PDA

View Full Version : As a social libertarian, I have to say...


Bravo
12-28-2007, 09:06 AM
i'm really confused about the anti-smoking laws in cities.

i love them.

but i feel like i shouldnt.

:( ?

or :) ?

:Shrug: ?

i'm going to go take a breathe of fresh air and think this through

Williebee
12-28-2007, 09:22 AM
It was a tough choice between the last two.

Up front, understand, I don't smoke. And, I'm not an "ex-smoker".

I don't have a desire to smoke, or breathe your smoke either. That being said, I don't feel any right to tell you you can't smoke.

Illinois is about to become the 19th(?) state to pass a no smoking in public places law. Their's actually includes all private clubs as well. Amazingly, casinos are apparently exempt. (wtf?)

What's next? No gum in public? (Keep it off the bottoms of tables and park benches.) I figure that if a business owner has so much non smoking business, they will go non-smoking on their own.

And, if I don't want to be around smokers, I don't have to visit the places where they are.

Either scenario comes from the same place: personal responsibility.

The increasing lack there of seems to be resulting in increasing losses of personal rights. Funny how that works.

Bartholomew
12-28-2007, 09:46 AM
Give the smokers their own buildings, I say. Their houses, their cars, and "Smoking-Allowed" bars // bowling alleys // pool halls // whatevers would all be fair game. Then smokers have places where they can go and enjoy themselves, hang loose, and light up. And I would have the option of not breathing smoke when I go out.

I grew up around the smell of tobacco and it doesn't bother me, though it does bother other people. I think it adds a certain charm to places.

But very recently, I've found that clouds of cigarette smoke really, really bother me. My life has just been that much easier since my junior college passed a non-smoking regulation, basically kicking the smokers and ashtrays some 15 yards away from all the doors.

benbradley
12-28-2007, 10:41 AM
Speaking as a "recovering smoker" I do NOT like being around cigarette smoke or smokers (my brother, his wife, his ex-wife and all their sons smoke, and their grandkids will surely smoke too...).

But if someone wants to run a business where smoking is allowed, whether it's a bar, a restaurant or what, I think the only government requirement should be a clearly readable on every entrance that says "Smoking Allowed" so I can decide not to go in. Requiring a "Smoking Allowed" sign does indeed go against libertarian values, but I feel okay in bending my values so that those who don't want to smell cigarette smoke get a warning before they step into such an establishment.

Opty
12-28-2007, 11:50 AM
TN finally passed the law (after years of attempts and 80% of the residents wanting it), even though it's traditionally been a tobacco state.

This is an issue that gets me pretty riled up...

I love it. From the standpoint of my health, I like being able to breathe air in public places that is free from avoidable carcinogens. I don't appreciate being forced to have my chances of lung cancer and other repiratory ailments dramatically increase, not to mention have my clothes and hair stink, when I go out simply because someone near me indulges in an incredibly unhealthy habit which detrimentally affects everyone around him/her.

The argument of "well, non-smokers can just not go to those places," is just plain stupid because when pretty much every public restaurant allows smoking, it's impossible to avoid cigarette smoke. What should non-smokers do, never go out and enjoy a nice meal? Either healthy people subject themselves to someone else's dangerous habit and have their health threatened or stay locked up at home and never go out? That's ridiculous.

I also think it protects babies and small children from idiot smoker parents who take their children out in public, sit in the smoking section, and proceed to chain smoke in front of their kids, making the kids breathe in that cancer. That's child abuse, imo, and those parents should be prosecuted. Hell, I've even seen morons bring babies into the smoking section of restaurants and puff away. Even seen some pregnant women who are stupid enough to smoke (they obviously love cigarettes more than their own unborn child). Those people don't deserve to have kids.

Also, from the standpoint of running a restaurant, the ban's been a lot better for business.

So, I'm all for those bans in public places. My conscience is totally clear. If a person wants to get lung cancer, great. They can do so either in the privacy of their own home or at designated places with other cancer lovers. But, it's thoughtlessly inconsiderate and selfish, if not inhumane, to unwillingly subject everyone around them to a similar fate.

This law isn't to protect non-smokers from the polite, considerate, intelligent (well...questionably so, since they smoke ;) ) smokers who make sure that they're not infringing the rights of nonsmokers. It's to protect us (and their kids) from the inconsiderate morons who couldn't care less who is negatively affected by their behavior.

Gary
12-28-2007, 04:23 PM
I quit smoking over 30 years ago, and I hate it, but I will defend the rights of smokers, just as I will defend the rights of those who choose to eat fats, get a tattoo, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Our right to be stupid must trump government's desire to take care of us, or we don't have freedom. It's one thing for government to inform, but quite another to intrude.

If someone lights up around me, I either move, or ask them to put it out if I can't move. If restaurant owners wish to allow smokers, that's okay with me. For every one of those businesses, I can find a dozen smoke-free places to eat. I'm a big boy, and don't need some bureaucrat making choices for me. I'm also a responsible parent and grandparent, and intelligent enough to not expose children to dangerous situations.

If you are unwilling to stand up for smokers, don't expect help when your likes are threatened.

KTC
12-28-2007, 04:25 PM
smoking should be illegal and punishable by death.




walks away from thread forever

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 04:30 PM
If the product is that harmful, someone in government needs to grow some balls and ban the substance already!

Why pussyfoot around by selective banning of the act?

Seems hypocritical to me.

Bird of Prey
12-28-2007, 05:02 PM
I quit smoking over 30 years ago, and I hate it, but I will defend the rights of smokers, just as I will defend the rights of those who choose to eat fats, get a tattoo, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Our right to be stupid must trump government's desire to take care of us, or we don't have freedom. It's one thing for government to inform, but quite another to intrude. . . .

If you are unwilling to stand up for smokers, don't expect help when your likes are threatened.


Ditto.

III
12-28-2007, 05:37 PM
But your avatar is smoking.

Angelinity
12-28-2007, 05:44 PM
smoking should be ... punishable by death.



it is. incidentally, so is non-smoking. dang!

kristie911
12-28-2007, 05:48 PM
I'm an ex-smoker (okay, occasional smoker) and I don't care that I can't smoke in a restaurant. I like to smoke in bars when I drink but if I can't, then I can't. However, I don't like the government telling me where I can and can't smoke. Let the owner of the building decide that and non-smokers can decide if they want to go there or not.

Maybe it's just my dislike for the government in general. I hate that they worry about stuff like smoking laws, forcing me to buy an HD tv, and other such stupid stuff. Don't they have better things to do...like fixing the fucking economy?

David Erlewine
12-28-2007, 06:23 PM
RUN FOR OFFICE, SPORK.

Seriously. That was a classic post. When I get off the train each morning, all the smokers dying to get their fix start puffing away. I like holding my breath and then loudly exhaling near/into their faces as I walk by them. No one has called me on it yet, but I remain hopeful that one of them says something.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 06:35 PM
What should non-smokers do, never go out and enjoy a nice meal?

Yes. Restaurant food is bad for you anyway. Stay at home. You'll be healthier all around. Now move over, you're in the way of my ashtray.

benbradley
12-28-2007, 06:47 PM
If the product is that harmful, someone in government needs to grow some balls and ban the substance already!
Like they did with Quickie Professional sticker remover and un-do.
[quote=Shadow_Ferret;1915969] Why pussyfoot around by selective banning of the act?

Seems hypocritical to me.
Most states do selective banning with alcohol, you're not allowed to drink while driving. I've heard Texas law is different, though like others they still require the driver's blood alcohol content to be below a certain amount.
smoking should be illegal and punishable by death.




walks away from thread forever
I think it is in some countries...
I'm an ex-smoker (okay, occasional smoker) and I don't care that I can't smoke in a restaurant. I like to smoke in bars when I drink but if I can't, then I can't. However, I don't like the government telling me where I can and can't smoke. Let the owner of the building decide that and non-smokers can decide if they want to go there or not.

Maybe it's just my dislike for the government in general. I hate that they worry about stuff like smoking laws, forcing me to buy an HD tv,
No one has to buy an HD TV. You don't have to buy a TV that receives digital signals. You don't even have to buy a converter if you want to watch TV and use your current old-fashioned analog TV - Government, in Its Infinite Wisdon is going to give two vouchers to every household, each good for converter box to receive the newfangled digital broadcast TV signals and convert them to analog so you can still use your old TV, should you wish to view the damned "programming" (puns apply here) of broadcast television (not to imply that cable or satellite/"dish" TV is any different).
and other such stupid stuff. Don't they have better things to do...like fixing the fucking economy?
RUN FOR OFFICE, SPORK.
Okay, but my vote's for kristie.
Seriously. That was a classic post. When I get off the train each morning, all the smokers dying to get their fix start puffing away. I like holding my breath and then loudly exhaling near/into their faces as I walk by them. No one has called me on it yet, but I remain hopeful that one of them says something.
How could they say anything? They're too busy inhaling.

larocca
12-28-2007, 06:54 PM
I'm about as conflicted as it gets. I quit smoking 5 years ago. In China, if you can believe it. They eat with chopsticks in one hand and a cigarette in the other. I think it'd be okay to set a smoker on fire. Just for the deterrent value.

I also just finished editing 74 pages about the new Thai constitution. I'd be an expert if I could remember any of it. 12 hours in one day, with a five-hour bike marathon in between, so I'm burned out, but damn that'll pay the rent for the month, with some left over for cigarettes. No, wait, I don't smoke. Cat tuna, then. Always a winner.

(P.S. Spork? Nah. I'd vote for Susie.)

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 06:55 PM
Most states do selective banning with alcohol, you're not allowed to drink while driving. I've heard Texas law is different, though like others they still require the driver's blood alcohol content to be below a certain amount.

I think there's a vast difference between a substance like alcohol that shouldn't be used in certain situations but also has proven health benefits when used in moderation compared to a substance that has absolutely no redeeming benefits and in fact has been proven to be 100% harmful.

melaniehoo
12-28-2007, 07:05 PM
I agree with the smoking bans. I recognize it infringes on rights, in the sense that you can't do everything you want, in every place imaginable. But what if you equate it to another activity that many people enjoy, but you're not allowed to do in public. Something no one complains about but accepts as normal, and no one bats an eye if people are arrested for doing it in public? The activity? Sex.

xhouseboy
12-28-2007, 07:25 PM
As a non smoker who's lived with the smoking ban for the past couple of years, I now want my govt to go even further.

I want obese people banned from eating too much. Obesity is now becoming the biggest burden on our public health service, and as a non obese taxpayer I could one day be denied vital health care due to the mounting pressures on these services.

I also want school runs banned. I'm sick to the teeth of turning up at school with my kids and feeling like I'm in the middle of a stock car rally, wading through a fug of exhaust fumes as 4x4's disgorge a solitary child.

Nah, I'm joking. I don't really want these things.

But they're coming.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 08:15 PM
It comes down to choices and what role we want our government playing?

Do we want an all powerful nanny looking out for our best interests despite what we want? "We know what's better for you than you do!"

Well, in some cases yes, others no.

Obesity. Overeating is our problem and our choice. However, dangerous foods, that's the FDA's problem. Cyclamates. Cause cancer. Banned. Transfats. Harmful. Gradually being banned state by state.

Asbestos. Harmful. Banned.

Lead. Harmful. Banned from gas, paint, etc.

Tobacco. Deadly. Kills us. Selectively forcing certain establishments to not allow it on the premises while still making it widely available to anyone to purchase.

Anyone see a disparity here?

scarletpeaches
12-28-2007, 08:21 PM
Of course smoking in public places should be banned. My right to breathe clean air is greater than your self-inflicted addiction masquerading as a 'right' to smoke.

I need oxygen to live. You don't need nicotine.

scarletpeaches
12-28-2007, 08:23 PM
I'm an ex-smoker (okay, occasional smoker) and I don't care that I can't smoke in a restaurant. I like to smoke in bars when I drink but if I can't, then I can't. However, I don't like the government telling me where I can and can't smoke. Let the owner of the building decide that and non-smokers can decide if they want to go there or not.

Maybe it's just my dislike for the government in general. I hate that they worry about stuff like smoking laws, forcing me to buy an HD tv, and other such stupid stuff. Don't they have better things to do...like fixing the fucking economy?

The trouble with that is, if even one person smokes in a room, EVERY non-smoker can smell it and is forced to breathe it in. Why should a non-smoker's social life be curtailed just because a smoker refuses to control their habit?

mscelina
12-28-2007, 08:53 PM
As much as I hate to crash this thread, I feel obligated to.

Last year, on December 6th, Ohio's smoking ban went into effect. Also on December 6th, at about 8 p.m., the state Attorney General announced that there would initially be no penalties involved in the smoking ban. Why? Because they had no way to enforce it. Bars all over Ohio immediately put their ashtrays back out. Some didn't. I worked in one that remained in compliance of the law; I took a 60% income hit right before Christmas.

They began 'enforcing' the law in May of this year. The state set up a phone line and website where people could anonymously leave complaints about places in non-compliance. Would these charges be investigated? Nah. An anonymous complaint was enough to get an establishment cited. On the first day of the law's enforcement, the bar I worked in was cited despite being the only bar in this town that had complied. The complaint read as follows:

At approximately 4 p.m. on May 3rd, customers were gathered outside the front door smoking and flicking their ashes on the sidewalk.

Now that the Ohio smoking 'ban' has been in effect for a year, half the bars in this town still have ashtrays out. The reason? They don't get cited. I think one bar has two citations, and they have a collection jar out to collect the money to pay the fines.

So here's my take on smoking bans. First off, tobacco is a legal product. The government makes huge revenue from the sale of tobacco--they tax the hell out of it. Smoking will never be illegal for that reason alone--well that and the failure of a little thing called Prohibition. If such is the case, then how can you prevent adults (who pay those taxes) to partake of a completely legal substance? Secondly, did anyone consider the small business owners (and their employees) when these laws were constructed? Apparently not; the loss of business, profit, and income as a result of these bans is not only significant, it's critical. Even now, a year later, my income is impacted severely as a result of the smoking ban. Third, what would really be the problem with having establishments that permit smoking? Yeah, yeah I know--non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe second-hand smoke. I get that; I don't have a problem with it. I actually think that non-smoking restaurants are great; I don't want to smell smoke while I eat. But bars? Bowling alleys? Private clubs? What's the big deal there?

It occurs to me that all of this energy spent upon enforcing a ban against a completely legal substance could be utilized elsewhere and have a greater effect upon society. Instead of clogging up the court system with state prosecutions of offenders (and yes, in Ohio when you get ticketed for smoking it's just like a traffic ticket) couldn't the government be investigating drug dealers? pedophiles? how about plain old burglars?

*shrug* Or how about using the money the law sucks up for education and/or rehabilitation for smokers? Oh no, wait--that's too positive. It's much easier to punish an adult for using a completely legal substance in a public place than it is to try and help them break the habit.

mscelina
12-28-2007, 08:59 PM
Of course smoking in public places should be banned. My right to breathe clean air is greater than your self-inflicted addiction masquerading as a 'right' to smoke.

I need oxygen to live. You don't need nicotine.

Okay, for argument's sake, when did your rights become greater than mine? Let's say my right to drive in safety is greater than your need to talk on the phone. Or, my right to a vegetarian lifestyle is greater than your right to consume trans fats? Or, how about this: my right to express my opinion is greater than your right to express yours? If you don't want to see drunks, don't go to a bar. If you don't want to see obese people, don't go to McDonald's. If you don't want to smell smoke, patronize non-smoking establishments. *shrug* makes more sense to me than some blanket comment about how your rights supersede those of your peers.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 09:01 PM
First off, tobacco is a legal product. The government makes huge revenue from the sale of tobacco--they tax the hell out of it. Smoking will never be illegal for that reason alone--well that and the failure of a little thing called Prohibition.

This is why banning of smoking in public is so hypocritical.

It's a deadly product and yet the government is making a ton of money off of it in taxes!

And Prohibition failed because you can make alcohol in your home. You can make it nearly anywhere with all sorts of homemade equipment.

Tobacco cannot be made at home unless you happen to have tobacco plants and I don't think you can get those seeds in the lawn and garden supply.

There might be a black market from overseas, but nowhere to the extent of prohibition. Why? Because the majority of smokers all feel guilty anyway and if it was banned they'd all accept it and quit.

mscelina
12-28-2007, 09:08 PM
actually, you can get seeds from farm/hardware stores. Trust me: my dad owns a farm store in Tennessee--prime tobacco country.

