Ohio smokers: get a fucking grip

[black rabbit]

So it's been a month since the voters (including me) passed the smoking ban, and less than a week since the smokers (including me) have had to go take a walk around the block or go huddle in an alley when we want to indulge. Big fucking deal.

From the simpering histrionics I've been hearing over the past few weeks, though, you'd think the American Cancer Society was rounding us up in cattle cars.

"It's a civil rights issue!" they say. "I'm an adult, I can make my own choices, and where does anybody get off trying to tell me how to live my life??? It's like NAZI RUSSIA!!!1~ WAAAAAAAA! :cough: :cough:"

BULLSHIT.

Two years ago, many of you fuckers voted for a state consitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and civil unions, and granting anything having the appearance of a benefit of marriage to same-sex partners.

So it's not just that gays can't get married and can't sign their civil union cards or whatever - if a private agency receives any state funding at all, they're not allowed to offer health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees. The multi-thousand-dollar power-of-attorney-cum-inheritance business-type contract arrangements that some G/L couples have set up to give their partners minimal rights in lieu of any spousal priveledges are being questioned.

This directly affects at least half a dozen couples that I know, a few of whom have been together twice as long as my wife and I. You fucking bigots voted to deny them their most basic civil rights.

And now you're complaining about the jack-booted thugs making you walk an extra twenty feet to light up?

Fuuuuuck YOU.

I hope you all have gay children who end up working for the Health Department. You fucking hypocrites.

[monstro]

Good call. And I'd like to extend the hippocrite label to those who are fighting for their "right" to trans-fat (like the Constitution was written up in Crisco on a slab of bacon) but refuse to recognize the right for everyone to marry whomever they want.

[monstro]

No offense to all the hippos, by the way. :)

[DianaG]

Well, for what it's worth, as a gay marriage supporting smoker who doesn't live in Ohio (but does live in Massachusetts, which has had a smoking ban for a couple of years now), I wouldn't call smoking a civil rights issue, but I would call it a property rights issue. Why not let whoever owns the building decide whether or not to allow smoking?

[howye]

Well, for what it's worth, as a gay marriage supporting smoker who doesn't live in Ohio (but does live in Massachusetts, which has had a smoking ban for a couple of years now), I wouldn't call smoking a civil rights issue, but I would call it a property rights issue. Why not let whoever owns the building decide whether or not to allow smoking?

Good call. Why don't we let the owners decide? I mean if the owner of the bar thinks that employees shouldn't have to wash their hands after using the bathroom, why is the government telling them they have to? Really, if the restaurant owner doesn't want to the expense of refrigerating the unprepared food, why should the government tell him he has to?

WHAT THE FUCK! Smokers have a blind spot when it comes to their own addiction. Second hand smoke is a nuisance and a health hazard. Neither patrons nor employees of a business should have to be forced into going elsewhere to avoid the pollution of others bad habits. There is no property rights issue. We as a society tell business owners how to run their operations all the time. We do it for the health and safety of the community. In this case, the community has said that enough is enough, if you want to smoke do it away from the public.

Oh, while we are at it: a big FUCK YOU to the tobacco companies. You fuckwits screwed yourselves. By running a TV campaign the clarified what the competing issues were on the Ohio ballot, you insured people voted for the total ban and not your ineffective partial ban. If you had kept your mouth shut, many more peole might have been confused and voted for your issue.

[DianaG]

Neither patrons nor employees of a business should have to be forced into going elsewhere to avoid the pollution of others bad habits.
Hmm, I think you and I are using different definitions of the word "forced." What I suggest is offering "options" which both smokers and non-smokers are free to take advantage of. If one bar allows smoking, and one doesn't, neither of us is being "forced" to go to one or the other. We have the opportunity to make an informed decision as to where to spend our money.

[black rabbit]

I agree that we can have a legitimate debate about smoking and property rights, though I come down more on the public health side. What's pissing me off is having to constantly listen shit like this sample letter from today's Enquirer (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/EDIT0202/612100348/1022/EDIT):

I am furious with this new law. Our rights are being taken away from us, one at a time. I eat out at restaurants frequently, at least three to four times a week. I will never go to a restaurant in Cincinnati again. Thank goodness we live close to two borders. I will be going to dinner at the Argosy very frequently from now on.

Smokers do have rights, too. If I choose to slowly kill myself, I should have the right to do so.

I am always respectful of nonsmokers' rights. I don't ever smoke around anyone who does not like the smoke.

However, the do-gooders have gone way overboard. I have seven children, in their 30s and 40s, who are all in good health. Way back when, you were even allowed to smoke in the hospital. I smoked while pregnant with all seven kids, in the hospital to deliver them, and at home while I was nursing them. No one knew any different back then. While that sounds absurd now, it wasn't then. So I do not believe that the smoke affects everyone the same.

We are slowly becoming a communist state. Hitler didn't take over all at once. He did it little by little and the people never saw it coming. Someday in the near future, someone will be trying to take away some right that you hold dear, and we will all be too far gone to be able to stop it.

And you probably thought I was making up the NAZI RUSSIA bit.

[Rilchiam]

All I know is, they're banning it in Nevada. NEVADA. As in, LAS VEGAS. You can't enjoy a smoke in Sin City. Unless you're at the slot machines or the gaming tables. But not at the bar. Not in the restaurant. How can they take that away?

[howye]

Hmm, I think you and I are using different definitions of the word "forced." What I suggest is offering "options" which both smokers and non-smokers are free to take advantage of. If one bar allows smoking, and one doesn't, neither of us is being "forced" to go to one or the other. We have the opportunity to make an informed decision as to where to spend our money.

Except there are no options. The number of non-smoking bars was always extremely low...

Screw it. I was going to debate you on the lack of real options, or the fact that non-smoking sections never protected non-smokers, or the fact that bars are nearly 100% smoking establishments were allowed by law. But that is all bullshit and not the issue. As I said before, smokers have a blind spot in this issue. Second hand smoke has real health effects, and the smell is disgusting. If I opened a bar and allowed people to piss in your in face, I would be shut down in about 3.2 seconds. But, you believe that is acceptable to discharge your pollutants on others, sorry that just does not fly.

[Dr. Drake]

Hmm, I think you and I are using different definitions of the word "forced." What I suggest is offering "options" which both smokers and non-smokers are free to take advantage of. If one bar allows smoking, and one doesn't, neither of us is being "forced" to go to one or the other. We have the opportunity to make an informed decision as to where to spend our money.The thing is, this was the case for the majority of the twentieth century. How many non-smoking bars were there? None that I recall. People felt that non-smokers should just suck it up (literally) and deal with it.

I have no objection to people enjoying tobacco. I don't understand it, but your body, etc., etc. However, it all comes down to the fact that smoking it forces others to deal with the smoke, and we shouldn't have to. Especially not as a condition of employment. A property owner may well want smokers in his establishment, but then all of his / her employees must be exposed to smoke for 20-40 hours a week.

I don't have a good solution. I wish there was one. I don't think banning the practice everywhere is morally justified; it makes my life a heck of a lot pleasanter, but I don't think it's right. Could everyone just learn to chew? Spitoons aren't very attractive, but even cleaning them doesn't harm a nonsmoker.

[jsgoddess]

I am always respectful of nonsmokers' rights. I don't ever smoke around anyone who does not like the smoke.

From the letter you quoted, br, not your words.

How is it that every smoker is a respectful smoker, and yet I have spent my life getting snootfuls of smoke and seeing tons of filters hither and yon? Do smokers actually believe that they are considerate, or is this just one of those things they claim to try to deflect the anger?

[Thudlow Boink]

I wouldn't call smoking a civil rights issue, but I would call it a property rights issue. Why not let whoever owns the building decide whether or not to allow smoking?Same reason we don't let property owners decide whether or not to have fire exits, or make their places handicapped-accessible, or line the walls with asbestos, or grease the floor around the edges of the pit where they throw the rusty knives?

