to work the smoking room?

Honestly, I don't see why employers shouldn't be permitted to make these arrangements provided they inform the applicant. If the applicant chooses to accept the position after being informed of the requirements, then there's no ground for complaints.

I've seen the smoking bans. They've all been motivated by a desire to 'stick it to smokers'. I've seen that smug attitude by non-smokers and I'm really puzzled by it.

That's not how employment law works, Ben. We don't say "You can make your employees dig coal from the ground twenty two hours a day with no gas masks, if you tell them that's what they'll be doing ahead of time", do we?

Employment law enforces standards on everyone, because if those standards weren't enforced it would be harmful to employees. You should not have to choose between your health and taking a job - and do not doubt that some would have to. Not being willing to work half of the restaurant would inevitably mean a decrease in employer flexibility, and you know they'd select for people who were willing to.

[Boris Godunov]

So an employer cannot be straight up with his employees and tell them that the expectations of the job is that they would have to work the smoking room?

I was addressing the misperception that the aim of the bans was to somehow defend patrons, which is not always the case. I did not address the soundness of that rationale one way or the other.

I've seen the smoking bans. They've all been motivated by a desire to 'stick it to smokers'. I've seen that smug attitude by non-smokers and I'm really puzzled by it.

As has frequently been demonstrated, your perception does not equal actual fact. I'm not aware of any wording of a smoking ban that indicates a desire to "stick it to smokers." A citation would be helpful. In the case of both Oregon and NY State, the bans were enacted primarily as means of addressing a public health concern and its associated costs, which was the exposure of employees to potentially toxic substances. Now if you want to argue that employees of bars and such shouldn't have the same protections as other employees do against exposure to carcinogens/toxic substances, or that no employees are entitled to such protections regardless of substance, that's a different matter.

The notion that such laws, which have been enacted in diverse places and cultures throughout the world, are generated from a petty vendetta is both logically absurd and a factually insustainable argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

The rationale for the bans are not about the patrons, but the employees. That's the way it was in NY, as the law allowed bars to have closed-off, ventilated rooms where people could smoke, IF no employees were required to go into said rooms.

So an employer cannot be straight up with his employees and tell them that the expectations of the job is that they would have to work the smoking room?

Honestly, I don't see why employers shouldn't be permitted to make these arrangements provided they inform the applicant. If the applicant chooses to accept the position after being informed of the requirements, then there's no ground for complaints.

I've seen the smoking bans. They've all been motivated by a desire to 'stick it to smokers'. I've seen that smug attitude by non-smokers and I'm really puzzled by it.

[Boris Godunov]

I said there was no proven negative impact in NY, and I stand by that, because what you presented was cherry-picked data pushed by people with an agenda. As the part prior to what you posted said, a comprehensive review of studies shows that there is not a negative financial impact of bans. How could you not think it relevant to include a section that refutes the claims made by the studies in the part you did quote?

The rationale for the bans are not about the patrons, but the employees. That's the way it was in NY, as the law allowed bars to have closed-off, ventilated rooms where people could smoke, IF no employees were required to go into said rooms.

[DanS]

I'm a non-smoker, but have never had a problem being around smokers.

That said, I also own a condo in an early-60s era building. I used to have a neighbor who chain smoked and sometimes it was unbearable in my apartment.

Also, even though I didn't agree with banning smoking in bars in DC, now that it has been done, I appreciate that it makes a positive difference in my enjoyment of going and grabbing a brew.

It does seem like I'm becoming less tolerant of smokers now that I'm no longer forced to bear with the smoking.

[Deity Dude]

I didn't think people were really interested in the ENTIRE article, including the negative impact in various foriegn countries, the history of the ban etc. Sorry, I was just posting some of the negative data in New York because someone had said there was not a negative impact in New York.

BTW there are millions of studies on the net showing this trend. But to me it is all beside the issue. Bar owner's, casinos etc should be able to make whatever policy regarding smoking they want, post it and leave it up to the patron to decide if they want to go or not.

[Boris Godunov]

Here's some data I found:


"The following are some examples: the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.[65] A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased from 18.7 to 24.3% in the Ottawa, Canada area following a bar smoking ban. [66] The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the bar smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.[67]"

You could at least link to Wikipedia, which is where that came from, so we could see your strategic omissions.

From the same article:

Many studies have been published in the scientific literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with bans and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses.[61] A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.[62]

Studies conducted by the affected businesses themselves such as bar and restaurant associations often find a negative effect. Criticisms of the studies finding no impact include lumping in fast food and other unaffected businesses in the numbers, excluding businesses that closed during the study time frame, pointing to marginal growth while other businesses fair far better in surrounding communities, cherry picking data that supports their assertions, withholding negative data,[63] and replacing negative data with opinion polls.[64]

cherry-picking.