So tobacco should be banned because it's deadly? Well then so should alcohol, trans fat products, sugar...hell, in a laboratory test rats will die from a surfeit of peanut butter if you feed them too much of it. Cars are deadly; so are firearms and bladed objects---I mean where in the hell does it all stop?

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that most smokers feel guilty anyway, Ed. Most of the smokers I know are unrepentant and defiant, not guilt-ridden and taken to smoking in the closet.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 09:27 PM
Alcohol isn't deadly in moderation, it has proven health benefits. It's only when its ABUSED that it's harmful.

Peanut butter? If you stuff 5 pounds of any substance into a rat's gullet it will kill it!

And transfats ARE being banned. New York has done it and other states are following.

We always ban substances that have proven negative health effects. I mentioned Cyclamates before. They banned pHiso-Hex (Hexachlorophene)(which was the only damned thing that controlled my pimples, dangit!).

They ban deadly substances all the time.

And most intelligent smokers understand just how deadly the addiction is and would like nothing better than for the government to take the gun out of their hand before they pull the trigger again.

I'm sure once tabacco is outlawed you won't find the seeds in your Tennesee stores.

SC Harrison
12-28-2007, 09:35 PM
Even though I'm a smoker, I support banning indoor smoking in public places (even bars) as well as outdoor areas where pedestrian traffic is restricted (funneled) into a small area. I would even go as far as not allowing an adult to smoke in a car with minors riding along.

But efforts to make entire cities (even outdoor spaces) smoke-free and/or making smoking in your own home or car illegal is going (way) too far. If city-dwellers are that concerned about carbon monoxide, they need to do a little research about the emissions from that vehicle they're driving, and pass some laws to get their public transit more active.

mscelina
12-28-2007, 09:38 PM
*once tobacco is outlawed*

outlawed? uh....I don't ever see that happening. The government can't afford to outlaw it. The economies of several Southern states depend upon the revenue from tobacco sales: in my hometown there are acres and acres of tobacco growing in Tennessee clay. Tobacco lobbyists infiltrate Washington, spending millions of dollars to buy our legislators' votes.

My problem is this: why in the world should our government attempt to regulate every decision an adult makes? I don't NEED to be told how to behave; I'll figure it out on my own, thank you very much. Period. If that involves smoking and doughnuts and beer and McDonalds' fries it is NONE OF MY GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Use the energy to chase CRIMINALS. Leave the law-abiding citizens with different lifestyle choices alone. If a person can't see how this governmental intrusion into individual lives will and can escalate, that's really the most terrifying aspect of this whole discussion.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 09:44 PM
*once tobacco is outlawed*

outlawed? uh....I don't ever see that happening. The government can't afford to outlaw it. The economies of several Southern states depend upon the revenue from tobacco sales: in my hometown there are acres and acres of tobacco growing in Tennessee clay. Tobacco lobbyists infiltrate Washington, spending millions of dollars to buy our legislators' votes.

My problem is this: why in the world should our government attempt to regulate every decision an adult makes? I don't NEED to be told how to behave; I'll figure it out on my own, thank you very much. Period. If that involves smoking and doughnuts and beer and McDonalds' fries it is NONE OF MY GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.


As I said, the government is making too much money off of tabacco to outlaw it. And that is pure hypocricy.

And the government wouldn't be regulating our DECISION to smoke if it banned tabacco as a toxic substance. It would be doing what it always does and what we pay it to do, protect our health from dangerous products.

The government regulates harmful substances every day. I just listed a few. I'm sure if you google "FDA banned substances" or something you'll come up with a definitive list as long as your arm on substances the government has already banned because they are harmful to us.

There is no law giving us the freedom to ingest deadly substances. Using tabacco isn't a right.

If tabacco was discovered today and someone tried to get it approved for human consumption they'd be laughed out of the FDA offices.

benbradley
12-28-2007, 10:26 PM
*once tobacco is outlawed*

outlawed? uh....I don't ever see that happening. The government can't afford to outlaw it. The economies of several Southern states depend upon the revenue from tobacco sales: in my hometown there are acres and acres of tobacco growing in Tennessee clay. Tobacco lobbyists infiltrate Washington, spending millions of dollars to buy our legislators' votes.
Actually I can see a continued increase in taxes and legislation limiting retail tobacco sales and use in the US, but growing and manufacture will continue to be big business, and more and more will be exported. I don't know how much US tobacco is exported, but I've heard it's been on the increase in recent decades. The companies are targeting other countries who are either developing and "aren't aware" of the health concerns, or who have governments less willing to intrude on the smoking habits of its citizens - that covers most of the rest of the world.
My problem is this: why in the world should our government attempt to regulate every decision an adult makes? I don't NEED to be told how to behave; I'll figure it out on my own, thank you very much. Period. If that involves smoking and doughnuts and beer and McDonalds' fries it is NONE OF MY GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.
The Government is justifying it making it its business because of what bad smoking/diet decisions will cost to "Universal Health Care," yet another aspect of the US Government controlling the lives of its citizens. "Some people don't have health care!" (what they really mean is some people don't have health INSURANCE). "This cannot go on! The Government MUST fix this!"

One problem in this area is that Government already covers so much, such as the hospital costs of those injured WHILE BREAKING THE LAW (for example, having a motorcycle wreck while NOT wearing a helmet in a state that requires motorcyclists to wear helmets) because it would be "inhumane" to let them die due to lack of care.
Use the energy to chase CRIMINALS. Leave the law-abiding citizens with different lifestyle choices alone. If a person can't see how this governmental intrusion into individual lives will and can escalate, that's really the most terrifying aspect of this whole discussion.
The War On Drugs has been going strong for many decades (a recent NPR report on the alleged "cocaine shortage" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17637156)), just wait until the War On Obesity gets its official start. Don't worry, Dear Citizen, it's all "for your own good."

mscelina
12-28-2007, 10:50 PM
hmmph. I don't need the government to do anything 'for my own good.' My once-upon-a-time good income was 'for my own good' and they managed to screw that up by trying to ban a legal substance. Oh well, when they owe me money this year instead of the other way around, perhaps it will be all worthwhile. I keep my nose out of other people's closets so maybe thats why I resent someone else sticking their nose in mine. It's bullsh*t.

Bartholomew
12-28-2007, 10:59 PM
*once tobacco is outlawed*

outlawed? uh....I don't ever see that happening. The government can't afford to outlaw it. The economies of several Southern states depend upon the revenue from tobacco sales: in my hometown there are acres and acres of tobacco growing in Tennessee clay. Tobacco lobbyists infiltrate Washington, spending millions of dollars to buy our legislators' votes.

My problem is this: why in the world should our government attempt to regulate every decision an adult makes? I don't NEED to be told how to behave; I'll figure it out on my own, thank you very much. Period. If that involves smoking and doughnuts and beer and McDonalds' fries it is NONE OF MY GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Use the energy to chase CRIMINALS. Leave the law-abiding citizens with different lifestyle choices alone. If a person can't see how this governmental intrusion into individual lives will and can escalate, that's really the most terrifying aspect of this whole discussion.

Did you turn out to vote when they wanted to pass these ordinances on a local level?

mscelina
12-28-2007, 11:05 PM
Of course. I always vote. That darn political science degree compels me to do so. The thing of it was, when the ordinance was listed on the ballot there was a similiar ordinance listed right beside it--one that would have permitted smoking in small bars, etc. The language of the two ordinances at the beginning was almost identical. There is a teensy conspiracy theory running around Ohio that the second ordinance was a plant to 'encourage' people to vote for the total smoking ban.

I read through them both before I voted, however. It's amazing how much information you can receive from actually READING a proposed law before voting for or against it.

But I'm not bitter. ;)

William Haskins
12-28-2007, 11:16 PM
the old adage about people getting the government they deserve keeps playing through my mind as i read this thread.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 11:20 PM
the old adage about people getting the government they deserve keeps playing through my mind as i read this thread.
You mean a government that protects us from hazardous chemicals and substances like lead, PCPs, DDT, tholidomide, epherderine, aspbestos, and so on? That government?

mscelina
12-28-2007, 11:22 PM
You mean a government that protects us from hazardous chemicals and substances like lead, PCPs, DDT, tholidomide, epherderine, aspbestos, and so on? That government?

Nah. Probably the government that feels obligated to tell people how to live their lives. That government.

William Haskins
12-28-2007, 11:23 PM
You mean a government that protects us from hazardous chemicals and substances like lead, PCPs, DDT, tholidomide, epherderine, aspbestos, and so on? That government?

i think it's a pretty self-evident statement. don't get all shaky on that soapbox. i wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2007, 11:24 PM
Nah. Probably the government that feels obligated to tell people how to live their lives. That government.I never said I agree with that government. I have said I don't want them to be my nanny. Its none of their business if I wear a seat belt or a helmet or if I enjoy McDonald's or donuts.

However, if a substance is as toxic and deadly as tobacco has been proven to be, I DO expect them to ban it as they would any other toxic substance.

i think it's a pretty self-evident statement. don't get all shaky on that soapbox. i wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.

Actually, it's rock solid.

mscelina
12-28-2007, 11:34 PM
I never said I agree with that government. I have said I don't want them to be my nanny. Its none of their business if I wear a seat belt or a helmet or if I enjoy McDonald's or donuts.

However, if a substance is as toxic and deadly as tobacco has been proven to be, I DO expect them to ban it as they would any other toxic substance.


Ed, seriously, don't you see a slight bent towards hypocrisy in this last statement of yours? For example, hasn't it been proven that riding without a seat belt increases a person's risk for death or serious injury? That sounds pretty deadly to me. How about trans fat? Obesity is one of the top contributors to heart disease, as I am well aware seeing as my FIL is having triple bypass surgery today. Hmm....seems pretty toxic to me.

You're trying to justify banning a product that you DON'T use while arguing against a ban on products you DO (I assume) use. So tell me again: what precisely is the difference. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't see how one person's rights can effectively supersede another person's rights when both are adults.

William Haskins
12-28-2007, 11:42 PM
self-interest often masquerades as the greater good.

robeiae
12-28-2007, 11:53 PM
the old adage about people getting the government they deserve keeps playing through my mind as i read this thread.
And President Ford's:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."


Mscelina's Ohio info is right on. The economic consequences for bars and restaurants to ban smoking are more negative than positive, as has been demonstrated in Ohio. So Spork, when you say...
Also, from the standpoint of running a restaurant, the ban's been a lot better for business....I'd like to see you back it up. I don't think you can.

I don't smoke. I think it's gross. And there are plenty of other things I don't do because of my personal choices/reasons. But to suppose that I have the right--because of my personal preferences--to insist that others change their behavior to suite me is outrageous. The only person that should be allowed to decide if smoking is/is not allowed on a given piece of property IS THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY. Bars and restaurants don't need the government here. If banning smoking was a positive for business, they'd do it themselves.

As to public space, I just can't fathom how all the pollutants put in the air by vehicles, factories, and the like are somehow of such minor consideration, as compared to second hand smoke. Obviously, if someone is blowing smoke in your face, you have a legitimate gripe. But other than that, I don't see it. At all.

mscelina
12-29-2007, 12:26 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention that while smoking is no longer permitted in public places in Ohio, there is an exception made for nursing homes.

You see that, right? Nursing home patients are allowed to smoke in their rooms, with a percentage of rooms allocated to smoking--15%, I believe.

Thanks, Robiae. The smoking ban has been a pain in my keyster since the beginning.l The bar I work in is a small neighborhood bar--only five employees and then only one at a time. On my shifts, I am expected to police not only the interior of my establishment, but now apparently the exterior since the business may be fined if someone is smoking too close to the front door. So if someone walking down the street is smoking and they walk in front of the bar on the public sidewalk there is a possibility that we could be cited.

By anonymous narcing, I might add. Ohio doesn't have 'cigarette cops'; instead it has a system in place where complaints may not even be investigated before a citation letter is issued against the offending company. As a matter of fact, a local bar owner just got busted for entering complaints against every other bar in town. Just for the hell of it, for the aggravation factor, he tied up the system with bogus complaints. Nice. particularly when if a bar has been cited three or more times, their liquor license will be confiscated. Why? Because the state of Ohio will turn them over to the EPA as an environmental hazard.

Bird of Prey
12-29-2007, 12:31 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention that while smoking is no longer permitted in public places in Ohio, there is an exception made for nursing homes.

You see that, right? Nursing home patients are allowed to smoke in their rooms, with a percentage of rooms allocated to smoking--15%, I believe.

Thanks, Robiae. The smoking ban has been a pain in my keyster since the beginning.l The bar I work in is a small neighborhood bar--only five employees and then only one at a time. On my shifts, I am expected to police not only the interior of my establishment, but now apparently the exterior since the business may be fined if someone is smoking too close to the front door. So if someone walking down the street is smoking and they walk in front of the bar on the public sidewalk there is a possibility that we could be cited.

By anonymous narcing, I might add. Ohio doesn't have 'cigarette cops'; instead it has a system in place where complaints may not even be investigated before a citation letter is issued against the offending company. As a matter of fact, a local bar owner just got busted for entering complaints against every other bar in town. Just for the hell of it, for the aggravation factor, he tied up the system with bogus complaints. Nice. particularly when if a bar has been cited three or more times, their liquor license will be confiscated. Why? Because the state of Ohio will turn them over to the EPA as an environmental hazard.

OMG. My sympathies. We need a law against laws.

Shadow_Ferret
12-29-2007, 12:40 AM
Ed, seriously, don't you see a slight bent towards hypocrisy in this last statement of yours? For example, hasn't it been proven that riding without a seat belt increases a person's risk for death or serious injury? That sounds pretty deadly to me. How about trans fat? Obesity is one of the top contributors to heart disease, as I am well aware seeing as my FIL is having triple bypass surgery today. Hmm....seems pretty toxic to me.

You're trying to justify banning a product that you DON'T use while arguing against a ban on products you DO (I assume) use. So tell me again: what precisely is the difference. As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't see how one person's rights can effectively supersede another person's rights when both are adults.Transfat is being banned. I've pointed that out. Other deadly SUBSTANCES are being banned. Tobacco is not and should be.

Seat belt is a choice. I haven't been arguing choice. Smoking is a choice. I haven't argued against banning SMOKING. It IS still legal. I don't believe the government has an business telling a PRIVATE BUSINESS how to run things. If a restaurants want to allow people to smoke, that is their choice.

I don't think I'm being hypocritical at all.

I DO smoke. I smoke cigars.

But I do know the difference between substances that have a value if used judiciously, alcohol proves health benefits if not abused and a substance that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Opty
12-29-2007, 02:10 AM
Okay, for argument's sake, when did your rights become greater than mine? Let's say my right to drive in safety is greater than your need to talk on the phone. Or, my right to a vegetarian lifestyle is greater than your right to consume trans fats? Or, how about this: my right to express my opinion is greater than your right to express yours? If you don't want to see drunks, don't go to a bar. If you don't want to see obese people, don't go to McDonald's. If you don't want to smell smoke, patronize non-smoking establishments. *shrug* makes more sense to me than some blanket comment about how your rights supersede those of your peers.

None of your examples applies to smoking. Some of them are actually so non-applicable they're ridiculous (veganism? You seriously think that at all applies?)

When one smokes, that cancer-causing, repiratory tract inflamming substance disperses throughout the surrounding air (sometimes hundreds of feet) and enters the lungs of other innocent people, negatively affecting their health.

Trans fats don't float through the air and enter the bodies of other non-trans-fats-eaters. Veganism doesn't float through the air and affect passersby. Obesity is not a communicable disease.

If you still don't see how smoking is much worse in its affect on people who aren't smoking via second-hand smoke than any of the illogical examples you provided, then perhaps all persuasive arguments you read are wasted.

Opty
12-29-2007, 02:24 AM
The economic consequences for bars and restaurants to ban smoking are more negative than positive, as has been demonstrated in Ohio. So Spork, when you say......I'd like to see you back it up. I don't think you can.

Just because someone from Ohio says it, doesn't make it true.

As far as my statement, considering that I actually run a restaurant, the only numbers I could show you would be internal sales numbers, which I doubt I'm permitted to share on a public forum, since I work for a privately held company.