[DianaG]

If I opened a bar and allowed people to piss in your in face, I would be shut down in about 3.2 seconds.
Not if you properly categorized it as a private fetish club, and got the appropriate licensing. :D

Please explain to me why when I insist that I have rights as a consumer, it's a "blind spot", and when you do the same, it's not.

[hajario]

Before the California statewide ban was passed, the city of Los Angeles enacted one. Oh how the bar and restaurant owners whined about how they were going to lose business to people who were going to go outside the city limits to places that allowed smoking. Fact is, business went up. For the most part, the smokers went to their favorite places anyway (much easier granted when there isn't freezing weather and a foot of snow on the ground) and the non-smokers came out in droves.

The California laws were passed as an occupational safety issue. Business owners can't expose their employees to asbestos or polonium or second hand smoke. The patrons have nothing to do with it.

[hajario]

Please explain to me why when I insist that I have rights as a consumer, it's a "blind spot", and when you do the same, it's not.

It is an employee safety issue, not a consumer issue.

[DianaG]

It is an employee safety issue, not a consumer issue.
Okay, then please explain to me why people can choose to work in a coal mine, but not in a bar that allows smoking.

[jsgoddess]

Okay, then please explain to me why people can choose to work in a coal mine, but not in a bar that allows smoking.

A coal mine has to be made as safe as possible. A bar has to be made as safe as possible. Fire fighting has to be made as safe as possible. All of these professions have different levels of what is "possible."

[DianaG]

Okay, then please explain to me why the public safety is better served by eliminating smoking than it is by collecting car keys and administering breathalyzers before returning them.

I'm just saying, people who insist that ALL SMOKING MUST BE DONE IN SHAMEFUL EXILE might have a bit of a blind spot.

[jsgoddess]

Okay, then please explain to me why the public safety is better served by eliminating smoking than it is by collecting car keys and administering breathalyzers before returning them.

Again, employee safety isn't the same thing as "public safety."

I've mentioned on here before that at my workplace we are required to insist that all employees wear earplugs. They don't want to, but they absolutely must in order to work for us. If we could have gotten rid of the noise, we would have. Since we can't, we must enforce wearing a piece of safety equipment for their protection.

In a bar or restaurant, they can get rid of the hazard (smoke) instead of requiring the protective equipment. Since the hazard can be eliminated, it should be. Other hazards can't be eliminated, so they must be worked around somehow.

[kanicbird]

I really don't agree with the relationship between SSM and smoking.

[jjimm]

How is it that every smoker is a respectful smoker, and yet I have spent my life getting snootfuls of smoke and seeing tons of filters hither and yon? Do smokers actually believe that they are considerate, or is this just one of those things they claim to try to deflect the anger?I suggest the only smokers you see are the inconsiderate ones. You won't see me smoking around you because I respect your right not to be smoked at; you won't see my butts because I pocket them until I can find a trash can.

The exception to this is if I'm in an establishment that allows smoking, and even then if you wanted me to keep it away from you, I would, though not to as great a degree of inconvenience that I might endure in a non-smoking environment.

They're bringing the ban in for the entire country on England next July, and I totally agree with the principle. Sorry DianaG, I know where you're coming from, but when you argue "public safety", the argument is irrelevant. It's about workers' rights, and though we smokers can claim that workers can choose whether or not to work in a smoky environment, in reality, sometimes there's no choice, and there's also the risk of coercion. If we can make it safer for them, we should. And since such bans usually have about 70% support in most jurisdictions where they're proposed, we haven't got a leg to stand on.

[hajario]

I'm just saying, people who insist that ALL SMOKING MUST BE DONE IN SHAMEFUL EXILE might have a bit of a blind spot.

I, for one, haven't expressed an opinion. I have just explained why and law is the way it is. Making it an occupation safety issue was a brilliant legal maneuver. Expecting the legal code to be fair and totally consistent is ridiculous.

In any event, as jsgoddess said better than I could have, the workplace needs to be made a safe as is reasonably possible. In a coal mine, you have to wear a filtered mask. If there is asbestos floating around, you can't work there at all unless you are removing the asbestos and only then with the proper protective equipment and training. In a bar, you can just remove the second hand smoke to the outdoors.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I really don't agree with the relationship between SSM and smoking.
You don't believe smoking causes secondhand smoke?

[hajario]

You don't believe smoking causes secondhand smoke?

SSM = same sex marriage.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

SSM = same sex marriage.
:smack:

[mhendo]

The California laws were passed as an occupational safety issue. Business owners can't expose their employees to asbestos or polonium or second hand smoke. The patrons have nothing to do with it.I'm a non-smoker, and i've always been ambivalent about smoking bans in bars and restaurants.

But, for me, the occupational health aspect has always been the tipping point, the key reason to support the bans. I quit a bar job once because the smoke was getting to me. But i had a variety of options open to me at the time. Other waiters and bartenders aren't so lucky, and i think that allowing them to work in a smoke-free atmosphere is a good thing.

One could make the argument that the free-market approach should rule. That is, if there's really a market for non-smoking bars and restaurants, then owners should be able to choose to open such an establishment. There is, i believe, a reason why this probably won't work, and i'll repeat an argument i made in this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=365254)

About ten years ago, back when i was living in Australia, a bar in Sydney decided to go non-smoking. This was before any rules or legislation had been introduced, so it took this step in a city where basically every drinking establishment allowed smoking.

Now, there are plenty of smokers in Sydney, but there are also plenty of non-smokers, so i thought that the place might do OK. But after a couple of months it decided to go back to smoking, and it's quite easy to understand why. You see, despite the fact that discussions like this tend to separate people into "smokers" and "non-smokers," the fact is that people from both groups tend to hang out together. And, if a group of twelve people go out for a drink, even if there are only two or three smokers, chances are that the group will go to a smoking place in order to accommodate the smokers. A group of people that i went out with one night did exactly this, passing up the non-smoking place so that the minority of smokers in our party wouldn't be inconvenienced.

So, for the free market approach to work, non-smokers would have to start exerting their numerical influence in everyday social situations. We would have to say, on occasions like the one described above, that we're not willing to sit in a smoke-filled environment all night just to make our smoking friends happy. When smokers are in the minority in a group of people, they should be asked to accommodate themselves to the non-smokers. If that happened, then i think a choice-based system would work, and should be allowed to work.

I would prefer, if we're going to take the regulatory approach to smoking in bars, that we first try to deal with the issue by enforcing stricter health codes for ventilation. I've been to some places where nearly everyone is smoking, and the air is still pretty good because they have a decent ventilation system. Other places, however, turn into smoke boxes after only three or four people light up.

And, by the way, i agree with the OP. Anyone who voted to ban same-sex marriage, and who complains about the smoking ban, should be laughed at loud and long.

[Jackmannii]

Oh good, another smoking thread where we can all come together in harmonious understanding. :) I agree that we can have a legitimate debate about smoking and property rights, though I come down more on the public health side. What's pissing me off is having to constantly listen shit like this (quote from letter): "Smokers do have rights, too. If I choose to slowly kill myself, I should have the right to do so." And so you do. Just don't take the other customers and bar/restaurant workers down with you.

Other examples of hyperbolic nuttiness following passage of the Ohio anti-public smoking referendum: one letter writer to our local paper finding enormous significance in the fact that the referendum was scheduled to take effect Dec. 7 (Pearl Harbor Day). That's right - "JAPS BOMB SMOKERS!!!". And a pissed-off woman from Indiana who has frequented restaurants across the Ohio line is outraged about the smoking ban - after all, she wasn't allowed to vote on it. :rolleyes:

By the way, Diana, I am for cracking down on drunk drivers, polluting industries and other groups that threaten public health and safety, not just heedless people who smoke in enclosed public places. It's not an either-or proposition.

Smokers can probably still get a break at the few recalcitrant Ohio businesses that haven't complied with the ban yet - since the state hasn't gotten around to establishing the penalties for violation and no fines will be issued for awhile. Non-smokers will have to keep the heat on to assure adequate enforcement.