However, I can say that our bar sales have not been negatively affected at all and our bar percentage of sales is actually up (although, restaurant sales throughout the nation are down overall) because non-smokers no longer avoid our bar, and we no longer have to go on long waits for non-smoking tables because no one wants to sit in the smoking section. By eliminating the smoking section, we are able to seat more people faster (long wait times drive people away).

I've probably heard 1 or 2 patrons complain about the ban versus several dozen who praise it.

The only reason our state government passed the law was because 80% of the population demanded it for years.

So, should we blame the government or the citizens?

Blaming the government is moronic. When the majority of people in a state demand to have a lottery, and the state finally passes it, people start talking about how their vote counts and how government is following the "will of the people."

But, when the majority of people in a state demand to ban smoking, and the state finally passes it, some people start whining that the government is "infringing their rights" and that "this is only the beginning. They're gonna start banning X next!" and other such illogical slippery slope / snowball arguments.

Government only "infringes on citizen's rights" when they do something the majority wants that an outvoted, whining minority doesn't like.

In the spirit of some of the smoker apologists (i.e., "if you don't like smoke, don't go to those places that allow it"), I suggest that if you don't like smoking bans, move to a state that doesn't have one. That's just as fair as what they suggest, right?

mscelina
12-29-2007, 02:42 AM
None of your examples applies to smoking. Some of them are actually so non-applicable they're ridiculous (veganism? You seriously think that at all applies?)

When one smokes, that cancer-causing, repiratory tract inflamming substance disperses throughout the surrounding air (sometimes hundreds of feet) and enters the lungs of other innocent people, negatively affecting their health.

Trans fats don't float through the air and enter the bodies of other non-trans-fats-eaters. Veganism doesn't float through the air and affect passersby. Obesity is not a communicable disease.

If you still don't see how smoking is much worse in its affect on people who aren't smoking via second-hand smoke than any of the illogical examples you provided, then perhaps all persuasive arguments you read are wasted.

Ridiculous? I'm so sorry that the fine art and skills of allegory are lost upon you. Aside from the fact that you misquote me, which is understandable judging from the well-thought-out argument you attempt to make, you obviously don't understand the references I'm making. Let me help you.

I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE SMOKING--OR EATING--or whatever. What I DO care about is my government wasting its time and energy to DICTATE THE DECISIONS THAT PEOPLE MAKE in some wild, silly hope to get everyone to conform to some preconceived notion of acceptability.

Hopefully the caps make my point easier to find.

What started for me in this thread as a sharing of my own personal experiences regarding the smoking ban in Ohio and my opinions about that has now turned into some sort of dismissive condescension on the part of someone that I do not even know. Your bar business is up? Bully for you. My bar business is down. So what shall we make of that? I can tell you this much: when someone from Ohio is discussing their personal experiences with something in Ohio, it's probably pretty stupid to dismiss that person as summarily as you did.

Just a thought...

Opty
12-29-2007, 02:58 AM
How did I misquote you? I quoted your entire post. And, just because I showed that your examples were inapplicable to the actual topic, don't get all defensive and start accusing me of being condescending. That "taking your ball and going home" mentality doesn't sustain productive debates.

Ridiculous? I'm so sorry that the fine art and skills of allegory are lost upon you. Aside from the fact that you misquote me, which is understandable judging from the well-thought-out argument you attempt to make, you obviously don't understand the references I'm making. Let me help you.

Thanks for the help, but there was no allegory in the post of yours that I quoted. Perhaps you're confusing the term with "hypothetical" or another related term.

And, talk about condescending posts, yours fits that to a T.

The post of yours that I quoted was a general one which was addressing general ideas, not specific to Ohio. Since this issue affects states other than Ohio and happens to affect my state and several of its surrounding states, I have every "right" to address the issue (which, as I've pointed out, is not limited to Ohio and neither was anything in your post).

What started for me in this thread as a sharing of my own personal experiences regarding the smoking ban in Ohio and my opinions about that has now turned into some sort of dismissive condescension on the part of someone that I do not even know. Your bar business is up? Bully for you. My bar business is down. So what shall we make of that? I can tell you this much: when someone from Ohio is discussing their personal experiences with something in Ohio, it's probably pretty stupid to dismiss that person as summarily as you did.

Just a thought...

1) The post of yours I quoted had little to do with Ohio, as your had argumentatively moved onto more general issues.

2) It's obvious from that post that you were making a commanding, asseritive argument and not simply "sharing a pesonal experience." Please don't melodramatize your post into more than it was in a thin effort to make me out to look like some mean bully simply for disagreeing with you. That's disingenuous, at best, and downright mendacious, at worst.

3) As this thread is about banning smoking (in general) and not about Ohio, perhaps you should revisit the original post in this thread to see that I was addressing the original topic and the arguments people had made related to it, and was not "dismissing" your experiences in Ohio...which the post of your I quoted was not directly dealing with.

The fact is, your examples do not apply to the actual topic. You were trying to dismiss previous arguments by redefining a public health issue (smoking in public) into some sort of "personal rights" issue, which it is not. The bans are not meant to "infringe on anyone's rights" (even though there is no "right to smoke"); they are meant to protect public health.

If laws protecting public health are so bad because they "infringe on rights," perhaps you'd be in favor of getting rid of vaccinations and the CDC?

Your examples ranged from eating habits to voicing opinions. The "right" to voice one's opinions does not in any way equate to a person's health being negatively affected by second-hand smoke. No one has suggested that people's opinions or "right" to express those opinions be banned or that they instantly negatively affect the respiratory health of bystanders. Therefore, your example is illogical.

As someone else has suggested, trans fats have been banned in some places (which applies to your example of eating). However, the public consumption of trans fats does not in any way negatively affect the health of people around that person.

This issue is that smoking and its negative health effects is not contained solely to the person smoking, but is transmitted through the air to everyone within dozens of feet around the person smoking. That makes it a public health risk and therefore, when enough people get tired of their health being negatively affected by the actions of a few, they band together and push for a law banning it.

xhouseboy
12-29-2007, 03:02 AM
This was something that was doing the rounds when the smoking ban came into law in the UK.



Obituary

The Very Sad Passing of Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old common sense was since the birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

Common Sense's health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust. His Wife; Discretion; His daughter; Responsibility; His Son Reason....

He is survived by three stepbrothers, I Know My Rights; Someone Else Is To Blame and I Am A Victim....


Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing!

Amen

Williebee
12-29-2007, 03:12 AM
Some well thought out and insightful stuff in this thread.

Thanks to all involved!

Unique
12-29-2007, 03:19 AM
I quit smoking over 30 years ago, and I hate it, but I will defend the rights of smokers, just as I will defend the rights of those who choose to eat fats, get a tattoo, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Our right to be stupid must trump government's desire to take care of us, or we don't have freedom. It's one thing for government to inform, but quite another to intrude.



Remember this day, Gary. I agree with you 100%.

I just quit recently (as some of you will {fondly/not so fondly} recall) but more than smoking/not smoking - I really hate people telling me what to do.
I rarely did smoke in restaurants (unless they were more than incredibly slow) it's just not polite. Period.

robeiae
12-29-2007, 03:38 AM
Just because someone from Ohio says it, doesn't make it true.Yet, there is reality. The specifics of your situation don't make your statement true, at all. Sure, some restaurants--particularly those that don't have a bar--might not see a loss. But the idea that banning smoking will help business seems counter intuitive. And you seem to be out on a limb...

http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/BUSINESS/711180308
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i57dZa3gcNKxVc4uEpYoDmVlo9yAD8TQKO800
http://www.timberjay.com/current.php?article=3983
http://centralillinoisproud.com/content/fulltext/?cid=5622
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071228/METRO/941614942/1004


As far as my statement, considering that I actually run a restaurant, the only numbers I could show you would be internal sales numbers, which I doubt I'm permitted to share on a public forum, since I work for a privately held company.

However, I can say that our bar sales have not been negatively affected at all and our bar percentage of sales is actually up (although, restaurant sales throughout the nation are down overall) because non-smokers no longer avoid our bar, and we no longer have to go on long waits for non-smoking tables because no one wants to sit in the smoking section. By eliminating the smoking section, we are able to seat more people faster (long wait times drive people away).
Well, you could have eliminated the smoking section on your own years ago. Why didn't you?
I've probably heard 1 or 2 patrons complain about the ban versus several dozen who praise it.Of course, maybe some "patrons" are no longer available to comment.


The only reason our state government passed the law was because 80% of the population demanded it for years.

So, should we blame the government or the citizens?
The government. It's supposed to protect freedom, not cater to the will of the masses. I'm surprised to see you take this tact.

Blaming the government is moronic. When the majority of people in a state demand to have a lottery, and the state finally passes it, people start talking about how their vote counts and how government is following the "will of the people."
No, it's not moronic. I blame the government for the lottery, as well. People--as a group--are morons. You know this.

But, when the majority of people in a state demand to ban smoking, and the state finally passes it, some people start whining that the government is "infringing their rights" and that "this is only the beginning. They're gonna start banning X next!" and other such illogical slippery slope / snowball arguments.
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that smoking is not an illegal activity. And tobacco is not an illegal substance.
Government only "infringes on citizen's rights" when they do something the majority wants that an outvoted, whining minority doesn't like.Scary. Truly scary. I can feel Madison convulsing in his grave right now.

In the spirit of some of the smoker apologists (i.e., "if you don't like smoke, don't go to those places that allow it"), I suggest that if you don't like smoking bans, move to a state that doesn't have one. That's just as fair as what they suggest, right?No. Private property remains an essential--indeed, the essential--aspect of our entire system. If I want to allow smoking on my property, I defy you to explain why I should not be allowed to make that choice, given that the activity I am allowing is not illegal. Allowing the government this degree of control over private property is what is insane. Steady and slow machinations...

Susan Gable
12-29-2007, 03:43 AM
i think it's a pretty self-evident statement. don't get all shaky on that soapbox. i wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.

That's it! Outlaw soapboxes! Somebody could get hurt!

Susan G.

billythrilly7th
12-29-2007, 04:17 AM
With so many excellent advances in nicotine addiction treatment over the past few years, it absolutely boggles my mind how someone over the age of 25 still smokes.

I just don't understand why with life being so precious and smoking being so awful you wouldn't want to quit this pointless addiction. It only feels good because of the addiction. I've yet to meet someone who's never smoked, sucks down a few and says "I feel great" like with a beer or two. They usually turn yellow and get naseous.

But I've never smoked, so I guess I don't understand the stranglehold it may have on ya. That feeding of the nicotine addiction must really feel fantastic. I don't know.

But millions have quit. It seems to be much easier than back in the day with patches and gums and common sense quitting programs like this one...

Thrilly Quiting Smoking Plan:

Smoke one less cigarette every day for a week.
Then one less after that for a week.

Until one day, you've quit smoking.

Common sense and not that hard.

Good luck!!

Opty
12-29-2007, 07:18 AM
Yet, there is reality. The specifics of your situation don't make your statement true, at all. Sure, some restaurants--particularly those that don't have a bar--might not see a loss. But the idea that banning smoking will help business seems counter intuitive.

I challenge you to find anywhere in this or any other thread where I said that "banning smoking will help businesses." You can't because I didn't.

However, that is a cute little strawman. Maybe if you dress him up, he'll dance with you.

To keep you honest, here's exactly what I said:

However, I can say that our bar sales have not been negatively affected at all and our bar percentage of sales is actually up (although, restaurant sales throughout the nation are down overall) because non-smokers no longer avoid our bar, and we no longer have to go on long waits for non-smoking tables because no one wants to sit in the smoking section. By eliminating the smoking section, we are able to seat more people faster (long wait times drive people away).

Well, you could have eliminated the smoking section on your own years ago. Why didn't you?

I'm not the owner, therefore not my decision. I tried to convince the local owner that going nonsmoking would actually be better for business, as we'd have a niche, but he didn't go for it out of fear of bad public perception. Seems he was wrong since the law passed due to the majority of the public wanting it.

I think the TN law is a least a little more reasonable with it. It's a ban in all public buildings, including restaurants, however it does not apply to age-restricted facilities or bars/establishments which do at least 70% of their sales from alcohol (there are other exemptions, but they are irrelevant to this post).

That makes sense to me because bars and age-restricted clubs attract a lot of smokers who like to enjoy a smoke while they drink. In a family restaurant, though, allowing smoking is negligent.

The government. It's supposed to protect freedom, not cater to the will of the masses. I'm surprised to see you take this tact.

Our Constitution is founded on the tenet of "majority rule with minority rights." Banning smoking in public places, at least in TN, is a perfect example of majority rule. Allowing exemptions and smoking on private property is catering to minority rights. It's a win-win.

And, unfortunately, "freedom" is only as "free" as the government allows. In our republic, this is dictated by majority rule (snide comments about Presidential elections not withstanding). If one doesn't like majority rule, well, moving overseas is always an option.

People--as a group--are morons. You know this.

Doesn't mean I like it.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that smoking is not an illegal activity.

It is in public places in TN now.

And tobacco is not an illegal substance.

No, and it shouldn't be.

No. Private property remains an essential--indeed, the essential--aspect of our entire system. If I want to allow smoking on my property, I defy you to explain why I should not be allowed to make that choice, given that the activity I am allowing is not illegal. Allowing the government this degree of control over private property is what is insane. Steady and slow machinations...

I "defy you" to show me where I ever suggested that such a right should be denied on someone's private property. I never did. Never have. Never will.

I was discussing the ban of smoking in public buildings/restaurants. I'm all for that. As far as smoking on private property, that should never be denied. Hell, I think it should be legal to smoke pot on private property.

I'm only referring to public.

clintl
12-29-2007, 07:30 AM
The right to personal liberty ends when it interferes with another's right to liberty. If your cigarette smoke is going to end up in someone else's lungs, the government has a legitimate reason to restrict where you can smoke.

blacbird
12-29-2007, 11:06 AM
The right to personal liberty ends when it interferes with another's right to liberty. If your cigarette smoke is going to end up in someone else's lungs, the government has a legitimate reason to restrict where you can smoke.

A-effing-men. There's a reason a lot of businesses, private enterprises, have voluntarily eliminated smoking from their workplaces. The big corporation I worked for over a decade ago did so, under no government pressure. There's a reason smokers drive around my city at -20F with the windows of their cars open. See if you can't guess what it is.

caw

scarletpeaches
12-29-2007, 01:14 PM
Okay, for argument's sake, when did your rights become greater than mine? Let's say my right to drive in safety is greater than your need to talk on the phone. Or, my right to a vegetarian lifestyle is greater than your right to consume trans fats? Or, how about this: my right to express my opinion is greater than your right to express yours? If you don't want to see drunks, don't go to a bar. If you don't want to see obese people, don't go to McDonald's. If you don't want to smell smoke, patronize non-smoking establishments. *shrug* makes more sense to me than some blanket comment about how your rights supersede those of your peers.

Because as I said in the post you quoted, I NEED oxygen to live. You don't NEED nicotine.

And for the record, I don't eat trans fats. And my right to express my opinion isn't greater than yours; they're equal. I never eat at McDonald's but avoiding fat people is difficult when you live in the fattest nation on earth after America. If I don't want to smell smoke, I avoid places where smokers hang out - but why should my social life be curtailed because of other people's desire to feed their self-inflicted addiction? Again, it comes down to my need for clean air and your lack of need of nictotine.

I ignored the 'driving while using a phone' question because that's just daft - if you're not in control of your vehicle, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. Besides which, I can't drive so it's irrelevant to me, but even if I could, I'd ignore the phone if it went. There's no call so important that it's worth my attention being divided while driving.

Joe270
12-29-2007, 01:17 PM
Smoke one less cigarette every day for a week.
Then one less after that for a week.

Until one day, you've quit smoking.

Common sense and not that hard.

I have never disagreed with you before, but this is completely wrong. It is hard to quit, especially if you don't want to, and especially if it is forced upon you.

The right to personal liberty ends when it interferes with another's right to liberty. If your cigarette smoke is going to end up in someone else's lungs, the government has a legitimate reason to restrict where you can smoke.

Then I have a legitimate reason to sue you for the car you drive. I hope you don't grill food, because I'll sue you for that, too. Your lawn mower really pisses me off. I don't mow my lawn, its xeriscaped for water savings. Your goddamn lawn mower is putting carcinogens into my home, into my kids lungs at fifty times the amount your damn SUV is dumping into my atmosphere. Screw you. I subsidize your goddamn SUV because of supply and demand with the cost of gasoline.

My hatred for this sorta shit is really starting to seethe now. Self-righteous, holier than thou bunch of hypocritical jerks. I want to know your lifestyle, and how you harm mine. Are you fat, and make me pay more for health insurance? Are you single, and engage in unprotected sex? Are you a kid, and do stupid things which send you to the emergency room and make my tax bucks go to fund your stupidity? Oh, but your lifestyle can't go under the microscope, oh, no. Ya bunch of Nazis.

The businesses which lose business due to these smoking bans must sue. The businesses established before the ban are hurt by laws which should not affect them. They should have been grandfathered in because the laws did not exist before. These laws are unconstitutional, especially those which exempt some businesses and not others. For instance, in Vegas, the casinos are exempt, but the bars with casinos are not. Mighty fine line.

Businesses are not allowed to capitalize on smoking, they can't keep non-smokers out. A company tried to start a smoker's airline, and got shot down. We can't open up a smokers sports bar, a smokers strip bar, or a smokers doughnut shop because maybe one goddamn non-smoker might walk in. Bullshit.

And they always campaign these laws with 'oh, it's for our children', well, stupid, keep your goddamn children out a bar. 21 years old, remember, stupid? I want to see those dumbasses cited with a $250 ticket like the smokers get. Theirs should be triple that, IMHO.

It is legal. This whole campaign is un-american and violates the constitution.

You have the freedom to leave if you don't like the smoke. Exercise that freedom. Don't restrict mine.

(last line deleted because they are all profanities anyway)

Joe270
12-29-2007, 01:24 PM
If I don't want to smell smoke, I avoid places where smokers hang out - but why should my social life be curtailed because of other people's desire to feed their self-inflicted addiction? Again, it comes down to my need for clean air and your lack of need of nictotine.

No, it comes from your need to come where we hang out, because you think the place is hip or cool. Find a garden bar, hang out there. Stay out of where we hang out.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2007, 01:26 PM
I don't have to, because smoking is banned in public places here, as it should be.

Joe270
12-29-2007, 01:36 PM
I'm sure you and your friend will enjoy 'slumming' into the illegal bars which allow smoking, because they are all the rage, and the bands are so great.

Then you'll screw all that up as well.

Like I said, it don't matter how pretty you are, we don't want you in our place. Stay out. Few are left.

But those that are left are making a whole lot of money.

I'm seriously considering opening up a Smoker's Town outside Vegas, where you can smoke anywhere, anytime. It would have it's own city limits, and you can smoke anywhere except when you're pumping gas. Pool halls, casinos, bars, music halls, strip clubs (all three kinds), pancake grills, restaraunts, pizza joints, all of them allow smoking. Plus, there'd be a smoking bus in from McKarran. Hell, we'd have our own airport after a bit, with our own smoking airline.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2007, 01:38 PM
You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Joe270
12-29-2007, 01:42 PM
No. My mother is dead.

Joe270
12-29-2007, 01:53 PM
Sorry, bad black humor. My mother is alive and well.

But we aren't big on kissing, anyway.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2007, 01:59 PM
Well you can have mine (if you can find her) and kill her if you like.

And I'm only slightly joking with that one.

robeiae
12-29-2007, 03:37 PM
I challenge you to find anywhere in this or any other thread where I said that "banning smoking will help businesses." You can't because I didn't.You're right. You didn't say that. What you said--and I quoted--was that:
Also, from the standpoint of running a restaurant, the ban's been a lot better for business.Note that you didn't qualify that remark, as pertaining to a restaurant you were running. So I could chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

But then, after I quoted you, your response was:
Just because someone from Ohio says it, doesn't make it true.So, you were clearly questioning what those running restaurants in Ohio were claiming, with regard to the effect of a ban on smoking.
However, that is a cute little strawman. Maybe if you dress him up, he'll dance with you.So calling "strawman" now is a little late, I think. And of course, doing so is an ad hominem.

But if you want to back out, it's cool.


Our Constitution is founded on the tenet of "majority rule with minority rights." Banning smoking in public places, at least in TN, is a perfect example of majority rule. Allowing exemptions and smoking on private property is catering to minority rights. It's a win-win.

And, unfortunately, "freedom" is only as "free" as the government allows. In our republic, this is dictated by majority rule (snide comments about Presidential elections not withstanding). If one doesn't like majority rule, well, moving overseas is always an option.



Doesn't mean I like it.



It is in public places in TN now.



No, and it shouldn't be.



I "defy you" to show me where I ever suggested that such a right should be denied on someone's private property. I never did. Never have. Never will.

I was discussing the ban of smoking in public buildings/restaurants. I'm all for that. As far as smoking on private property, that should never be denied. Hell, I think it should be legal to smoke pot on private property.

I'm only referring to public.A restaurant IS private property. Unless the state owns the restaurant. Where did this idea come from that businesses are public property, as a matter of course? They're not. So I reiterate my request.

Opty
12-29-2007, 03:48 PM
It's obvious I'm not going to change your mind that another person's health is important and deserves being protected, so I'll stop trying.

You're free to continue believing that it's okay for some people to do in public something that is an immediate health risk for everyone around them.

I'm just glad that the vast majority of people in my state are considerate enough to disagree with you.

robeiae
12-29-2007, 04:07 PM
It's obvious I'm not going to change your mind that another person's health is important and deserves being protected, so I'll stop trying.People should look out for their health. That I agree with. And I would like to think they would be considerate enough to look out for the health of others. It's when we start empowering the government to control our choices that you lose me. In this case, that control is being exercised over business owners. If I own a business, it really should be up to me, with regard to what I allow and don't allow on MY premises. I can't allow illegal activity. And the government has a legitimate right to zone my property. But I fail to see how smoking can be banned under either rubric.

And again, I think smoking is gross. So, I tend to avoid areas/places where people smoke. If the grocery store I shop at allowed smoking inside, I'd shop somewhere else. But if I go to a local dive for a beer, I know many will be smoking. So I'm fine with that.

You're free to continue believing that it's okay for some people to do in public something that is an immediate health risk for everyone around them.Immediate health risk? Walking out the door is a just as immediate health risk in most major metropolitan areas, I think.
I'm just glad that the vast majority of people in my state are considerate enough to disagree with you.Hopefully they'll soon recognize the dangers of heating homes with oil or gas, using combustion engines, burning anything at all, allowing consumption of alcohol, caffeine, and artificial sweeteners, selling fattening foods, and televising American Idol.

I yearn for the day when the government enfolds me like a warm blanket, thanks to the clear-minded and sensible majority.







Too thick?

xhouseboy
12-29-2007, 05:21 PM
Before the smoking ban was brought into effect in Scotland, the govt promised a full and frank debate about how it would be implemented.

Polls at the time showed that 70-80% of the population favoured segregated smoking areas in bars and the likes. Toleration, if you like. Freedom of choice. But we never did get our full and frank debate. It was substituted with a blanket ban.

The proposed smoking ban never bothered me. But that did.

As did this:

After the ban came into effect, Mel Smith (actor/director) was staging a play about Churchill at the Edinburgh Festival. He was threatened with closure of his play if he dared light up a cigar on stage. The full force of the new law would be brought to bear on him.

When the power's there, it's there to be wielded, and wielded it was - by the same donkeys who cobbled it together.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2007, 05:27 PM
Plus...Ken Stott can't smoke when he's filming Rebus. I mean...Rebus!

Bird of Prey
12-29-2007, 05:59 PM
Big Brother doesn't smoke.

Big Brother is watching out for you.

SC Harrison
12-29-2007, 08:43 PM
Sorry, bad black humor. My mother is alive and well.



That's f**ked up, Joe. The fact that I laughed at it is even more f**ked up.

billythrilly7th
12-29-2007, 09:12 PM
I have never disagreed with you before, but this is completely wrong. It is hard to quit, especially if you don't want to, and especially if it is forced upon you.

Have you tried smoking ONE LESS cigarette per day for a week. And then ONE LESS cigarette per day for another week. And then ONE LESS cigarette per day the next week and so on?

Because everyone who has ever gone on the Thrilly Quit Smoking Plan found it to be rather easy to quit smoking this way.

It's not that hard.

Going cold turkey is hard I'm sure.

But not my way.

I still don't get how as humans you're born on to a planet and somehow you get mixed up with something that has you sucking poisenous smoke into your lungs all day long everyday and you're completely beholden to the stuff. You stand in the freezing rain outside of buildings sucking it down. You spend hard earned money to keep it going. And the only upside is that BECAUSE OF THE ADDICTION AND ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ADDICTION it feels good.

Alcohol feels good because it just feels good. You don't need to be addicted to it. At any time drink some. Same thing with pot and many drugs.

But smoking....nope. You can tell this by that first time smoker reaction. It's only after getting your body used it and MOST IMPORTANTLY ADDICTED TO IT, that there's a sense of "ahhhhh, that feels good."

And it makes your teeth yellow, your clothes smelly, your lungs black, your face wrinkled.

I'm sorry. To a non-smoker it just doesn't make any sense.

I get if you're young, you might start to be cool. That's the only reason people start.

No 16 year old wakes up and says with no influence of friends, "I'm gonna start smoking today!!"

So...okay...you start....

But at some point at the 25 year old level don't you have to say "This is ridiculous. Life is too short and dangerous as it is. I realize that it only feels good, because I'm addicted to it. And once I squash the addiction, I won't need it or want it anymore. And it's poison. I'm sucking carcinogens into my lungs all day."

But I've never been a smoker.

So.... :Shrug:

A few cigarettes socially once in awhile...okay..whatever..

But you can die in a car accident. You can get shot on the street. Blown up in a gas fire. Get a horrible illness. There are so many ways to die. Why would anyone add to that list with this smoking stuff?

http://simplythebest.net/sounds/WAV/events_WAV/event_WAV_files/compute.wav

clintl
12-29-2007, 09:21 PM
It is legal. This whole campaign is un-american and violates the constitution.

You have the freedom to leave if you don't like the smoke. Exercise that freedom. Don't restrict mine.

(last line deleted because they are all profanities anyway)

There is no constitutional right to smoke. Nor is there a constitutional right to be rude. Both of which smokers are when they insist on inflicting their bad habits on unwilling bystanders.

You can express all the outrage you want, but you're still wrong about this being an infringement of personal liberty. This is a case of competing liberties, and after decades of getting it wrong, the government has finally properly balanced the interests of nonsmokers vs. smokers according to well-reasoned and scientifically-supported public health interests. And that's part of the government's obligation - to balance competing claims to rights.

billythrilly7th
12-29-2007, 09:39 PM
The businesses which lose business due to these smoking bans must sue. The businesses established before the ban are hurt by laws which should not affect them.

I happened to live in Los Angeles, NYC and Boulder when all three were instituting the no smoking in restaurant or bar ban.

In Los Angeles.. "Waaaaaa....our businesses!!!"

Cut To: Businesses Perfectly Fine.

In NYC..."Waaaaaa....our businesses!!!"

Cut To: Businesses Perfectly Fine.

In Boulder..."Waaaaaa....our businesses!!!"

Cut To: Businesses Perfectly Fine.


And in all three cases, almost everyone I knew or spoke to was thrilled.

And Boulder was just last year. All the bars had smoking rooms within the confines of the bar. So essentially it was a non-smoking and smoking bar. With smoke leaking from the smoking room into the non-smoking areas anyway.

So, Boulder banned the smoking rooms. "Oh my god! The famous Boulder bar smoking rooms!! Gone! What's gonna happen?"

The same people went to same bars and if they wanted a smoke, went outside and then came back in. Bars just as full. Nothing changed.

I, a man who hates to do laundry, was so thankful that I could now come home from a night out without wreaking of cigarette smoke.

"Oh my god, the bars in LA and NYC are going to go out of business!! People won't go out anymore!!"

:rolleyes:

Didn't happen.

Can a certain individual bar be affected? Sure.

Thanks.

benbradley
12-29-2007, 09:52 PM
You mean a government that protects us from hazardous chemicals and substances like lead, ...
Where's the ban on lead wheel weights, used to balance the wheels of virtually EVERY vehicle on the public roads in the USA? Many of these weights fall off, and then get ground to bits on the roads and when it rains the lead powder gets washed into the groundwater. It's not like lead is the only substance that could be used in these things, it's only used because it's the cheapest substance available. Banning it for this use would cost very little to businesses affectted (such as tire dealerships), and virtually nothing to the economy. Banning lead from gasoline was a big deal, but it was done. Banning lead weights could be a short "earmark" on someone's "bridge to nowhere" bill.

This site has lots of good info on the subject:
http://www.leadfreewheels.org/
PCPs, DDT, tholidomide, epherderine, aspbestos, and so on? That government?
If protecting people from lead were the only measure, I'd be looking to move to somewhere in the European Union.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 05:27 AM
You can express all the outrage you want, but you're still wrong about this being an infringement of personal liberty. This is a case of competing liberties, and after decades of getting it wrong, the government has finally properly balanced the interests of nonsmokers vs. smokers according to well-reasoned and scientifically-supported public health interests. And that's part of the government's obligation - to balance competing claims to rights.

Complete bull. Plus, it is protected by the constitution. Perhaps not specifically, but theoretically, in the old 'life, liberty, and persuit of happiness' line.

If the law's intent was to protect the non-smokers, why then can't I start a smoker's airline or smoker's bowling alley, smoker's bar, etc. etc.

Why? Because it's prohibition, not simple rights infringement.

It's the do-good folks out nanny stating us. These are bullshit laws.

We should be allowed our own places to go where you non-smokers can't go. Only seems fair to me.

benbradley
12-30-2007, 05:48 AM
Complete bull. Plus, it is protected by the constitution. Perhaps not specifically, but theoretically, in the old 'life, liberty, and persuit of happiness' line.

If the law's intent was to protect the non-smokers, why then can't I start a smoker's airline or smoker's bowling alley, smoker's bar, etc. etc.

Why? Because it's prohibition, not simple rights infringement.

It's the do-good folks out nanny stating us. These are bullshit laws.

We should be allowed our own places to go where you non-smokers can't go. Only seems fair to me.
No, that's too far in the other direction. Non-smokers are allowed in (clearly marked, designated) smoking areas now, why stop them in the future?

I do agree that private businesses should be able to decide for themselves whether they allow their patrons to smoke (regardless of whether it increases or decreases business - isn't that the businesses' concern, not the government's?). This would maximally keep the Government out of it, but it would also give the politicians the least amount of power, so in the current political climate it's the least likely thing to happen.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 05:55 AM
In Los Angeles.. "Waaaaaa....our businesses!!!"

Cut To: Businesses Perfectly Fine.

In NYC..."Waaaaaa....our businesses!!!"

Cut To: Businesses Perfectly Fine.

In Boulder..."Waaaaaa....our businesses!!!"

Cut To: Businesses Perfectly Fine.

Wrong. Of course, perfectly fine is not a quantifiable yardstick. Try business revenues down by 20-40% due to the Nevada ban:

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071208/NEWS/712080349

Of course, the 3,000 people who lost their jobs can't afford to smoke anymore, anyway. Plus, there is a huge state tax shortfall, partly due to the ban. Now all of our taxes are gonna go up because of these laws.

Here's Atlantic City's 10% loss in revenues:

http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-01078.html

In LA, where you stated there was no impact, business revenues were down from 10 to over 50%:

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PressReleases1998/CaliforniaBarOwnersSmokingBan_Feb1998.html

But I suppose all the businesses that go out of business no longer count, they're counted as 'perfectly fine'.

Colorado faces impact, Coors revenues down due to smoking ban:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7388999?source=rssdp

50 Bars going out of business in Colorado due to smoking ban, revenues down over 25%:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_5613137,00.html

There's a whole lotta people out of business and out of work thanks to the clean air acts. But at least they'll have nice clean lungs and organs to donate when they starve to death.

But that's 'perfectly fine'.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 05:59 AM
No, that's too far in the other direction. Non-smokers are allowed in (clearly marked, designated) smoking areas now, why stop them in the future?

Most of these laws do not allow segregated smoking areas. They are total bans.

So smokers can go in, but they can't smoke.

If I have a smoker's establishment, non-smokers can come in, but they'll have to smoke.

Bird of Prey
12-30-2007, 06:03 AM
Most of these laws do not allow segregated smoking areas. They are total bans.

So smokers can go in, but they can't smoke.