[Canadjun]

I really don't agree with the relationship between SSM and smoking.
I don't think there have been any studies that show that smokers are more or less likely to engage in same sex marriage, but if you mean you don't agree with the analogy between banning same sex marriage and banning smoking, please elaborate.

[Common Tater]

Overall, the blanket tobacco bans are obviously fascist, so as long as one is cool with that, go with your bad self. Smoking in public places is one thing, but the definition of a "public place" has morphed into virtually everywhere. I rather suspect the bans will be relatively shortlived.

[Common Tater]

Non-smokers will have to keep the heat on to assure adequate enforcement.

Jawohl.

[Gatopescado]

I rather suspect the bans will be relatively shortlived.

I don't. Just like seatbelt and helmet laws, they will stick. People will adapt.

[hajario]

Overall, the blanket tobacco bans are obviously fascist, so as long as one is cool with that, go with your bad self. Smoking in public places is one thing, but the definition of a "public place" has morphed into virtually everywhere. I rather suspect the bans will be relatively shortlived.

This post is so full of stupid that it's difficult to know where to begin. Can you please explain to us how the new Ohio ban is "fascist"? It was decided democratically, you know, by a vote of the people. It can be overturned by a vote of the people.

Short lived? In your dreams, Smokey. The bans have been in effect in some California municipalities for over twenty years. Could you possibly show us a cite for some of the hundreds of cities, states and countries where such laws are in effect that have gone back to the old way?

[Gukumatz]

A similiar ban has been put in place in Norway these last years. Much bitching and moaning in the start, but now, hardly a world. People adapt. To both sides of the debate; give the smokers some credit. Going outside is just *shrug* now.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

We've had the indoor smoking ban in California for over 8 years now, and as an occasional indulger in cigars I didn't have too much of a problem with it.

But I think it's gone a little too far now, since you can't smoke in most outdoor places either.

[black rabbit]

I really don't agree with the relationship between SSM and smoking.

You're right.

One is an over-reaching attempt by a bunch of idiots to inflict their stupid world-view on a minority, and the other says you can't smoke in bars.

[zamboniracer]

Overall, the blanket tobacco bans are obviously fascist, so as long as one is cool with that, go with your bad self. Smoking in public places is one thing, but the definition of a "public place" has morphed into virtually everywhere. I rather suspect the bans will be relatively shortlived.


Here's a published example of the silly extremes this law is being taken to, ie forbidding semi-truck drivers to smoke in their own cabs (http://www.expeditersonline.com/artman/publish/article_005209.html)

[BabaBooey]

You're right.

One is an over-reaching attempt by a bunch of idiots to inflict their stupid world-view on a minority, and the other says you can't smoke in bars.


I know there's no garunteed overlap, but given that a majority of voters were against SSM, and a majority were against smoking, it seems that a person that voted against SSM shared your views on smoking.

<----- Supports SSM as well as the right to choose to allow or forbid smoking in your private establishment.

[kanicbird]

but if you mean you don't agree with the analogy between banning same sex marriage and banning smoking, please elaborate.

Smoking in public I have always seen as not a right, but the ability to infringe on other's rights, along the lines of the right of you to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose - likewise the right of you to smoke ends at the tip of my nose. By banning it in those situations you are protecting the rights of the people from a group who wished to deny you your rights.

Smoking bans restrict our ability to do some things in some areas, it is restrictive along the lines of the speed limit. It sets limits on people for the good of the masses.

SSM is a ban on the legal recognition, it does nothing to restrict the act of SSM, nor the acts committed in SSM by the participants. No state enforced behavior modification is attempted in banning SSM.

[PunditLisa]

Okay, then please explain to me why people can choose to work in a coal mine, but not in a bar that allows smoking.

It's interesting that you bring up the coal mine issue. You do realize that up until the government forced the owners to install safety measures, men died all the time in the mines. Not only from freak accidents due to unreinforced walls, etc., but from "black lung," which was essentially a build up of coal dust in their lungs. My grandfather was burned over 40% of his body due to a coal mine explosion back in the '50's. The accident ended his career, throwing his family into poverty, and nearly ended his life. The owners didn't give him a dime or a damn.

Happily, some nosy "fascist" activists took up the coal miners' cause and put pressure on the coal mines to install safety measures in place to better protect the workers. It was met with great resistance from both the owners and even some miners who were afraid of losing their jobs. Their argument was that nobody was forcing their employees to work there and that they should chose another profession if they didn't want to accept the hazards of working there.

Now I doubt there's a person alive who would support rolling back the safety measures forced upon the coal mines. It seems a bit barbaric to turn a blind eye to people's health just because they need a job.

So for those who think the smoking ban will be short lived, let me predict that it will be overturned just as soon as OSHA allows coal mine companies to forego safety masks and reinforced walls. It's a safety issue, stupid.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I am just astounded at the ignorance of history shown here.
the NAZI RUSSIA bit.Whoever black rabbit quoted here seems to have missed that the Nazi's and the Russians lost, quite literally, millions of their soldiers fighting each other. Nearly 1/3 of all the Russian men of that age -- enough that it showed up in population statistics for decades afterward.

We are slowly becoming a communist state. Hitler didn't take over all at once. He did it little by little and the people never saw it coming. Someday in the near future, someone will be trying to take away some right that you hold dear, and we will all be too far gone to be able to stop it.Well, yes, he did try to do it all at once, in the 1923 putsch attempt, but lost.

Then later, he did do it 'all at once', by his party winning an election. And what do you mean "the people never saw it coming"? -- certainly they did, they voted (44%) for it to come! And it didn't happen little by little after that, most of the legislation giving Hitler complete control of the government, outlawing other political parties, etc. was all passed soon, within a year or so.

Don't these people know history at all?

[gonzomax]

I envision a cone of silence like Get Smart had. When a smoker lights up the cone comes down and he gets to keep all his smoke to himself. I dont care if they smoke in public as long as all the smoke stays with them.A big cone could drop and envelope the whole table. When done the air would be evacuated into their car.

[MisterThyristor]

Here's a published example of the silly extremes this law is being taken to, ie forbidding semi-truck drivers to smoke in their own cabs (http://www.expeditersonline.com/artman/publish/article_005209.html)

Actually, no. It doesn't prohibit smoking in "their own cabs", just in company-owned cabs that are, at least in theory, shared by other drivers. If they own the cab, they can smoke in it.

[Lissa]

The problem with the Ohio Law is some of the unintended consequences. There is a commission scheduled to publish a report in June of 2007 that will interpret this law. It has gotten pretty crazy with all the individual interpretations by legislators, lawyers and bureaucrats.

Some examples of interpretation include: 1) The idea that a truck driver, driving a company truck, will not be able to smoke in it because it is a workplace, 2) An individual who has a hospice worker or home health aid working in their home cannot smoke because their home is now a workplace, 3) Smoking areas cannot even be on sidewalks or areas where any traffic flows because it will expose people to second-hand smoke, 4) Smoking areas must be 200 feet from any STRUCTURE, because a window may allow smoke to come in, and finally my personal favorite, 5) If a covered area, set aside for smoking, is man made with at least three walls it is a building and smoking cannot occur in it.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Leaper]

I dunno. On one hand, I'm a non-smoker who hates smelling the stuff. On the other hand, I'm sort of sympathetic to libertarian arguments that this whole banning of smoking leads to stuff like banning trans fats, then to fining restaurants who don't serve enough healthy food, and so on forth down. And that's assuming that they're wrong that the dangers of secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated (not that it's not still incredibly annoying).

In either case, I'm not sure how I feel about the argument that "if you don't allow gays to marry, you can't complain about your rights being violated in any other regard." Viscerally, I agree, but it still feels WRONG to me in a way I can't explain...

Wow, my feelings on this are a lot more conflicted than I thought...