If I have a smoker's establishment, non-smokers can come in, but they'll have to smoke.

LOL!!

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:19 AM
A. http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071208/NEWS/712080349

B.http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-01078.html


C. http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PressReleases1998/CaliforniaBarOwnersSmokingBan_Feb1998.html

D.http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7388999?source=rssdp

E. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_5613137,00.html



A. Proponents of the law said they are wary of tales of woe from business operators who say the law hurt them.
"I would have to see the proof," said Michael Hackett of Alrus Consulting in Reno, who was the campaign director for the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act ballot initiative. "I would have to see the numbers of where they are losing money. And the other things that I would have to see is how they can directly attribute this to the smoking ban and stay away from all of the other economic factors that we are dealing with now, such as the downturn in the economy, with what has happened in the construction business, the home building business and all of that. There are a lot of factors that are in play now that have really hurt the economy, particularly in Southern Nevada. And to blame it all on the smoking ban is foolish to say the least."

Duh. Of course.

B.Experts blame the partial smoking ban and the increased competition from the new casinos in neighboring states, such as Pennsylvania, where the Atlantic City Convention and Visitors Authority is planning to start a $300,000 campaign to attract more locals to the casinos in AC. The Atlantic City casinos, however, are confident that the new plan to turn the oceanside resort into an entertainment destination rivaling Las Vegas are bound to be profitable by bringing in a more wealthy and leisurely segment of gamblers to New Jersey's casino center.

"Experts?"

Well, that's good enough proof for me!!

Pfffh!!

Probably a little more to do with increased competition.

But those are the same experts.

C. AN DIEGO, LOS ANGELES, SAN JOSE, SAN FRANCISCO, and SACRAMENTO, Calif., Feb. 26, 1998 -
Bar owners throughout the state joined together today to voice their outrage about the negative effects of the
statewide smoking ban on their businesses. Faced with lost revenues, customer dissatisfaction and costly
enforcement policies, many bar owners are struggling just to stay afloat, but vow to continue to fight.

Have anything a little more recent than 1998?

:eyeroll:

Funny...article from 1998 about how bars "are struggling to stay afloat" and yet you go to LA and everywhere from the Skybar to the Rainbow room the Standard to a million others are alive and well.

Wow. How did they make through TEN YEARS OF A SMOKING BAN?

:eyeroll:

D. Worst link of all.

But de la Plante said Molson Coors' U.K. operation faced challenges from bad weather and a smoking ban in restaurants and bars.
"Last summer, it rained and was cold all summer," and fewer people drink beer when it's cold, he said of the U.K. market. "Those two things were like a double whammy on the businesses."
Molson Coors officials said they were encouraged by progress made in the third quarter, compared with the third quarter of 2006.

Molson spokeman said that "bad summer weather and a smoking ban."

Pfffhh!!!

Wow. If that's not proof for you, then nothing is.

:eyeroll:

And then ....recovery in the third quarter. I guess everyone got over the smoking ban.

E. The Coalition for Equal Rights, a bar owners group, says more than 50 bars and taverns have gone out of business since smoking was banned.

Well, they seem pretty reliable. A bar owners group.

And like I said, yeah, a random local bar with a bunch of old humps who like to smoke could be affected....

BUT NYC, LA, BOULDER etc.....

Bars are thriving.

As they always have and always will. Everyone whined in 1998....LOL!! and yet all the bars seem to be thriving. Change is hard. People whine. ANd then it all works out.

There's a whole lotta people out of business and out of work thanks to the clean air acts. But at least they'll have nice clean lungs and organs to donate when they starve to death.


Got hyperbolic melodrama?

Funny though.

robeiae
12-30-2007, 06:27 AM
Billy, you're so liberal, you make me sick. ;)

Let's try this again:

1) Cigarettes and Tobacco are not illegal.
2) Places of businesses, while frequented by the "public," are located on PRIVATE property.
3) What you do or allow on YOUR property is your business, not the government's--provided that you are not doing something expressly illegal or something that your property is not zoned for.
4) Therefore, it should be up to you--the property owner--with regard to whether or not smoking is allowed on your property.

It's really very obvious.

Now that said, there is one caveat. Since cigarettes are a controlled substance--like alcohol--a state/local government could reasonably require licensing for businesses that want to allow smoking.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:30 AM
Billy, you're so liberal, you make me sick. ;)


:ROFL:

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:32 AM
Let's try this again:

1) Cigarettes and Tobacco are not illegal.
2) Places of businesses, while frequented by the "public," are located on PRIVATE property.
3) What you do or allow on YOUR property is your business, not the government's--provided that you are not doing something expressly illegal or something that your property is not zoned for.
4) Therefore, it should be up to you--the property owner--with regard to whether or not smoking is allowed on your property.


That's ridiculous. There are labor laws. Even though it's your "private property."

You don't get to do what you want in your business. Not as long as you have employees.

I'd add a caveat. If YOU the owner are the only employee, you can run a smoking establishment.

Deal?

Deal.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 06:33 AM
"I would have to see the proof," said Michael Hackett of Alrus Consulting in Reno, who was the campaign director for the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act ballot initiative. "I would have to see the numbers of where they are losing money.

You're just as blind to facts as this biased Hackett jackass. The numbers are there, double-speak and turning a blind eye doesn't change that fact.

Very few businesses can take a 25% loss of revenue in stride and stay in business.

I would love to see a real study done on the economic impact of smoking bans, from the loss of revenue, business closings, unemployment increases, lost tax revenues. The impact is certainly very costly to the taxpayers.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:35 AM
Re: Economic impact.

I've searched and essentially after about a year there is no info on the "economic impact."

Why?

Because there was none and the story is dead and no more "studies" are conducted.

Here's one from 2004 re: NYC ban

http://no-smoking.org/march04/03-29-04-1.html

New Study: Bars and Restaurants Thrive Despite NYC's Smoking Ban [03/29-1]

Excerpts from: Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says By ANDREA ELLIOTT New York Times [03/29/04]

The city's restaurants and bars have prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments since the law took effect a year ago, according to a study to be released by the city today.
The study also found that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less secondhand smoke in the workplace.

"It really confirms that New York City is now a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, commissioner of the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which produced the report along with two other city departments and the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

Data from the city's Department of Finance shows that the money spent in New York bars and restaurants has increased, the report states: from April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the same period a year earlier.

An average of 164,000 people were employed in restaurants and bars in 2003, the highest number in at least a decade. Since the smoking ban took effect last March 30, employment in bars and restaurants has risen by 10,600 jobs, taking into account seasonal fluctuations, according to the report.

The number of the city's bars and restaurants - roughly 20,000 - remained about the same in the third quarter of 2002 as in the third quarter of 2003. Last year, the New York State Liquor Authority issued 1,416 new liquor licenses to New York City businesses, compared with 1,361 the previous year, the study reports.

The study also found that 97 percent of the more than 22,000 establishments inspected by the city from April 2003 through February were found in compliance with the new law and that 150,000 New Yorkers reported less exposure to secondhand smoke in their workplaces since the ban took effect.

The Health Department conducted an air quality survey of a sampling of bars and restaurants in August 2002 and returned to the locations in May 2003, after the ban took effect, and noted substantial improvement.

I know that kind of report might contradict with a Molson spokesman or a bar owners group whining about a new ban, but...that's that.

Lock thread.

robeiae
12-30-2007, 06:38 AM
That's ridiculous. There are labor laws. Even though it's your "private property."

You don't get to do what you want in your business. Not as long as you have employees.Sure. Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.

I'd add a caveat. If YOU the owner are the only employee, you can run a smoking establishment.

Deal?

Deal.No deal. If you don't like what a job entails, the "where" of the job, or the environment on the job, get a different job. You have no right to force a potential employer to hire you under your terms.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:40 AM
You're just as blind to facts as this biased Hackett jackass. The numbers are there, double-speak and turning a blind eye doesn't change that fact.

Very few businesses can take a 25% loss of revenue in stride and stay in business.

I would love to see a real study done on the economic impact of smoking bans, from the loss of revenue, business closings, unemployment increases, lost tax revenues. The impact is certainly very costly to the taxpayers.

You're just flat out wrong.

:Shrug:

Yeah. I'M biased as if I had a hand in these smoking bans....lol

I'm just not blind.

And living in three of the smoking ban cities, during and after the ban.

Bars are just full.

They're just as open.

There aren't people who don't go out and party because they can't have a smoke inside.

If my favorite bars had shut down or had less hot chicks, I'd say "wow, clean clothes are nice but these bars suck."

Even the idiots who say "I'm not going out anymore" eventually go out.

That's why the bans stick.

10 years LA
5 years NYC
1 1/2 Boulder/CO

Going strong.

And more coming.

And yet 50 years from now bars will be thriving.

As long as they can still serve alcohol.

And people are horny.

Bird of Prey
12-30-2007, 06:40 AM
Sure. Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.

No deal. If you don't like what a job entails, the "where" of the job, or the environment on the job, get a different job. You have no right to force a potential employer to hire you under your terms.


Great post.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:45 AM
Sure. Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.

No deal. If you don't like what a job entails, the "where" of the job, or the environment on the job, get a different job. You have no right to force a potential employer to hire you under your terms.

What if I want to beat you or make you work 14 hours?

That's the environment I want.

Smoking is the same thing. Making people suck down cancerous smoke for 10 hours a night is no different than saying you should work in a sweatshop with no ventiliation for ten hours.

According to you,

"You don't want to work in my sweatshop making sneakers, then get a different job."

"You don't want to work in my bar and suck in smoke, then get a different job."

It's the same thing. Duh. Although I'm confident you will disagree.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:47 AM
Great post.

If by "great" you mean "one of his worst posts ever in the arena of logic and common sense" I'd agree.

:)

robeiae
12-30-2007, 06:48 AM
What if I want to beat you or make you work 14 hours?

That's the environment I want.

Smoking is the same thing. Making people suck down cancerous smoke for 10 hours a night is no different than saying you should work in a sweatshop with no ventiliation for ten hours.

According to you,

"You don't want to work in my sweatshop making sneakers, then get a different job."

"You don't want to work in my bar and suck in smoke, then get a different job."

It's the same thing. Duh. Although I'm confident you will disagree.

Thank you.Now you're being silly. I know, I know...no where to go...

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:50 AM
In Summary:

1. No economic impact after maybe..MAYBE...the whining intial hit.

Years of bans have proved that. Bars thriving in all ban areas as they always have and always will.

2. Legally constitutional and philosophically correct.

3. My work here is done.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:52 AM
Now you're being silly.

If that's all you got, 'nuff said.

People have a right to a safe work environment.

If I want to work in your factory or if I want to work in your bar.

All clear minded people understand that. Nothing silly at all.

robeiae
12-30-2007, 06:53 AM
2. Legally constitutional and philosophically correct.Not. Even. Close... ... Bud!


Btw, you really shouldn't be allowed to make out with chicks, let alone have sex with them. You might be endangering their health. There ought to be a law...

Williebee
12-30-2007, 06:58 AM
Uh, Billy? You really think somebody who runs a sweatshop is going to abide by a no smoking law?

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances. A review published in 2003 of 97 studies on the economic effects of smoking bans on the hospitality industry shows that all the best designed studies by anti-smoking groups and their contractors report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment.[50]

'Nuff said on that issue.

Btw, you really shouldn't be allowed to make out with chicks, let alone have sex with them. You might be endangering their health. There ought to be a law...

I assure you, if you saw the majority of the chicks I make out with or have sex with, I'm the one endangered.

'Nuff said.

Gotta go.

Go Giants!!!

robeiae
12-30-2007, 06:59 AM
If that's all you got, 'nuff said.Don't get flustered. I'm being very even-keeled. I specifically said you can't do things that are expressly illegal, per your "labor law" complaint. You then imagined that somehow, I said the exact opposite. Look:


Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.

According to you,

"You don't want to work in my sweatshop making sneakers, then get a different job."

You then tried to jump to a nonsensical comparison of this with smoking. Sorry, no.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:59 AM
Uh, Billy? You really think somebody who runs a sweatshop is going to abide by a no smoking law?

No.

And that statement has nothing to do with anything.

What?

Gotta go.

Goodnight, Williebee.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:04 AM
Don't get flustered.

The one who smelt it delt it.

Don't project your own insecurities about being out debated by me.

I'm cool as a cucumber.

http://81.29.205.9:8080/battle/foto/979.jpg?emoticon_fonzie

I specifically said you can't do things that are expressly illegal, per your "labor law" complaint. You then imagined that somehow, I said the exact opposite. Look:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
According to you,

"You don't want to work in my sweatshop making sneakers, then get a different job."
You then tried to jump to a nonsensical comparison of this with smoking. Sorry, no.

Yeah. I read it.

And I stand by what I said.

You think that it should be illegal to run a sweatshop but are okay with people sucking down 10 hours of carcinogens.

They are both the same.

Williebee
12-30-2007, 07:06 AM
:)

Just askin.

You did seem to be comparing the freedom and status of a person working in a sweatshop with a customer in a restaurant or bar.

Funny thing, though. I started out at the top of this thread pretty much convinced that the no smoking laws were wrong. Now I'm thinking maybe I was....

Overall a really good discussion. thanks again, to all.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 07:06 AM
studies by anti-smoking groups and their contractors report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment.[

No bias there, eh? You're slipping, Thrilly, must be icy in Boulder.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:08 AM
:)

Just askin.

You did seem to be comparing the freedom and status of a person working in a sweatshop with a customer in a restaurant or bar.

No.

I'm comparing someone who works in a sweatshop with someone working in a bar.

All I'm talking about is workplace safety.

I haven't even touched upon the "why should I have to suck down your smoke" issue.

And I won't.

I really have to go to watch the Giant game.

i'll be back in 30 minutes.

Hopefully, Rob will have picked himself up off the floor from the clocking he just took from me.
:D

Later.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:11 AM
No bias there, eh? You're slipping, Thrilly, must be icy in Boulder.

I'm in NY. And it's partly cloudy.

Data from the city's Department of Finance shows that the money spent in New York bars and restaurants has increased, the report states: from April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the same period a year earlier.

I'm sorry that NYC's Depeartment of Finance doesn't rise to the level of trustworthiness as a Molsen spokesman citing "bad weather" and then agreeing that revenues rose in the third quarter and an article about Los Angles from1998.

I gotta go!!

I'll be back shortly!!

I'm having fun toying with my conservative compadres tonight.

Williebee
12-30-2007, 07:12 AM
I'm comparing someone who works in a sweatshop with someone working in a bar.

Because people who work in sweatshops generally have the same opportunities as people who work in bars?

Friend Billy, Rob isn't the one taking the clocking here.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 07:21 AM
from1998

You sure are hung up on the year. Because it's from 1998 doesn't make it less true.

Of course, I imagine you would prefer to compare a couple years well into the bans, after the businesses have already closed.

The greatest impact will be in the first year or two, when all the businesses go under.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:43 AM
You sure are hung up on the year. Because it's from 1998 doesn't make it less true.

Of course, I imagine you would prefer to compare a couple years well into the bans, after the businesses have already closed.

The greatest impact will be in the first year or two, when all the businesses go under.

Feel free to find some data that proves your thesis.

Not Molson spokesmen. Not a Bar owners association.

Actually data.

Tax revenues.

Unemployment in the hospitality industy in those cities.

Whatever.

Feel free to counter the NYC Department of Finance.

Feel free to counter the statements in this article.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20030519/ai_n10173323


Studies indicate smoking ban shouldn't hurt business
New Orleans CityBusiness, May 19, 2003 by Terry O'Connor
Coming from a rotund, balding, cigar-smoking business editor, concerns about the Louisiana smoking ban should not be surprising. It's already tough enough to find an appropriate spot to fire up a fat Fuente.

It's also not surprising that bar owners, the Greater New Orleans Hotel and Motel Association and the Louisiana Restaurant Association are worried such a ban will hurt business. Operators want to make their own decisions regarding an activity with a large potential impact on their business and who can blame them?

But, across the United States, such smoking bans have developed a history over the last 10 years that reflects a negligible impact on the bottom line. Many studies show this, including:

* William Styring of the Hudson Institute, a public policy think tank, found no statistically significant variation in restaurant revenues after Fort Wayne, Ind., enacted a smoking ban in 1998. Styring compared 12 years of sales tax data predating the ban with the two years following its enactment.