[CarnalK]

Our city put in a smoking ban a few years ago and it really did help me quit, imho.

But anyways, I would say to the OP, give the smokers and pub owners more than a month to adapt and accept. Really, certain types of bars will get screwed by a ban like this (e.g bars that compete with the Legion Hall), others will suddenly see new customers that never went to bars before.

I personally think it eventually shakes out positive but it takes a little longer than a month. Not much though...year or two (my personal opinion based on here and a few other cities I've read about).

[Jackmannii]

The problem with the Ohio Law is some of the unintended consequences... Some examples of interpretation include: 2) An individual who has a hospice worker or home health aid working in their home cannot smoke because their home is now a workplace, 3) Smoking areas cannot even be on sidewalks or areas where any traffic flows because it will expose people to second-hand smoke, 4) Smoking areas must be 200 feet from any STRUCTURE, because a window may allow smoke to come inI'm not sure where you're getting these "interpretations".

If you look at the entire language of the anti-public smoking initiative by Smoke Free Ohio (http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/documents/SFOlaw.pdf), none of the above eventualities seem to apply. For instance, private homes are exempt except if they are businesses, i.e. the homeowner runs a business out of them:

"(A) Private residences, except during the hours of operation as a child care or adult care facility for compensation, during the hours of operation as a business by a person other than a person residing in the private residence, or during the hours of operation as a business, when employees of the business, who are not residents of the private residence or are not related to the owner, are present."

That appears to eliminate the example where health care workers come into a home.

I see nothing in the initiative that would establish a 200 foot rule or prohibit smoking on sidewalks. These claims sound like something made up by the bar and restaurant industry as an attempt to demonstrate that the law is unworkable. On the contrary, the law makes sense and contains reasonable exemptions.

[kittenblue]

Some examples of interpretation include: 1) The idea that a truck driver, driving a company truck, will not be able to smoke in it because it is a workplace, 2) An individual who has a hospice worker or home health aid working in their home cannot smoke because their home is now a workplace, 3) Smoking areas cannot even be on sidewalks or areas where any traffic flows because it will expose people to second-hand smoke, 4) Smoking areas must be 200 feet from any STRUCTURE, because a window may allow smoke to come in, and finally my personal favorite, 5) If a covered area, set aside for smoking, is man made with at least three walls it is a building and smoking cannot occur in it.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

We got a memo at my workplace about this the other day. My mall in downtown Cleveland is non-smoking already, but occasionally people will grab a cigarette in the back hallways or by the dumpsters at the loading dock. Not often, but it happens. No more. Now in addition to going outside, smokers have to go across the street to Public Square to smoke, which can be quite a trek. Hard to do on a 15-minute break. And my mall is in the basement of a cluster of office buildings, all of which have to send their smokers over to Public Square. Can't wait to see the crowds...used to be just a few people at the doorways, but now they will all be huddling together on the Square for warmth.

And several restaurants have set up Smoker's Tents already, but they all seem to have four walls and a roof, which I guess is a violation. Even though the walls are just canvas. I wonder if they have heaters in there, because it's darn cold in these parts this time of year.

[kittenblue]

I see nothing in the initiative that would establish a 200 foot rule or prohibit smoking on sidewalks. These claims sound like something made up by the bar and restaurant industry as an attempt to demonstrate that the law is unworkable. On the contrary, the law makes sense and contains reasonable exemptions.

There's a section in the initiative that says a proprietor must ensure that smoke does not enter the building through entrances, windows or the ventilation system, so that has been interpreted to mean that smokers cannot stand near the doorways or the building itself...which rules out the sidewalks.

[Lissa]

I'm not sure where you're getting these "interpretations".

If you look at the entire language of the anti-public smoking initiative by Smoke Free Ohio (http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/documents/SFOlaw.pdf), none of the above eventualities seem to apply. For instance, private homes are exempt except if they are businesses, i.e. the homeowner runs a business out of them:

"(A) Private residences, except during the hours of operation as a child care or adult care facility for compensation, during the hours of operation as a business by a person other than a person residing in the private residence, or during the hours of operation as a business, when employees of the business, who are not residents of the private residence or are not related to the owner, are present."

That appears to eliminate the example where health care workers come into a home.

I see nothing in the initiative that would establish a 200 foot rule or prohibit smoking on sidewalks. These claims sound like something made up by the bar and restaurant industry as an attempt to demonstrate that the law is unworkable. On the contrary, the law makes sense and contains reasonable exemptions.


I actually agree with many of your interpretations, but others are not. These are the result of having a law without the interpretations. Once this commission files it's report, it will be much better.

I assure you, however, some of these rules have been discussed in many different places. I agree that many of them may be false rumors, but the language in the law seems to imply some of them

For example, look at this clause "An enclosed area is defined as a space with a roof or other overhead covering and walls or other side
coverings on all but one side."

When some palces constructed smoking pavillions, they put roofs, and three walls to act as wind breaks. This law would make it illegal to smoke in an outdoor smoking area, do you think that is rational and makes sense?

The hospice situation is also a problem. For example, there are "live-in" care providers. Thus, as a result, local hospice providers where I am put out a memo directing families that they cannot smoke in their homes if they wish to use these services. Does that make sense, or is it rational?

In addition, there is a huge issue in Ohio State government right now about what this means: "The posting of no smoking signs is required in all public places and places of employment where smoking is prohibited." How many signs?, every building, every area? I am not kidding when I say that some places are looking at purchasing 1,000's of no smoking signs because of this.

This is the part of the law that is getting various interpretations as well
"including in outdoor areas under the control of the proprietor immediately adjacent to places of ingress or egress to the enclosed area; requires a proprietor to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter enclosed areas through doors, windows, ventilation systems or other means where smoking is prohibited,"

How far does it have to be in order to avoid having smoke come in? Take for example a very large building, the state has many. They have smoking areas away from doors, but they are still up against the building. This would require moving them. The current distance, many beleive is 20 feet. However, some have said this is not enough. There are many places where buildings are not 20 feet apart. This means no one can smoke, outside of the building for hundreds, in some cases, thousands of feet until no building is within 20-30 feet.

This has also brought up bus stops. They have roofs and walls on all 4 sides. Thus, smoking is prohibited in them and 20-30 feet around them. Is this rational?



The bottom line is that there are a lot of interpretations that must be examined. It is not wholly rational and is subject to interpretation by many more who may be irrational.

Quite frankly, they should have just stuck with, don't smoke inside. When they started getting into egress, windows, ventilation and patios, it got really insane.

[lowbrass]

Sorry, gotta jump on the bandwagon here:
Hmm, I think you and I are using different definitions of the word "forced." What I suggest is offering "options" which both smokers and non-smokers are free to take advantage of. If one bar allows smoking, and one doesn't, neither of us is being "forced" to go to one or the other. We have the opportunity to make an informed decision as to where to spend our money.
What if all the bars allow smoking? How is that a choice?

[lowbrass]

All I know is, they're banning it in Nevada. NEVADA. As in, LAS VEGAS. You can't enjoy a smoke in Sin City. Unless you're at the slot machines or the gaming tables. But not at the bar. Not in the restaurant. How can they take that away?
Aw, man. Too bad the games are exempt. For a second there I thought I might actually get to enjoy some stench-free blackjack.

[Wallenstein]

This is the free-market in action.

The USA (in particular) has created a litigation-ready society, and the real driver for the smoking bans (IMO) is a geniune fear on the part of large hospitality chains that they will soon be subject to a class action suit for damages brought by bar workers who've contracted smoking-related diseases.

The evidence for illnesses from second-hand smoke is now so well-attested (and more importantly recognised by the courts) that there would be a clear failure of duty of care for bar owners to allow smoking.

Large chains are more at risk than smaller pubs / bars, and they will have put pressure on the Govt to legislate for an industry-wide ban - a "pick and choose" approach would leave larger chains with an impossible choice - 1) ban smoking and loose business, or 2) allow smoking and risk lawsuits.