* A systematic statewide comparison submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health of more than 1,000 restaurants in 239 communities in Massachusetts between 1992 and 1999 found that smoking restrictions "failed to have a statistically significant effect on meals receipts."

* Clean indoor air ordinances passed in the Texas towns of Arlington, Austin, Plano and Wichita Falls between July 1994 and March 1996 were found to have "no detrimental effect on restaurant sales" in a March 2001 report by Hayslett and Huang that studied sales revenues generated from 1987 through 1999.

* Restaurant revenues in Boulder, Colo., rose 3.14% in 1997, 4.83% in 1998 and 4.31% in 1999 after a smoke-free restaurant ordinance was passed in 1995.

* The Journal of Public Health Management reported hotel and restaurant receipts rose after the 1995 Smoke Free Act was enacted in New York.

* "Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke- Free Restaurant Ordinances," a 1999 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at hotel room revenues and occupancy rates in three states -- California, Utah and Vermont -- and six cities -- San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boulder, Flagstaff and Mesa, Ariz. The study's conclusion: Smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and may increase, tourist business.

New Orleans, of course, is an oyster of a different color. It attracts and entertains more Europeans, who are among the world's heaviest smokers. But the preponderance of evidence offered by existing studies should encourage those businesses worried about being snuffed out as a tourist attraction by a smoking ban.

But don't worry about the PREPONDERANCE of evidence. Stick with "I just know it hurts business." Go with the Molsen guy.

P.S. Congrats, Patriots.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:44 AM
Because people who work in sweatshops generally have the same opportunities as people who work in bars?

I'm pretty sure you got me there, willie.

Whatever it is you may be talking about.

:Shrug:

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:48 AM
But Joe, maybe this...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n10173323

and all the studies...

and NYC Department of Finance and all the other studies and articles about how their is no economic impact with the bans are just a conspiracy.

Maybe they're all in it together. One big anti-smoking conspiracy.

And the real truth is that from LA to NYC, bartenders and waitresses are on the unemployment lines and the hospitality industry actually being in a shambles is one of the biggest secrets our government is hiding.

:Shrug:

Anything is possible.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 07:50 AM
Feel free to find some data that proves your thesis.

I already did that.

Of course, you change the game now to restaurants, not bars all of a sudden.

I'm done with you.

Williebee
12-30-2007, 07:53 AM
Giants almost made it back, Billy. Would have been an amazing two minutes.

Good info from findarticles, btw.

thanks again.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:59 AM
I already did that.

No you didn't.

Show me some hospitality industury unempoyment data based on BAR smoking bans in ban cities.

Show me some tax data on revenue receipts.

Show me something concrete.

I got news for you, until tonight, I was just guessing that there was no impact based on my personal lived in those cities experience.

But after researching and googling for the past two hours, I'm now convinced.

If I had found things that said "NYC BAR INDUSTRY IN A SHAMBLES SINCE BAN" I'd have said "alright, I guess there is some impact."

But I haven't.

Like I said, I'm sure some bars were hit, but overall on a grand scheme level, bars are flourishing as they always have in all the cities with bans.

And they always will.

And as each city picks up the ban we'll go through the same routine...

"Oh my god!!"

And then a couple years later..."

"What can I get you guys?

Two coronas..

You bet."

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 08:00 AM
Giants almost made it back, Billy. Would have been an amazing two minutes.

I know.

I'm proud that we have them a run for their money and made them earn it.

Congrats, Pats.

benbradley
12-30-2007, 08:27 AM
Sure. Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.

No deal. If you don't like what a job entails, the "where" of the job, or the environment on the job, get a different job. You have no right to force a potential employer to hire you under your terms.
It's well established that an employer can require employees to be non-smokers even when off company property. It would seem easy enough for a smoking-allowed bar to hire ONLY smokers. This would have a great advantage to smokers in other jobs, in that a smoking bartender can smoke while working, rather than having to stop working to leave the building (or go to a special smoking room) for a "smoke break."

But in such a case I can easily imagine a "discrimination against nonsmokers" lawsuit...

mscelina
12-30-2007, 08:39 AM
Something concrete from my place of business. I work in a small neighborhood bar with a seating capacity of 75, although I can fit many many more of them in during an Ohio State football game. As my FIL is the accountant for this bar, I was able to pull this information from his records. I've rounded the figures, mostly because I'm sure that my employer wouldn't appreciate these stats broadcast all over the web.

The smoking ban in Ohio started 'officially' on December 6th, 2006.

The month of December, 2006 showed a 58% drop in business with a revenue loss of approximately 14,600 dollars.

The months of January, February, March and April all listed percentage drops of 50 to 65% from the previous year. Estimated revenue loss: over $60,000 in a four month period.

The months of May through September steadied, showing only a 40% drop from the previous year. Usually in non-tourist towns, the summer months are slower in the bar business. Estimated revenue loss of around $20,000.

The month of October is usually one of the busiest at this particular bar. The county fairgrounds are across the street and the fair is the first week in October. Our business during the week of the fair was comparable to last year's with only a five percent drop. This is due mostly to the fact that our outdoor garden was opened to the public. After the first week, the business showed a 50% drop with a revenue loss of $11,500.

I won't have the November and December stats until after the first of the year. I think you can see (and add up) the painful hit the bar took. One other note I can add: in 2006, I made 29, 731 dollars in tips. In 2007, I have made to date 18,596 dollars in tips. THAT is the impact I'm talking about.

A major reason for this devastating blow to a small, family-owned establishment lies in the fact that other bars who do NOT comply are not being cited/fined according to the law. As a matter of fact, there are only two other bars who are currently complying with the law, while approximately 25 others still have ashtrays on the tables. The reason for this? The law is UNENFORCABLE.

Although I realize that this series of statistics from one tiny bar in a small town in Ohio won't matter one damn bit to some people who have spewed forth their opinions in this thread, to THIS poster it matters a lot. A HELL of a lot. I'm sure that some of you will dismiss what I've said as hyperbolic crap. *shrug* That's not my problem. My problem is paying the mortgage and my other bills after taking a ten grand hit to my bank account over the last year.

But it's not all that bad. Maybe I'll make five grand each of the next two days. If that happens, I'll stop b*tching about the stupid smoking ban. However, I foresee plentiful b*tching in my immediate future about this situation, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 08:54 AM
A major reason for this devastating blow to a small, family-owned establishment lies in the fact that other bars who do NOT comply are not being cited/fined according to the law. As a matter of fact, there are only two other bars who are currently complying with the law, while approximately 25 others still have ashtrays on the tables. The reason for this? The law is UNENFORCABLE.

Yes. If other bars aren't enforcing it and you are, that's a major reason why you're losing business.

Of course the smoking ban is enforceable. That's like saying you can't enforce an age limit for certain bars.

It's being enforced in cities across this country.

There need to be spot checks of bars and high fines for bars not obeying the law just as the police do random checks to make sure there aren't underage drinkers.

I'm sorry that your law enforcement officials and government so far has left you hung out to dry. They'll get their act together eventually.

Good luck, Ohio State and I hope you make a lot of money.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 09:02 AM
The same thing happened in NYC, but the powers at be caught on and took care of it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DD1E3DF933A05757C0A9659C8B 63

City's Smoking Ban Grows Teeth With Fines Beginning at Midnight
Published: April 30, 2003
For smokers, and the New York City bars that still harbor them in defiance of the law, the night of reckoning has arrived. Stiff new fines go into effect at midnight.

Since the smoking ban started in early March, city officials said yesterday, they have issued 71 violation notices -- essentially toothless warnings -- to owners of bars and restaurants for failing to enforce it. And the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has also received 331 complaints about places that still allow smoking. Most of the complaints have been against restaurants and bars, but some have been against places like nursing homes and bingo parlors, said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city health commissioner, in an interview yesterday.

So far, checks for compliance have mostly been conducted as part of regular annual inspections. The department has performed about 3,000 of those since the Smoke-Free Air Act took effect, officials said.

But now it is time for the second phase: repeated, unannounced visits to establishments with violations or complaints. The repeated inspections will take place within a month to six weeks of a first violation, said Elliott Marcus, an assistant commissioner.

''The places that have had complaints, absolutely we will prioritize,'' Dr. Frieden said, adding, ''We do anticipate that there will be even greater compliance once the fines go into effect.''

The penalty for a first violation is $200 to $400, for a second, $500 to $1,000, and for a third, $1,000 to $2,000. On the third violation within a year, the owner's license to do business can be revoked. By comparison, violations for rats in the kitchen also range from $200 to $2,000 in fines. And while repeat offenders for other health violations generally receive higher fines, the amount is at the discretion of inspectors and an administrative tribunal.

Because of the fines, the few bar owners who had ignored the ban say they now intend to enforce it. ''We're letting people smoke, but come May 1, we have to stop, because the violations are serious,'' said Renata Del Signore, a bartender at Boat, on Smith Street in Brooklyn. Boat is unpretentious, with stickers as décor, a pile of board games on a shelf and Keith Richards on the jukebox singing that he never wanted to be like papa, working for the boss every night and day. Just about everyone inside, including Ms. Del Signore, smokes and smokes and smokes. But the beginnings of enforcement are in place: No ashtrays are in sight.

I suspect Ohio will follow a similiar path.

Hang in there.

Joe270
12-30-2007, 12:55 PM
Nice Nazi lockstep ya got goin' there, Thrilly.

Your 'facts' are twisted and your support of this gestapo action clearly demonstrates your bias.

But just keep on bullying folks to make your point. Because it does make a point, perhaps not the one you intended, but it sure makes a point.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2007, 03:49 PM
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) strikes again!

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 06:38 PM
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) strikes again!

:ROFL:

Never heard of that until now.

That's brilliant.

And yes, as if on cue, Godwin's law struck.

"Uhhhhhh...............NAZI!!"

Shadow_Ferret
12-30-2007, 06:48 PM
I'm confused. I thought Billy was a conservative and yet he's arguing for government intervention in private business?

Don't Republicans believe in smaller government, less regulations?

:Shrug:

Unique
12-30-2007, 07:30 PM
what they say and what they do are not the same thing.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 07:35 PM
"Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. 'I'm conservative, I'm liberal, I'm conservative'. Bullshit! Be a fucking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, ok? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!"
Chris Rock

I'm conservative because I like low taxes, dislike social welfare programs, loathe criminals and like bombing people.

Almost everything else, I'm liberal.

Bartholomew
12-30-2007, 09:07 PM
I'm conservative because I ... loathe criminals


So... you're conservative because you believe in fighting fire with fire?

Bravo
12-30-2007, 09:36 PM
the number one issue with this seems to be the public health aspect. smoker's are invading everyone else's right to fresh air.

but i wonder why this couldnt be left to restaurants and bars to decide for themselves?

and i wonder about drinking, it's responsible for an enormous amount of health problems, deaths, accidents, and heartbreak. so what's the argument to not ban that as well?

if it were up to me, and if banning things would actually work, i'd ban a heckuva lot of things.

maybe smoking is just an easy target with clear results. i know many people who say theyve stopped once they ban was in effect, so maybe babying them really was necessary.

i dunno.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 09:40 PM
the number one issue with this seems to be the public health aspect. smoker's are invading everyone else's right to fresh air.

but i wonder why this couldnt be left to restaurants and bars to decide for themselves?
.

It's about worker's rights, not non smoker Joe Public who comes into the bar to have a few drinks.

The same way it's not left up to a chemical factory to decide whether they have proper ventillation, the bars shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves.

And in smart cities they aren't allowed to.

And luckily, I live and/or lived in those cities.
:)

Robert Toy
12-30-2007, 09:42 PM
the number one issue with this seems to be the public health aspect. smoker's are invading everyone else's right to fresh air.

but i wonder why this couldnt be left to restaurants and bars to decide for themselves?

and i wonder about drinking, it's responsible for an enormous amount of health problems, deaths, accidents, and heartbreak. so what's the argument to not ban that as well?

if it were up to me, and if banning things would actually work, i'd ban a heckuva lot of things.

maybe smoking is just an easy target with clear results. i know many people who say theyve stopped once they ban was in effect, so maybe babying them really was necessary.

i dunno.
The government takes in too much revenue from alcohol, it will never be stopped. They tried that once before.

But I agree drinking kills a hell of a lot more people than smoking does. I’d ban both if I could.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 09:55 PM
and i wonder about drinking, it's responsible for an enormous amount of health problems, deaths, accidents, and heartbreak. so what's the argument to not ban that as well?

You're mixing up the issues!

No one has banned smoking. It's a worker's rights issue that ends up also being of tremendous benefit to Joe Non Smoko.

Thank you.

robeiae
12-30-2007, 09:56 PM
Are you still here, Bing?

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 10:07 PM
But I agree drinking kills a hell of a lot more people than smoking does.

You agree with Bravo although he didn't say that?

Not even close.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm

Deaths from Smoking: 440,000 annual deaths each year are smoking-associated (CDC)
Death rate extrapolations for USA for Smoking: 440,000 per year, 36,666 per month, 8,461 per week, 1,205 per day, 50 per hour, 0 per minute, 0 per second.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/

Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year
Third leading cause of mortality, government study finds

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm

Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women.1

Robert Toy
12-30-2007, 10:39 PM
You agree with Bravo although he didn't say that?

Not even close.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm



http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/



http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm

As usual you are absolutely correct.

However, 75,000 deaths due to alcohol and especially the domestic violence related to it can't be ignored IMHO.

I know banning alcohol would ruin your life so I won't lobby too hard on that issue...:D

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 10:42 PM
A. As usual you are absolutely correct.

B .However, 75,000 deaths due to alcohol and especially the domestic violence related to it can't be ignored IMHO.

C. I know banning alcohol would ruin your life so I won't lobby too hard on that issue...:D

A. Thank you, sir. :)
B. I agree 100%
C. I'm like Dean Martin. Yeah, I drink, but a lot of the alcohol stuff is just part of the act. ;)
But thank you anyway. :)

Shadow_Ferret
12-30-2007, 11:12 PM
I'm conservative because I like low taxes, dislike social welfare programs, loathe criminals and like bombing people.

Almost everything else, I'm liberal.And I'm libertarian because I believe the government should keep its nose out of private enterprise.

Williebee
12-30-2007, 11:16 PM
Quoting the BillyThrilly - It's about worker's rights, not non smoker Joe Public who comes into the bar to have a few drinks.

Billy, that just isn't true. It's about both, and more. It's about a bar employee's right to earn a legitimate wage. You've already seen one person's story of how the smoking ban cut in to their ability to make a living.

And this legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. What of Joe Delivery Driver, who pays for his kids food and shelter by delivering cigarettes? Are we legislating him out of a job?

What about the rights of the folks who choose to smoke? You can say that smoking isn't a right, but you're talking about taking away someone's freedom to do something they've had the right/freedom to legally do all of their adult lives. That steps pretty heavily on the very fine line of taking away a right.

A law could just as easily be passed that prevents the playing of X type of music because it offends and damages some people's minds and moral character. (oh wait....)

And yeah, the next fight may well be alcohol. The difference between Prohibition and the next alcohol laws will also be statistics, along with health documentation and the powerful lobbying of insurance companies.

billythrilly7th
12-30-2007, 11:58 PM
And I'm libertarian because I believe the government should keep its nose out of private enterprise.

So, you're against labor laws?

Fair enough.

benbradley
12-31-2007, 12:01 AM
Quoting the BillyThrilly -

Billy, that just isn't true. It's about both, and more. It's about a bar employee's right to earn a legitimate wage. You've already seen one person's story of how the smoking ban cut in to their ability to make a living.
My goodness, this is a right I've never heard of. What about the buggy whip manufacturers and all the employees they had? They didn't have "the right to their jobs?" Have things changed since then, that when there's a downturn in some economic area, that all the people working in that area get to keep their jobs at the wages they were making before, even though the establishments they work for don't have as much income? Who's going to pay for the shortfall? Is it coming from my taxes? Ahem...

I believe businesses should be allowed to decide if they want to allow smoking, but I don't see this economic argument as a reason to do so.
And this legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. What of Joe Delivery Driver, who pays for his kids food and shelter by delivering cigarettes? Are we legislating him out of a job?
Joe Delivery Driver can only drive a truck loaded with cigarettes? I suspect the general truck driving trade could absorb those put out of a job by not driving tobacco. And even if they couldn't find other trucking jobs, this would not be good argument to keep cigarettes legal.

DDT was banned. What happened to the jobs of the people who manufactured it? The chemical companies (which presumably made many more products than DDT) perhaps found other positions for some employees, and laid off the others. Was this wrong?
What about the rights of the folks who choose to smoke? You can say that smoking isn't a right, but you're talking about taking away someone's freedom to do something they've had the right/freedom to legally do all of their adult lives. That steps pretty heavily on the very fine line of taking away a right.
From my reading of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, smoking by default IS a right... until either the state you live in or Congress decides otherwise.
And yeah, the next fight may well be alcohol. The difference between Prohibition and the next alcohol laws will also be statistics, along with health documentation and the powerful lobbying of insurance companies.
Oh gee, do I want to go there or not...

billythrilly7th
12-31-2007, 12:03 AM
Quoting the BillyThrilly -

Billy, that just isn't true. It's about both, and more. It's about a bar employee's right to earn a legitimate wage. You've already seen one person's story of how the smoking ban cut in to their ability to make a living.

And this legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. What of Joe Delivery Driver, who pays for his kids food and shelter by delivering cigarettes? Are we legislating him out of a job?

What about the rights of the folks who choose to smoke? You can say that smoking isn't a right, but you're talking about taking away someone's freedom to do something they've had the right/freedom to legally do all of their adult lives. That steps pretty heavily on the very fine line of taking away a right.

A law could just as easily be passed that prevents the playing of X type of music because it offends and damages some people's minds and moral character. (oh wait....)

And yeah, the next fight may well be alcohol. The difference between Prohibition and the next alcohol laws will also be statistics, along with health documentation and the powerful lobbying of insurance companies.

For the love of god...

No one banned smoking.

No one is stopping Joe Delivery Driver.

The bar employees are making plenty of wages because the bar and restuarant industries in the NY, LA and every other area are doing just fine.

One person having a problem because they aren't cracking down on bars who are letting people smoke is an aberration to the entire issue.

Music won't cause a bartender to die of lung disease. No. A law can't just as easily be passed telling a bar what type of music it can play.

No one has taken away anyone's freedom.

Smoke away!!

Just don't do it where a waitress or bartender's health might be affected.

The sidewalk works perfectly for you.

Bartholomew
12-31-2007, 12:06 AM
The sidewalk works perfectly for you.

Except for the butts on the sidewalk. Maybe if smokers all just started driving to the local landfill...

:)

Opty
12-31-2007, 06:43 AM
Sure. Like I said, you can't break laws. You can't do things that are expressly illegal. Running a sweatshop is illegal. Beating employees that don't work hard is illegal. Etc, etc.

No deal. If you don't like what a job entails, the "where" of the job, or the environment on the job, get a different job. You have no right to force a potential employer to hire you under your terms.

There's a hilarious hypocrisy contained in that.

So...it's perfectly acceptable for OSHA standards to be enforced, where businesses must protect employees from work-related environmental dangers such as water on the floor, shelving that is too high or too low, cardboard flaps on boxes (my personal favorite), etc., all of which are meant to protect the health and safety of the employee, all of which are enforced by federal and state laws, all of which are instances in which the government "tells" the poor, timid business owner what he can and can not do...but your ire is only roused when the people compel the government to protect them from another workplace health risk; cigarette/cigar smoke, something much more dangerous than cardboard box flaps.

Interesting.

Flat out wrong. But, interesting.

The government already tells business owners what they can and cannot sell, who they can and cannot hire, when those employees can and cannot work, the hours the business can and cannot be open, the types of patrons the business can and cannot cater to, the environmental conditions the business must or must not have, what the business owner can and cannot pay the employees, when the business owner can and cannot pay the employees, etc., etc., etc.

Many of the legal restrictions put on businesses are arguably much more deserving of scorn than a smoking ban.

However, you and others seem to have more of a problem with the government obeying the will of the voters and protecting the majority of its citizens from the deadly and inconsiderate habit of a minority of its citizens.

The sheer narcissistic gaul of that is what's most entertaining.

blacbird
12-31-2007, 07:45 AM
However, 75,000 deaths due to alcohol and especially the domestic violence related to it can't be ignored IMHO.

No one wants to "ignore" it. Problem is, we had a little historical 15-year episode with banning alcohol, so there's a track record: It didn't work worth a damn. Was a horrid spherical failure, a failure anyway you look at it. In fact, it can be argued that what organized criminal enterprises learned from that episode, about becoming organized criminal enterprises, continues to haunt us to this day.

Trilzy is having an astonishing rash of enlightenment today, it seems. He's got this issue exactly right. Now, if we can only get him off that New York Yankees addiction . . .

caw

Robert Toy
12-31-2007, 10:58 AM
No one wants to "ignore" it. Problem is, we had a little historical 15-year episode with banning alcohol, so there's a track record: It didn't work worth a damn. Was a horrid spherical failure, a failure anyway you look at it. In fact, it can be argued that what organized criminal enterprises learned from that episode, about becoming organized criminal enterprises, continues to haunt us to this day.

Trilzy is having an astonishing rash of enlightenment today, it seems. He's got this issue exactly right. Now, if we can only get him off that New York Yankees addiction . . .

caw

How's this:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12302007/news/nationalnews/leyritz__victims_in_anguish_50990.htm

cethklein
12-31-2007, 03:20 PM
I don't buy that "it's my right to cancer" argument. If people want to smoke in their own homes, go for it. But when they do it in public it affects more than just them personally. I stopped smoking before I could make it a serious problem so I would not ends up with health issues. I sure don't want to have them anyway due to someone else.

It's illegal to be drunk in public. Why? Because you put others at risk. so why should it be ok to smoke in public? You want to smoke, be my guest, but do it where it only slowly kills you, not the rest of us.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 06:06 PM
However, 75,000 deaths due to alcohol and especially the domestic violence related to it can't be ignored IMHO.



Problems associated with the minority ABUSE of one product compared to the majority USE of another.
No one has taken away anyone's freedom.


Only the freedom of the business owner to decide for himself whether he wants his establishment to be smoke-free or otherwise.

robeiae
12-31-2007, 06:43 PM
There's a hilarious hypocrisy contained in that.

So...it's perfectly acceptable for OSHA standards to be enforced, where businesses must protect employees from work-related environmental dangers such as water on the floor, shelving that is too high or too low, cardboard flaps on boxes (my personal favorite), etc., all of which are meant to protect the health and safety of the employee, all of which are enforced by federal and state laws, all of which are instances in which the government "tells" the poor, timid business owner what he can and can not do...but your ire is only roused when the people compel the government to protect them from another workplace health risk; cigarette/cigar smoke, something much more dangerous than cardboard box flaps.I think you need to think a little harder. Your comparison is nonsensical. And of course, you are assuming I accept the degree to which OSHA is allowed to interfere in business.


Interesting.

Flat out wrong. But, interesting.
No, I'm still right.

The government already tells business owners what they can and cannot sell, who they can and cannot hire, when those employees can and cannot work, the hours the business can and cannot be open, the types of patrons the business can and cannot cater to, the environmental conditions the business must or must not have, what the business owner can and cannot pay the employees, when the business owner can and cannot pay the employees, etc., etc., etc.

Many of the legal restrictions put on businesses are arguably much more deserving of scorn than a smoking ban.
And where have I said I agree with all of these things? Nowhere. You're trying a little misdirection. No thanks.

However, you and others seem to have more of a problem with the government obeying the will of the voters and protecting the majority of its citizens from the deadly and inconsiderate habit of a minority of its citizens.Deadly? Then make cigarettes illegal. Problem solved. I mean it's not like--per Billy's solution--smoking on the sidewalk sends all the smoke to a happy place where it magically transforms into trail mix.

The sheer narcissistic gaul of that is what's most entertaining.Narcissistic? Hardly.

Robert Toy
12-31-2007, 07:04 PM
Problems associated with the minority ABUSE of one product compared to the majority USE of another.


Prolong and continued smoking will kill you, period. Assume that the government placed a total ban on the use of tobacco. In “theory” you would save a great number of lives.

However, at the same time, put 100’s of thousands of people out of jobs and reduce the Federal Tax income by something close to 7.5 Billion Dollars.

I am not attempting to defend smoking, although I do smoke, I am very careful when and where I do.

On you comment on minority ABUSE of alcohol, I suggest this question would best be answered by a Police Office or battered spouse. My uneducated guess would be the Police Officer would much rather confront a smoker than a drunk.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 07:17 PM
On you comment on minority ABUSE of alcohol, I suggest this question would best be answered by a Police Office or battered spouse. My uneducated guess would be the Police Officer would much rather confront a smoker than a drunk.
And I'm sure there are many spousal abusers who are drug free, too. I'm also sure that Police Officer wouldnt' want to meet someone on PCP.

But as I said, those are still minority ABUSERS and not the norm. The majority of drinkers do so in moderation and without any adverse health effects.

You can't say that about smokers. They are all in danger of cancer, emphasema, yellow teeth, and bad breath. :)

robeiae
12-31-2007, 07:24 PM
In some cultures, yellow teeth symbolize virility.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 07:33 PM
In some cultures, yellow teeth symbolize virility.
Ew. Gross. But who can they be virile with?

Robert Toy
12-31-2007, 07:34 PM
And I'm sure there are many spousal abusers who are drug free, too. I'm also sure that Police Officer wouldnt' want to meet someone on PCP.

But as I said, those are still minority ABUSERS and not the norm. The majority of drinkers do so in moderation and without any adverse health effects.

You can't say that about smokers. They are all in danger of cancer, emphasema, yellow teeth, and bad breath. :)

A very old IRS doc - but very interesting.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/tobacco.pdf (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/tobacco.pdf)

Again, I am not defending smoking...bad, bad, bad, but read the IRS data and you will have some idea why the government dances around the subject. Dollars, mucho Dollars.

BTW - Drugs we did not discuss, that is another problem all its own!

Edit: Save you some time read, check page 1-2

robeiae
12-31-2007, 07:36 PM
Ew. Gross. But who can they be virile with?
Pretty much anyone in Europe.













What? It's a joke.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 07:42 PM
Pretty much anyone in Europe.













What? It's a joke.
*too cowardly to say anything*

mscelina
12-31-2007, 08:28 PM
It occurs to me that the reasons for the debate here are a matter of timing. The NY and FL and some other states has been in effect for years. Hell, the last time I did a show in NY, smoking was already prohibited in bars and restaurants that had a capacity of more than 25 people. That was in '93 or '94 I think. So, the market there has had time to recover from the immediate consequences of the ban.

Not so here. It's only been a year, and for the first half of that year the ban wasn't being enforced by order of the Ohio Attorney General's office. There is a major lawsuit, spearheaded by Cincinnati restaurant and bar owners. And, as I get ready to tend bar in a fairly empty tavern on New Year's Eve, I have to say (and provided the figures) that at least in Ohio the recovery has not begun. Most of the bars have collection jars set up in case they're fined, and most of the smokers are spending time in bars where the law of the land is ignored. Two years ago, I make nearly 500 dollars on New Year's. Tonight I'll be lucky to break a hundred. Tomorrow will be better because I'll have all my football people there--note: my loyal clientele during football season, who follow me everywhere I go. Once football is over, I'm screwed again.

It's very easy to take a position on an issue that doesn't really affect you. It's very easy, after five or ten years of living under this kind of law, to shout out about how successful the law is and how business isn't affected. It's very easy to take this type of conversation and turn it into a personal insult war. All I can say is that this country has TRIED prohibition in this country before. As I recollect, it was vastly unsuccessful and led to an explosive rise in organized crime. During Prohibition, as a matter of fact, the bar I work in was a grocery store. But in the basement, well, that's where the still was. I stand on the trapdoor to get there every night. At the end of Prohibition, the police officer that walked that beat gave the owner of the Fairview his billy club. Why? Because he didn't need it any more; alcohol was legal once again and the owner reverted to a law-abiding citizen. We still use the stick to this day. It's our attention-getter, the last resort before we call the cops (you'd be surprised at the noise it makes when you slam it against the bar). But to me, it also serves as a lesson about the futility of the government attempting to legislate morality.

benbradley
12-31-2007, 08:40 PM
I don't buy that "it's my right to cancer" argument. If people want to smoke in their own homes, go for it. But when they do it in public it affects more than just them personally. I stopped smoking before I could make it a serious problem so I would not ends up with health issues. I sure don't want to have them anyway due to someone else.

It's illegal to be drunk in public. Why? Because you put others at risk. so why should it be ok to smoke in public? You want to smoke, be my guest, but do it where it only slowly kills you, not the rest of us.
Why would anyone bothered by cigarette smoke go into a place which was clearly a smoking-allowed environment?

If I owned/ran a smoking-allowed bar or restaurant "open to the public", not only would I have a sign saying "Smoking Allowed", I'd have another sign with the usual "this establishment may refuse service to anyone" but also saying "including anyone complaining about cigarette smoke."

The question here is what the government should allow in a privately owned business open to "the general public."
No one wants to "ignore" it. Problem is, we had a little historical 15-year episode with banning alcohol, so there's a track record: It didn't work worth a damn.
I think the amazing part about this is the failure was actually publicly recognized by those in power (actually I don't know the history of it, it would surely be interesting reading), rather than continuing on a "War on Alcohol" campaign similar to the current War On Drugs.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 08:41 PM
All I can say is that this country has TRIED prohibition in this country before.
You keep comparing this to prohibition, but banning smoking in public doesn't even come close to what prohibition was.

benbradley
12-31-2007, 08:53 PM
Shadow_Ferret was speaking of alcohol...
Problems associated with the minority ABUSE of one product

There have been MANY products taken off the market because a MINORITY abused them, didn't read the directions, etc. Alcohol remains legal and on the market (and regulated and taxed by The Government) because it has such an ingrained place in Western society, not because (as written earlier in this thread) it's "safe and even healthful when used as directed."

'ric
12-31-2007, 08:54 PM
i'm really confused about the anti-smoking laws in cities.

i love them.

but i feel like i shouldnt.

:( ?

or :) ?

:Shrug: ?

i'm going to go take a breathe of fresh air and think this through

Smoking sure is a hot-button issue these days, ain'a. Getting a lot of response here. Say what you will, it does seem to nicely separate the authoritarians from the lovers of freedom; those who love their nannies and those who don't.

Well, I've decided to drop in my buck-98. Below is a letter to the editor I had published in the local rag. Please note the the headline was composed by the editors there, not me. Let the fur fly:


SMOKING BAN IS FASCIST
Dear Editor,

When I was a lad my mother told me “just because everybody else jumps off the deep end of the pier doesn’t mean you must do so too.” I imagine your mother told you much the same, but if your call to “catch up with neighbors, pass smoking ban” editorial is any indication, you have forgotten her lesson.

If our concern is clean, healthy air, then I suggest focusing on legislating adequate ventilation and filtration systems in public places. If this policy is enforced, then second-hand smoke would no longer be a “problem”. In fact, second-had smoke is among the least of our healthy air concerns. Good ventilation will resolve all of them.

I know that health-nazis these days are obsessed with cigarette butts, but the sad fact of the matter is that science in this country has become politicized. Various fear mongering advocacy groups pick, choose, exaggerate and manufacture studies to promote hysteria in order to advance their agenda. Is smoking unhealthy? Yes it is, along with (when you stop and think about it) just about any other activity one might engage in. Smoking will kill you if you live long enough. This doesn’t mean, however, that an occasional whiff of tobacco smoke is any cause for concern. If you doubt this, try googling a little deeper than advocacy group press releases. You might learn something.

Journalists used to say: “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” You should keep this in mind. The job of the press in this country is not supposed to be to promote government policy but to question it.

This “we gotta do like everybody else” argument is just the sort of specious sophistry one might expect from a politician. We might expect a little better from the press.

Any comments?

'ric

'ric
12-31-2007, 09:05 PM
...about the futility of the government attempting to legislate morality.

Exactly right. Outlawing cigarettes is the best thing our gummint can do to help organized crime. It will open up a whole new black market, and I mean a big black market.

Tobacco prohibition would be a great opportunity for your local gangstas, as well as an outstanding budget funding opportunity for law enforcement.

'ric

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 09:11 PM
Shadow_Ferret was speaking of alcohol...