[Lissa]

I'm a bit troubled by the vague wording of this passage as well:

If indoor smoking area is provided by a nursing home for residents of the nursing home . . . No employee of a nursing shall be required to accompany a resident into a designated indoor smoking area or perform services in such area when being used for smoking.

If interpreted literally, a resident could fall to the ground and the staff could refuse to enter the smoking area to assist them.

[Canadjun]

SSM is a ban on the legal recognition, it does nothing to restrict the act of SSM, nor the acts committed in SSM by the participants. No state enforced behavior modification is attempted in banning SSM.
Huh? To me, legal recognition is integral to the concept of marriage. It needs to be legally recognized to be marriage.

[zamboniracer]

Actually, no. It doesn't prohibit smoking in "their own cabs", just in company-owned cabs that are, at least in theory, shared by other drivers. If they own the cab, they can smoke in it.


The theory that the company owned cabs are shared by other drivers is ludicrous, of course, as most truck cabs are used by only one person at a time. Very very few have two drivers.

[Sailboat]

Okay, then please explain to me why people can choose to work in a coal mine, but not in a bar that allows smoking.

I'll bet you're not allowed to smoke in a coal mine, either. :P

Sailboat

[tdn]

DianaG (or anyone else), any idea how close a smoker can be to a building in MA? There are probably laws stating such, but I think most people tend to ignore them. I smoke next to bus stations and the like all the time, and no one has given me a hard time in probably the last decade. I try to respect their rights, and they end up respecting mine. It seems we have ignored the law and reached some sort of equalibrium.

Actually, I was recently confronted for smoking in a non-smoking area by a security guard. He very politely asked "Excuse me, sir, if you are going to smoke, could you please go over there?" (This was maybe 20 feet away.) I said sure and he thanked me profusely, and everyone was happy.

Give people a chance to get over the shock of the ban and they can have an enormous capacity to respect each other.

[Jackmannii]

For example, look at this clause "An enclosed area is defined as a space with a roof or other overhead covering and walls or other side
coverings on all but one side."

When some palces constructed smoking pavillions, they put roofs, and three walls to act as wind breaks. This law would make it illegal to smoke in an outdoor smoking area, do you think that is rational and makes sense?I don't know exactly what that's about, but it seems likely that it's designed to keep businesses from establishing essentially enclosed areas for smokers that will not be ventilated properly, thus exposing staff to high levels of secondhand smoke. You can have a smoking patio, but you can't unduly enclose it to essentially create another room. At least, that would make sense to me.The hospice situation is also a problem. For example, there are "live-in" care providers. Thus, as a result, local hospice providers where I am put out a memo directing families that they cannot smoke in their homes if they wish to use these services. Does that make sense, or is it rational?What you're referring to is not a result of state law but of a marketplace decision not to expose hospice workers to secondhand smoke. If the client wants to have services provided at home and not go to a hospice facility, that's a decision he/she will have to make. Sounds sensible.In addition, there is a huge issue in Ohio State government right now about what this means: "The posting of no smoking signs is required in all public places and places of employment where smoking is prohibited." How many signs?, every building, every area? I am not kidding when I say that some places are looking at purchasing 1,000's of no smoking signs because of this.I see nothing in state law that says that signs must be posted in every room of a facility. This sounds like more groundless fears.This is the part of the law that is getting various interpretations as well"including in outdoor areas under the control of the proprietor immediately adjacent to places of ingress or egress to the enclosed area; requires a proprietor to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter enclosed areas through doors, windows, ventilation systems or other means where smoking is prohibited,"

How far does it have to be in order to avoid having smoke come in? Take for example a very large building, the state has many. They have smoking areas away from doors, but they are still up against the building. This would require moving them. The current distance, many beleive is 20 feet. However, some have said this is not enough. There are many places where buildings are not 20 feet apart. This means no one can smoke, outside of the building for hundreds, in some cases, thousands of feet until no building is within 20-30 feet. All the law says is that in situations where smoke seeps into areas covered by the law, that situation must be corrected. If it stops the practice of smokers congregating right by the entrance to a building so that smoke seeps indoors and you have a run a gauntlet of smoke to get inside, well and good.This has also brought up bus stops. They have roofs and walls on all 4 sides. Thus, smoking is prohibited in them and 20-30 feet around them. Is this rational?Yes. You should be able to wait for the bus in an enclosure without having to breathe someone else's smoke.

Again, a lot of this stuff sounds like nit-picking and rumor-mongering. If all parties involved act reasonably and comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law, it'll work fine. The Health Department won't have the time or patience to enforce the law on the basis of a relatively few unreasonable complaints.

In a couple of years all this will have settled down, people will have adjusted and we'll wonder what the fuss was all about.

[danceswithcats]

Not unlike many pieces of legislation, this one has gone way past the point where it ceased to offer relief, and is now a bunch of bullshit.

I smoked for 20 years and although I don't miss the smell on my clothing or in my vehicle, it's still clearly a matter of choice.

If Joe wants to have Joe's restaurant, bar, or whatever as a smoking facility, then with a proper sign the folks who wish to be free of smoke can patronize another business. I see it as no different than a topless bar. If you don't want to look at semi-naked women, don't pull into the parking lot, don't go inside, and don't try to eliminate what a segment of the population enjoys.

To say that the world should be made smoke free just for *you* is idiotic and self-centered.

Unfortunately, idiocy and self-centeredness have been elevated to art form by the judiciary who fail to dismiss stupid lawsuits by defenestration of the plaintiff and counsel.

[Jackmannii]

As a further note on "repercussions" of the Ohio law - it's only necessary to look at the experiences in other states and locales that've gone smoke-free in public places to realize that the fears are groundless.

I know of no locale that has passed such a law where there have been massive unforseen business expenses, problems with nuisance enforcement/lawsuits or the like. Economic impact has consistently been reported (where actual income figures have been studied, and not just subjective perceptions) as neutral or positive. So if you look at the actual experiences in other places, it should be reassuring.

This reminds me of all the fussing that was done when Ohio passed a concealed-carry law a few years ago. If you listened to the opponents of the law, we were in for a whole bunch of Wild West shootouts and blood running in the streets. No such thing happened - small numbers of people got permits and felt safer, whether they actually were or not. And it should have been obvious that the law was no big deal, if people had actually bothered to look at the record in other states that had passed such laws.

[lowbrass]

If Joe wants to have Joe's restaurant, bar, or whatever as a smoking facility, then with a proper sign the folks who wish to be free of smoke can patronize another business. I see it as no different than a topless bar. If you don't want to look at semi-naked women, don't pull into the parking lot, don't go inside, and don't try to eliminate what a segment of the population enjoys.


1. See post #5.

2. Topless bars are very heavily regulated, and only allowed in a few places, so if your point is that you don't want smoking to be regulated, that's a poor analogy to use.

3. Before there were laws regulating smoking, virtually ALL bars and restaurants allowed smoking. So "patronizing another business" was not a choice, because there weren't any - not until regulations were put in place. Look, non-smokers got tired of not being able to ever go out without choking on smoke and having our clothes stink when we got home, so we passed some laws. Deal with it.

[Ludovic]

By definition, around 50% of those seeking SSM are 'smokers.

[lowbrass]

What is SSM? Can't you just write it out?

[lowbrass]

Oh wait - I finally figured it out - same sex marriage. Never mind.

[Foxy40]

Before the California statewide ban was passed, the city of Los Angeles enacted one. Oh how the bar and restaurant owners whined about how they were going to lose business to people who were going to go outside the city limits to places that allowed smoking. Fact is, business went up. For the most part, the smokers went to their favorite places anyway (much easier granted when there isn't freezing weather and a foot of snow on the ground) and the non-smokers came out in droves.

The California laws were passed as an occupational safety issue. Business owners can't expose their employees to asbestos or polonium or second hand smoke. The patrons have nothing to do with it.