There have been MANY products taken off the market because a MINORITY abused them, didn't read the directions, etc. Alcohol remains legal and on the market (and regulated and taxed by The Government) because it has such an ingrained place in Western society, not because (as written earlier in this thread) it's "safe and even healthful when used as directed."
And because it tastes good and gives you a buzz.

MarkEsq
12-31-2007, 09:16 PM
Interesting discussion for me, too, because I also loathe overly-intrusive government. But I can see the flip side, too, and think I come down in favor of the ban. Here's why (and hopefully addresses a few earlier points and doesn't repeat too many made by others):

1. The government can, does, should, has always, and always will legislate morality. No public sex in grocery stores, no nudity in post offices, no murder allowed. The question ought to be, I think, should the govt legislate morality when there is no other, tangible, harm involved. Maybe, maybe not, but I think there is tangible harm from allowing people to smoke in bars and restaurants. Which brings me to...

2. Aren't the laws helping those who work in bars and restaurants? I guess you could say, "Get a job somewhere else," but that doesn't seem either realistic or very charitable.

3. I also suspect there are people who have breathing-related medical issues who would, in theory, be fine with a couple of smokers dotted about a room, but in reality cannot go to smoke-allowing places at all.

4. The truth is that smoking is carried out by the minority and disliked by the majority. Isn't banning it merely a reflection of democracy at work?

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 09:33 PM
1. The government can, does, should, has always, and always will legislate morality. No public sex in grocery stores, no nudity in post offices, no murder allowed. The question ought to be, I think, should the govt legislate morality when there is no other, tangible, harm involved. Maybe, maybe not, but I think there is tangible harm from allowing people to smoke in bars and restaurants. Which brings me to...
But government also allows businesses to run immorality thorugh regulation. Whorehouses in certain states. Liquor licenses. Strip clubs. Gambling. So why not allow tobacco licenses instead of an outright ban?

MarkEsq
12-31-2007, 09:36 PM
But government also allows businesses to run immorality thorugh regulation. Whorehouses in certain states. Liquor licenses. Strip clubs. Gambling. So why not allow tobacco licenses instead of an outright ban?


That may be a decent solution. It may not get around the problem of having serving staff inhaling second-hand smoke all night long. But then if only some bars and restaurants allow smoking then maybe they would, indeed, have greater job mobility and choice - to work at one of the many bars/restaurants that doesn't have a license.

Bartholomew
12-31-2007, 09:45 PM
SMOKING BAN IS FASCIST
Dear Editor,

When I was a lad my mother told me “just because everybody else jumps off the deep end of the pier doesn’t mean you must do so too.” I imagine your mother told you much the same, but if your call to “catch up with neighbors, pass smoking ban” editorial is any indication, you have forgotten her lesson.

If our concern is clean, healthy air, then I suggest focusing on legislating adequate ventilation and filtration systems in public places. If this policy is enforced, then second-hand smoke would no longer be a “problem”. In fact, second-had smoke is among the least of our healthy air concerns. Good ventilation will resolve all of them.

I know that health-nazis these days are obsessed with cigarette butts, but the sad fact of the matter is that science in this country has become politicized. Various fear mongering advocacy groups pick, choose, exaggerate and manufacture studies to promote hysteria in order to advance their agenda. Is smoking unhealthy? Yes it is, along with (when you stop and think about it) just about any other activity one might engage in. Smoking will kill you if you live long enough. This doesn’t mean, however, that an occasional whiff of tobacco smoke is any cause for concern. If you doubt this, try googling a little deeper than advocacy group press releases. You might learn something.

Journalists used to say: “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” You should keep this in mind. The job of the press in this country is not supposed to be to promote government policy but to question it.

This “we gotta do like everybody else” argument is just the sort of specious sophistry one might expect from a politician. We might expect a little better from the press.


Excellent letter. I wasn't aware that ventilation was a serious health concern.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 09:55 PM
Excellent letter. I wasn't aware that ventilation was a serious health concern.
Wasn't poor ventilation what spread Legionaire's Disease?

benbradley
12-31-2007, 10:08 PM
Exactly right. Outlawing cigarettes is the best thing our gummint can do to help organized crime. It will open up a whole new black market, and I mean a big black market.

Tobacco prohibition would be a great opportunity for your local gangstas, as well as an outstanding budget funding opportunity for law enforcement.

'ric


I've already heard of criminal activity many years ago due to the wildly different state taxes on cigarettes. In areas with higher taxes such as New York State (I think the cigarette tax is several DOLLARS per pack), it becomes very profitable for criminals to forge tax stamps and ship truckloads of cigarettes from tobacco-processing areas to such states.
That may be a decent solution. It may not get around the problem of having serving staff inhaling second-hand smoke all night long.
THIS JOB REQUIRES YOU TO WORK IN AN AREA WHERE TOBACCO SMOKING IS ALLOWED. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU AGREE TO WORK IN THESE CONDITIONS, THAT YOU MAY BE HARMED BY BREATHING SMOKE, AND THAT YOU WILL NOT HOLD THIS ESTABLISHMENT LIABLE FOR ANY HARM TO YOU RELATED TO TOBACCO SMOKE.
SIGNED: ______________________ (EMPLOYEE) DATE: ________
MANAGER/WITNESS: ______________________
But then if only some bars and restaurants allow smoking then maybe they would, indeed, have greater job mobility and choice - to work at one of the many bars/restaurants that doesn't have a license.
I see no need for there to be "non-smoking bars" available just so someone can find a smoke-free bartending job. Anyone doing such work (especially just a few short decades ago, and even still in many places) pretty much knows they can expect to be around smoke. I'd suggest non-smoking bartenders investigate "career mobility" such as as a cashier, stocker or bagger in a grocery store.

billythrilly7th
12-31-2007, 10:28 PM
THIS JOB REQUIRES YOU TO WORK IN AN AREA WHERE TOBACCO SMOKING IS ALLOWED. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU AGREE TO WORK IN THESE CONDITIONS, THAT YOU MAY BE HARMED BY BREATHING SMOKE, AND THAT YOU WILL NOT HOLD THIS ESTABLISHMENT LIABLE FOR ANY HARM TO YOU RELATED TO TOBACCO SMOKE.
SIGNED: ______________________ (EMPLOYEE) DATE: ________
MANAGER/WITNESS: ______________________

I see no need for there to be "non-smoking bars" available just so someone can find a smoke-free bartending job. Anyone doing such work (especially just a few short decades ago, and even still in many places) pretty much knows they can expect to be around smoke. I'd suggest non-smoking bartenders investigate "career mobility" such as as a cashier, stocker or bagger in a grocery store.

DEAR FACTORY WORKER
THIS JOB REQUIRES YOU TO WORK IN AN AREA WHERE ASBESTOS INHALTION IS ALLOWED AND WITH HAZARDOUS POORLY MAINTAINED MACHINERY THAT MIGHT CAUSE YOU TO LOSE A HAND. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU AGREE TO WORK IN THESE CONDITIONS, THAT YOU MAY BE HARMED BY BREATHING ASBESTOS AND BY WORKING WITH THE MACHINERY, AND THAT YOU WILL NOT HOLD THIS FACTORY LIABLE FOR ANY HARM TO YOU RELATED TO ASBESTOS PARTICLES OR THE MACHINERY.
SIGNED: ______________________ (EMPLOYEE) DATE: ________
MANAGER/WITNESS: ______________________

I'd suggest that factory workers who don't want to breathe in asbestos or work with hazardous machinery investigate "career mobility" such as as a cashier, stocker or bagger in a grocery store.

Shadow_Ferret
12-31-2007, 10:53 PM
Yeah, but the difference is there are people who voluntarily SMOKE. I can't think of anyone who voluntarily breathes asbestos. So in the case of businesses wanting to have a smoking establishment, they simply hire people who already smoke.

After all, there are already "smoking bars" designed for cigar smokers. I'm sure everyone there, patron and employee, is a cigar fancier.

billythrilly7th
12-31-2007, 11:35 PM
Yeah, but the difference is there are people who voluntarily SMOKE. I can't think of anyone who voluntarily breathes asbestos. So in the case of businesses wanting to have a smoking establishment, they simply hire people who already smoke.

Discriminatary.

And the whole purpose of labor laws.

People who need jobs are sometimes desperate and willing to do anything, including working in hazardous conditions.

"I need a job, so I'll tell them I smoke and just deal with it."

"I need a job so I'll work 14 hour days in a factory with no air ventillation or breaks or days off."

Robert Toy
01-01-2008, 12:40 AM
The effects of alcohol are not much different than taking some of the banned drugs it gives you a buzz, loosens one’s inhibitions and makes you feel like you can whoop anyone’s ass if they get in your way. Cool stuff, you can listen to your hair grow the next morning too!

To make things clear, I have nothing personal against alcohol. I don’t drink anymore because of a medical condition and the drugs that I need to take. I still smoke on occasion, which is really stupid.

We all know that the government will never attempt to impose a prohibition again, as many posts have stated and it would just drive it underground and turn into a huge black-market…the same folks running coke would take over the business.

The thing that really PISSES me off, is if someone attempted to make a smoking only bar/airline, etc. The people making the most noise about the dangers of second had some would insist that it is discriminatory, the governement would put a stop to it.

Can you imagine the stink that would be raised if an American airline decided not to serve alcohol on its flights? Oh well, such is life.

This is no win argument that can go on forever.

SC Harrison
01-01-2008, 01:07 AM
No public sex in grocery stores

Except in the frozen foods section. If you can keep it up in there, you've earned the right to squeeze the Charmin...or is it...toast the streudel? Crap. I had the end of the joke right there, but I lost it. :(

benbradley
01-01-2008, 02:33 AM
DEAR FACTORY WORKER
THIS JOB REQUIRES YOU TO WORK IN AN AREA WHERE ASBESTOS INHALTION IS ALLOWED AND WITH HAZARDOUS POORLY MAINTAINED MACHINERY THAT MIGHT CAUSE YOU TO LOSE A HAND. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU AGREE TO WORK IN THESE CONDITIONS, THAT YOU MAY BE HARMED BY BREATHING ASBESTOS AND BY WORKING WITH THE MACHINERY, AND THAT YOU WILL NOT HOLD THIS FACTORY LIABLE FOR ANY HARM TO YOU RELATED TO ASBESTOS PARTICLES OR THE MACHINERY.
SIGNED: ______________________ (EMPLOYEE) DATE: ________
MANAGER/WITNESS: ______________________

I'd suggest that factory workers who don't want to breathe in asbestos or work with hazardous machinery investigate "career mobility" such as as a cashier, stocker or bagger in a grocery store.
Hey, that's a great idea, no doubt there are a lot of factory workers who wish they had read something like that before they started their jobs at such a factory, even if it was the best paying job within 100 miles. I'm always in favor of people knowing what they're in for.

kikazaru
01-01-2008, 02:34 AM
There would be a black market - ie the Aboriginal reserves here had a thriving blk mkt cigarette business when the price of cigs was raised. They pay no tax so they were able to pass along their "savings" to the consumer. However (imo) if smoking was outlawed outright, the majority of the people would just quit. Yes it is addicting (and I've heard it said it is more powerful than cocaine), however you don't see nicotine addicts robbing grocery stores for a "fix" during nicotine withdrawl. People don't have to check themselves into rehab to get off of it, and I've never heard of a smoker having an intervention because their habit is interfering with their life like drugs do. It is a nasty dirty filthy habit, but not insurmountable as thousands who quit can attest. I think people would be pissed off, they would grumble about their rights, and I imagine a minority would seek out the black market just to make their point that no one can dictate to them about ruining their health, but the majority would just go about their lives without cigarettes. Resulting in healthier work places and homes, less asthma, lung cancer, circulatory problems etc etc etc in the population.

However I have no hope at all that they will be outlawed any time soon. The tax revenues that are generated by cigs and alcohol are too huge to be ignored.

truelyana
01-01-2008, 02:44 AM
I don't smoke, but I observe people who do smoke. There is a vast majority of smokers, and I don't think smoking is a big thing. It seems to be a tad fashionable on the streets, a habit which sometimes can be a valid enough reason to give up for some. I don't think the smoking ban is of much importance, people still smoke.

blacbird
01-01-2008, 02:48 AM
I don't smoke, but I observe people who do smoke. There is a vast majority of smokers,

Eh? Figures I've seen indicate that only around 25% of Americans smoke.

caw

truelyana
01-01-2008, 02:51 AM
Eh? Figures I've seen indicate that only around 25% of Americans smoke.

caw

People I've watched around here in England, putting aside statistics.

blacbird
01-01-2008, 04:00 AM
Brits (Europeans in general) smoke a lot more than Americans do. The incidence of smoking among Americans has been cut in half over the past 40 years.

caw

'ric
01-01-2008, 08:32 AM
Excellent letter. I wasn't aware that ventilation was a serious health concern.

Maybe it should be. There are a lot of pathogens carried in the air. My point is that if a place has a good ventilation system, the "second-hand smoke problem" is resolved along with any other (more serious) concerns.

'ric

'ric
01-01-2008, 09:21 AM
Interesting discussion for me, too, because I also loathe overly-intrusive government. But I can see the flip side, too, and think I come down in favor of the ban. Here's why (and hopefully addresses a few earlier points and doesn't repeat too many made by others):

1. The government can, does, should, has always, and always will legislate morality. No public sex in grocery stores, no nudity in post offices, no murder allowed. The question ought to be, I think, should the govt legislate morality when there is no other, tangible, harm involved. Maybe, maybe not, but I think there is tangible harm from allowing people to smoke in bars and restaurants. Which brings me to...

2. Aren't the laws helping those who work in bars and restaurants? I guess you could say, "Get a job somewhere else," but that doesn't seem either realistic or very charitable.

3. I also suspect there are people who have breathing-related medical issues who would, in theory, be fine with a couple of smokers dotted about a room, but in reality cannot go to smoke-allowing places at all.

4. The truth is that smoking is carried out by the minority and disliked by the majority. Isn't banning it merely a reflection of democracy at work?


Your points 1 & 2 were nicely covered by others. Let me address points 3 & 4.

#3. There is nothing now nor has there ever been anything to stop any bar or restaurant from declaring itself smoke-free. Many, in fact, have done so. That's their right.

#4. Yes, that is a reflection of democracy at work. The Founding Fathers had a word for it. They called it the "Tyranny of the Majority".

The issue here is property rights. These are important, too. Consider this: Would you want me dictating to you what the rules will or will not be in your home or place of business. I think not. Actually, I hope your're not such a sorry-ass pussy that you'd tolerate that. Then why are you willing to let a gaggle of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers and cops do that to you?

In my house, you leave your shoes at the door. You will not be provided with slippers, though you may bring along your own. You don't like that rule? Then don't come over.

Nobody forces anyone to patronize any bar or restaurant. Nobody forces anyone to work in one either. This is a big country. You don't like one place, just step down the street and pick another.

As for "legislating morality": Yes, the government has done this, but that doesn't make it right. Unless and until I'm disturbing my neighbors dog, the government should just leave me alone. Our government is tasked by the Constitution with preserving our liberties, not encroaching them. Why is it that both Liberals and Conservatives these days are always looking for excuses to do so? That's unAmerican.

As I mentioned in an earlier posting: If you're truely concerned with the health and welfare of patrons and employees, then just enforce good air ventilation standards. I believe these laws already exist. That will take care of any second-hand smoke concerns, along with any other more serious clean-air concerns anyone might have. Note also that it accomplishes this end without any compromising of the bar or restaurant owner's property rights.The proper course for any society in which Liberty and Freedom are more than feel-good, jingoistic buzz-words is to enact laws which minimize any encroachment on anyone's rights. It especially shouldn't abrogate anyone's rights on nothing more than the justification that someone else, even a "majority", disapproves of what that person is doing. The word for that is "tyranny": i.e., the imposing of your preferences on others.

'ric

blacbird
01-01-2008, 11:11 AM
The issue here is property rights. These are important, too. Consider this: Would you want me dictating to you what the rules will or will not be in your home or place of business. I think not. Actually, I hope your're not such a sorry-ass pussy that you'd tolerate that.

Happens all the time, ric. You think a restaurant can claim "property rights" when serving food in unhealthy conditions? You wanna smoke? Go somewhere outside the influence of your exhaled carcinogens on my lungs, and I'm fine with that.

caw

Opty
01-01-2008, 11:12 AM
In some cultures, yellow teeth symbolize virility.

Take out the word "yellow" and you've just described certain parts of the South.