I visited Dublin in 2005, shortly after a smoking ban in pubs went through. Of course, for the cultural experience alone, I had to stop at as many pubs as I possibly could during my vacation.

At every entrance there were smokers outside and in every establishment there were empty seats. There were also really pissed off owners and bartenders. Why? Because when these folks were outside smoking, they were not inside drinking.

I don't know if the same thing happened in Ireland as CA and I am wondering. Is anyone from the Dublin area and can say how the privately owned establishments are now doing compared to pre 2005?

[Foxy40]

1. See post #5.

2. Topless bars are very heavily regulated, and only allowed in a few places, so if your point is that you don't want smoking to be regulated, that's a poor analogy to use.

3. Before there were laws regulating smoking, virtually ALL bars and restaurants allowed smoking. So "patronizing another business" was not a choice, because there weren't any - not until regulations were put in place. Look, non-smokers got tired of not being able to ever go out without choking on smoke and having our clothes stink when we got home, so we passed some laws. Deal with it.


Well as long as YOU don't like it, I guess smokers don't get to do it. Oh wait, I think smokers like it. Yes, but they don't count because they are not you. Business owners were running their establishments they way they wanted to. Catering to the clients that they wanted to have. Because certain people didn't like it, they got together and make the business owners change. However, there is no connection here between Nazi Germany and the dictating to business owners? I seem to remember the majority of the Germans not wanting the Jews to have the right to run their own businesses the way they wanted either.

Seems to me choices are just peachy as long as they agree with your preferences.

( I am an ex smoker and don't give a hoot whether someone is smoking around me or not. I have more important things to worry about. However, it does concern me when people's right are being taken away.)

[hajario]

Hey Foxy40, did you read the entire thread before posting that or did you just not understand any of it. I am going with the latter because anyone who seriously thinks that a smoking ban is in any way analogous to a Nazi dictatorship has some serious mental comprehension problems.

I'll try again.

1. By law, business owners have to limit their employees exposure to hazardous health conditions as much as possible. Do you agree that this is a good thing?
2. Second hand cigarette smoke has been proven to be detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it. Do you agree that this is true?

Get it?

[Foxy40]

Hey Foxy40, did you read the entire thread before posting that or did you just not understand any of it. I am going with the latter because anyone who seriously thinks that a smoking ban is in any way analogous to a Nazi dictatorship has some serious mental comprehension problems.

I'll try again.

1. By law, business owners have to limit their employees exposure to hazardous health conditions as much as possible. Do you agree that this is a good thing?
2. Second hand cigarette smoke has been proven to be detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it. Do you agree that this is true?

Get it?

I believe in the rights of business owners to determine who works for them and who patronizes their businesses. I believe government interference in the rights of public citizen's ability to earn a living and how to do so is wrong. I also believe that if you are convinced that all of these smoking bans are for employee health, you are sadly mistaken, misinformed and I am embarrassed for you. If that were the case, smoking would be prohibited inside across the board and not just at eating establishments or other selective places that entitlement fools can get their claws in. Or maybe, in Florida, employees that work in bars are somehow immuned? Interesting enough, the service industry has a very large smoking population. I don't know if a study has been done about this but I do know from personal experience.
It is all about those that don't like it and now have health justification against those people like me that say "I will not give up my rights and I would not have you give up yours."
Peace

[hajario]

All of that talk and you didn't bother to answer my two simple questions.

Obviously there are all sorts of agendas going on with the various smoking bans. This is true of most legislation. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise.

Let's stick to the Ohio ban since that is the subject of the OP. The law changed because around two thirds of the population voted for it. This isn't the government arbitrarily taking away rights. This was the will of the people. Any Ohio resident is free to get the signatures to try and get the law repealed.

[villa]

1. By law, business owners have to limit their employees exposure to hazardous health conditions as much as possible. Do you agree that this is a good thing?
2. Second hand cigarette smoke has been proven to be detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it. Do you agree that this is true?

Get it?

Define "as much as possible." I think it is more likely that an employer has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to limit exposure to hazardous health conditions. That's not the same thing at all.

I find the employee's health arguments to be by far the strongest of the arguments, but even here there has to be an element of employee choice involved. If you don't believe me there are plenty of bar staff who would prefer to work in a smoking environment (as well I am sure as plenty who would prefer not to) then you should come out for a drink with me to the local cigar bar (though it probably would be a little smoky for you to be honest). Given the existance of a significant number of people who want to run smoking bars, people who want to work in smoking bars, and people who want to drink (and smoke) in smoking bars, doesn't it seem to make sense to allow a certain proportion of bars to remain smoking friendly?

As for the second question, I genuinely don't know if that has been proven. I think it is bloody obvious it is harmful, but I could not tell you if that had be proven in any sense. I assume it has.

[hajario]

Define "as much as possible." I think it is more likely that an employer has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to limit exposure to hazardous health conditions. That's not the same thing at all.

You are correct. I like your description here better.

[hajario]

Hit submit too soon.

I find the employee's health arguments to be by far the strongest of the arguments, but even here there has to be an element of employee choice involved. If you don't believe me there are plenty of bar staff who would prefer to work in a smoking environment (as well I am sure as plenty who would prefer not to) then you should come out for a drink with me to the local cigar bar (though it probably would be a little smoky for you to be honest). Given the existance of a significant number of people who want to run smoking bars, people who want to work in smoking bars, and people who want to drink (and smoke) in smoking bars, doesn't it seem to make sense to allow a certain proportion of bars to remain smoking friendly?

Would it be ok for a coal miner to agree to work without a respirator in exchange for more money or because he thinks that the respirator is uncomfortable? Maybe so.

Actually, I enjoy a good cigar from time to time. I'm not much for bars though, smoking or non-smoking.

[villa]

[QUOTE=hajario]Would it be ok for a coal miner to agree to work without a respirator in exchange for more money or because he thinks that the respirator is uncomfortable? Maybe so.
QUOTE]

I am not certain. This is where my individualism and my unionism clash. Thats when I fall back on a sliding scale kind of argument and look to the degree of harm involved. That might not give an answer here, however. But the situations aren't identical. Given the number of bars, its far more likely that a bartender will have a true choice available to them of whether they work in Joe's Tavern, which permits its customers to smoke, or Fred's Taproom, on the next block, which does not.

That sort of choice isn't likely to exist for coal miners. I do, generally, support the right of people to take decisions regarding their own wellbeing, provided they have real options. I'm not sure that mine would exist in the market place, but I am 100% certain smoking bars fully staffed would exist if permitted.

[lowbrass]

Well as long as YOU don't like it, I guess smokers don't get to do it. Oh wait, I think smokers like it. Yes, but they don't count because they are not you.

You can still smoke, just not in certain public places. I like to take a shit, but I'm not allowed to do it on the floor in a public place. Nobody's telling me I can't shit.

Business owners were running their establishments they way they wanted to. Catering to the clients that they wanted to have. Because certain people didn't like it, they got together and make the business owners change. However, there is no connection here between Nazi Germany and the dictating to business owners? I seem to remember the majority of the Germans not wanting the Jews to have the right to run their own businesses the way they wanted either.

Yes, this is exactly like Nazi Germany in every way. :rolleyes:

Seems to me choices are just peachy as long as they agree with your preferences.

When you were a smoker, I'll bet you were happy as a clam back when virtually every business allowed smoking, and there were virtually no non-smoking establishments. Face it, smokers are only bitching now because the tide has turned, and things don't agree with their preferences.

( I am an ex smoker and don't give a hoot whether someone is smoking around me or not. I have more important things to worry about. However, it does concern me when people's right are being taken away.)
You have no "right" to smoke cigarettes in public places.

[villa]

You have no "right" to smoke cigarettes in public places.

I agree with this. I also think though that you have no "right" to dictate that cigarettes are not smoked on private property.

[hajario]

I am not certain. This is where my individualism and my unionism clash. Thats when I fall back on a sliding scale kind of argument and look to the degree of harm involved. That might not give an answer here, however.

I am with you here. I am conflicted on these sorts of laws. I am generally pro-business and think that business owners should have a lot of latitude in general. Then again, I like things to be decided by a vote of the people at the community or state level as is what happened in Ohio. It's tough but I think that the health issue wins out.

[lowbrass]

I agree with this. I also think though that you have no "right" to dictate that cigarettes are not smoked on private property.
I disagree. The government regulates privately-owned businesses all the time, in any number of ways. Some examples were mentioned already: They must have fire doors, they must refrigerate food, they must have a certain degree of cleanliness, they can be subject to noise ordinances, etc. Being privately-owned doesn't mean it's not a public place.

[lowbrass]

Another good example: They have to provide access to the handicapped. The government has a right to, and does, require this.

[villa]

I disagree. The government regulates privately-owned businesses all the time, in any number of ways. Some examples were mentioned already: They must have fire doors, they must refrigerate food, they must have a certain degree of cleanliness, they can be subject to noise ordinances, etc. Being privately-owned doesn't mean it's not a public place.

Well duh, of course. Just like the government can state one is allowed to smoke in a public place.

No one disputes the government can regulate private businesses in many ways. I actually said you didn't have a right to dictate about private property. It wasn't meant to be a deep meaningful point. More a comment on your seeming sense of entitlement that every place you might have any interest in entering should be required to be smoke free.

[Zakalwe]

So it's not just that gays can't get married and can't sign their civil union cards or whatever - if a private agency receives any state funding at all, they're not allowed to offer health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees. The multi-thousand-dollar power-of-attorney-cum-inheritance business-type contract arrangements that some G/L couples have set up to give their partners minimal rights in lieu of any spousal priveledges are being questioned.Complete hijack, but can you please give a cite for the bolded portion above?

[lowbrass]

Well duh, of course. Just like the government can state one is allowed to smoke in a public place.

No one disputes the government can regulate private businesses in many ways. I actually said you didn't have a right to dictate about private property.

Well "duh" yourself. I didn't say I did have that right. Moron.

It wasn't meant to be a deep meaningful point. More a comment on your seeming sense of entitlement that every place you might have any interest in entering should be required to be smoke free.
Oh, so it was a strawman argument. Wonderful.

If we're going to talk about a misplaced sense of entitlement, let's talk about people who think they have a "right" to smoke cigarettes in public. I'm not the one whining about supposedly unfair laws.

[villa]

Well "duh" yourself. I didn't say I did have that right. Moron.

It is, though, implicit in your seeming belief that everywhere should be compliant to your wishes.

Oh, so it was a strawman argument. Wonderful.

If we're going to talk about a misplaced sense of entitlement, let's talk about people who think they have a "right" to smoke cigarettes in public. I'm not the one whining about supposedly unfair laws.

I would call it more of a potentially snide comment than a strawman, to tell you the truth.

As for people who think they have a right to smoke in public, I think they are wrong. I'd have no great issue with smoking being banned from the street. I very very rarely smoke in the street, except very occasionally while walking toward the bar, but I would happily give that up.

What I have a much greater issue about is people who believe they have some "right" to tell me I cannot smoke in the bar I go to, where the owner, the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed.

You have complained about how in the past there were very few non-smoking establishments to which you could go. Let's leave aside the fact that at no stage to my knowledge were people banned from setting up such premises, so market forces might have been responsible for their absence. Your response to this is to support the closure of all bars where people can smoke. That's not about ensuring you have a place you can go where you are not exposed to smoke. It's about ensuring other people have no place to go where they can smoke. I have respect for people who put forward the argument that this is abot the health of workers. I don't have respect for people who do it to screw over other people out of some concept of revenge.

[lowbrass]

It is, though, implicit in your seeming belief that everywhere should be compliant to your wishes.

I never said any such thing.


What I have a much greater issue about is people who believe they have some "right" to tell me I cannot smoke in the bar I go to, where the owner, the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed.

Which is it? Does the government have the right to regulate businesses, or does it not have the right? I believe it does. This isn't about me personally. I do not have the power to dictate anything of that sort. Why do you persist with this strawman?

And I don't know where you get this scenario where "the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed". Some customers and workers smoke, and some do not. They are not all of like mind.

You have complained about how in the past there were very few non-smoking establishments to which you could go. Let's leave aside the fact that at no stage to my knowledge were people banned from setting up such premises, so market forces might have been responsible for their absence. Your response to this is to support the closure of all bars where people can smoke.

I do not support closing any bars.

That's not about ensuring you have a place you can go where you are not exposed to smoke. It's about ensuring other people have no place to go where they can smoke.

This strawman is growing and growing. I have no desire to ensure that people have nowhere where they can smoke. Don't know where you got that idea.

I have respect for people who put forward the argument that this is abot the health of workers. I don't have respect for people who do it to screw over other people out of some concept of revenge.
You must be a very angry person to make up such extreme bullshit.

[black rabbit]

Complete hijack, but can you please give a cite for the bolded portion above?

I don't have a cite that anybody's actually suing for anything, only whispers and rumors among my neighbors and the patrons of the local (mostly gay) watering hole.

The first case about the broader implications of amendment, where a guy is claiming that the local domestic violence laws since he was whomping on a cohabitating girlfriend instead of a wife, has yet to go before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Here's the text (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=15&Section=11) of the amendment in question:


§ 15.11 Marriage Amendment

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.


You can see why the bolded portion is some cause for concern.

[black rabbit]

Complete hijack, but can you please give a cite for the bolded portion above?

I don't have a cite that anybody's actually suing for anything, only whispers and rumors among my neighbors and the patrons of the local (mostly gay) watering hole.

The first case about the broader implications of amendment, where a guy is claiming that the local domestic violence laws since he was whomping on a cohabitating girlfriend instead of a wife, has yet to go before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Here's the text (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=15&Section=11) of the amendment in question:


§ 15.11 Marriage Amendment

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.


You can see why the bolded portion is some cause for concern.

[kanicbird]

Huh? To me, legal recognition is integral to the concept of marriage. It needs to be legally recognized to be marriage.

To make an analogy, SSM is like denying someone a driver's license but allowing them to drive a car. A smoking ban is like denying someone the right to drive a car under penalty of law. Big difference.

[kanicbird]

Going a bit further then I stated above, to me marriage is not of the state, but between the 2 people (and dare I say it - God), state recognition is secondary.

[Rilchiam]

But when the state denies you the right to add your partner to your medical insurance, and denies them next-of-kin rights in an emergency, I wouldn't call that "secondary".

[black rabbit]

To make an analogy, SSM is like denying someone a driver's license but allowing them to drive a car. A smoking ban is like denying someone the right to drive a car under penalty of law. Big difference.

You've got it backwards. Or at least part of it.

A SSM ban is like the state allowing you to buy a car, but not allowing you to get a license, plates, insurance, or any of the other things that make driving safer and legal. Everybody else gets a license, but you don't. Why not? Oh, some arbitrary reason. Let's say it's because you've got green eyes.

All of the non-green-eyed people are free to enjoy the benefits of automobile ownership - driving to the store, taking a road trip, or driving to a doctor's appointment. But if you choose to actually drive the car you bought, you're always running the risk of getting in to serious trouble.

If you get pulled over for a minor infraction - a broken tail light, speeding slightly, or whatever - you're busted for driving without a license/insurance/registration, and you go to jail. If you hit somebody, and, god forbid, injure them, then you're completely fucked - remember, you can't get insurance. Not only do you go to jail, but you lose that car along with everything else you own.

That, beyond all the mushy lovey dovey stuff, is what life is like for committed gay couples. I know two guys, let's call 'em Adam and Steve. They own a rather nice townhouse. Steve's parents don't approve of his homosexuality. If Steve gets hit by a bus, Adam is up shit creek. It's entirely possible that he could lose their house. Yeah, they've got a will, but there's a very good chance that the parents could have that broken in probate court. After all, Adam and Steve's relationship has no legal standing - as far as the State's concerned, they're roomates, not a family, and all of Steve's property should go to his closest kin: his parents.

If I get hit by a bus, all of my property goes to my wife. I don't even need a will - the State assumes that since we're legally, officially married, she is my closest family.

That fundamental unfairness is nothing like a smoking ban at all. It's far, far worse.

The net effect of this smoking ban is that I have to walk a couple of extra hundred feet a week. The net effect of the SSM ban is that loving couples can have their lives completely torn apart.

Big difference, but not like you think.

[Declan]

I don't know exactly what that's about, but it seems likely that it's designed to keep businesses from establishing essentially enclosed areas for smokers that will not be ventilated properly, thus exposing staff to high levels of secondhand smoke. You can have a smoking patio, but you can't unduly enclose it to essentially create another room. At least, that would make sense to me.

Um , its about making it inconvienent for a smoking patron during inclemement weather. With a roof and three walls, one wall seems to be missing for a completely enclosed area that cannot be ventilated.

In the Kitchener/Waterloo area of Ontario , one of the first municipalities to go non smoking, the letter of the law was that patios were permitted smoking as long as there was no continuous walls. The result was that several nightclubs erected draped plastic sheeting that stopped several inches from the floor , complying with the letter of the law, but obviously not the spirit of the law.

When heaters were in place, anti smoking zealots were aghast and furious enough to complain that it was essentially another room, and thus changed the letter of the law to make that impossible, nice when you can make the rules hmm.

As long as the patio is open to all weather conditions , smoking is permitted. If the patron gets pneumonia or any other sort of ailment , oh well suck it up princess.

Declan

[kanicbird]

But when the state denies you the right to add your partner to your medical insurance

It's not the state, but the medical insurance companies that don't allow it, the state just has the ability to decide if the terms are legal. So this point blows the OP right out of the water. Banning SSM is against government telling people how they can run their business, the smoking ban is for the government telling people how they can run their business.

We all know that there are serious issues with the healthcare system in the US, not just for SSM partners, but for many others as well, Perhaps with Hillary on '08 those inequities will be leveled.

[black rabbit]

It's not the state, but the medical insurance companies that don't allow it, the state just has the ability to decide if the terms are legal. So this point blows the OP right out of the water. Banning SSM is against government telling people how they can run their business, the smoking ban is for the government telling people how they can run their business.


Did you just completely skip over my last post?

[villa]

I never said any such thing.


Which is it? Does the government have the right to regulate businesses, or does it not have the right? I believe it does. This isn't about me personally. I do not have the power to dictate anything of that sort. Why do you persist with this strawman?

Of course the government has the power to regulate businesses, in line with the strictures of the constitution. No one is disputing that. I know you don't have the power to dictate these kind of things. As I have said, the comment was not to do with any "right" to the extent of you being able to go out and enforce it, but referred to your apparent sense of entitlement to dictate that ALL businesses you might POSSIBLY ever visit should be required to prevent smoking on their premises, regardless of anyone else's wishes. Clear enough?

And I don't know where you get this scenario where "the customers and the workers want smoking to be allowed". Some customers and workers smoke, and some do not. They are not all of like mind.

Oddly enough, I got it from talking to the staff at the cigar bar that I frequent. All the bartenders smoke. All of them could work in other bars, but choose to work there. I don't for a fact know about all of the wait staff (I tend to sit at the bar) but we shall see in January once 99% of DC's bars are compelled to go non-smoking if any of them leave to the greener and nicotene free pastures elsewhere. I doubt they will. But if they do, I wish them the best. I know the owner wants to run a cigar bar where people can smoke because a) he told me so and b) he is running a cigar bar where people can smoke. As to the customers, I am making a rash assumption that people who come into a place that calls itself a cigar bar, see the big sign outside indicating that cigars are smoked and sold there, and choose not to go to the 4 other bar restaurants on the same block that do not allow cigar smoking, want to go to a smoking bar. Tell you what, after the ban comes in next month, I will see if the place gets busier or less busy, and if any of the regulars start going to the non-smoking bars. If they do, or if business drops off, I will agree that there were customers there who did not want it to be a smoking bar. Sound fair?

I do not support closing any bars.

This strawman is growing and growing. I have no desire to ensure that people have nowhere where they can smoke. Don't know where you got that idea.

Closing the bars - no, that was an exaggeration on my part. Preventing the bars from allowing smoking - that certainly seems to be on your agenda. You support the ending of 'smoking bars.' That was the point I was trying to get across.

You must be a very angry person to make up such extreme bullshit.

Where would I possibly get an idea you were interested in revenge?

3. Before there were laws regulating smoking, virtually ALL bars and restaurants allowed smoking. So "patronizing another business" was not a choice, because there weren't any - not until regulations were put in place. Look, non-smokers got tired of not being able to ever go out without choking on smoke and having our clothes stink when we got home, so we passed some laws. Deal with it.

Now that doesn't sound like you are vengeful about this at all, does it? No implication there that you are getting your own back on those nasty smokers?

You wonder why smokers react badly to you? Maybe you come off as self-entitled over this? I'll accept most of the bans. I would not particularly object to a ban on people smoking while walking down the street. All I am saying is that you aren't doing this to ensure you have places to go to eat/drink that are non-smoking. That could be satisfied by allowing a limited number of smoking licenses. You could have most of the bars, and leave some where people could smoke. But that would not be enough for many of those who support bans. Because they aren't only interested in themselves, they want to prevent others from smoking. Here we had to fight for a limited exception to the ban to allow cigar bars to continue - and it is a very limited exception.

You start dictating to people about their lives when it in no way affects you, and people get angry.

[zamboniracer]

I know two guys, let's call 'em Adam and Steve. They own a rather nice townhouse. Steve's parents don't approve of his homosexuality. If Steve gets hit by a bus, Adam is up shit creek. It's entirely possible that he could lose their house. Yeah, they've got a will, but there's a very good chance that the parents could have that broken in probate court. After all, Adam and Steve's relationship has no legal standing - as far as the State's concerned, they're roomates, not a family, and all of Steve's property should go to his closest kin: his parents.



IAAL practicing probate law and this is a canard, the gay equivalent of an old wives' tale, IMHO. A properly executed will (ie in my state, signed in front of two disinterested witnesses) is not at all easy to break. If you disagree, please provide cites to cases where a properly executed will was disregarded just because the decedent was gay and left his estate to his gay partner.

[black rabbit]

IAAL practicing probate law and this is a canard, the gay equivalent of an old wives' tale, IMHO. A properly executed will (ie in my state, signed in front of two disinterested witnesses) is not at all easy to break. If you disagree, please provide cites to cases where a properly executed will was disregarded just because the decedent was gay and left his estate to his gay partner.

I'll defer to your experience and expertise on this one.

Am I at least correct in my reading that straight, married couples generally don't even need a will to deal with the estate?

[zamboniracer]

Am I at least correct in my reading that straight, married couples generally don't even need a will to deal with the estate?

No, this is not correct either, but for more complicated reasons. Generally, surviving spouse inherits everything through deceased spouse's estate without a will only when they have no children and it is their first marriage. If either of the parties has any children, either in the current marriage or a previous one, the surviving spouse does not automatically receive the entire estate through probate without a will.

You may have heard estate planning attorneys speak of the goal of avoiding probate, because probate can be a time consuming and expensive hassle. While probate isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is much worse (ie more expensive and time consuming ) when the person dies without a will. Most attorneys recommend that their clients, be they gay, straight, bi or undecided, have a will.

[Apos]

Sorry, gotta jump on the bandwagon here:

What if all the bars allow smoking? How is that a choice?

It's always amazing to me to hear people actually say something this stupid out loud.

To be brief: you do not have a constitutional right for someone ELSE to provide you a service in the way you want: that's not what "having a choice" means. If no bars live up to what you want, no one has taken a choice away from you. If you are so gung-ho about having things your way, nothing stops you from opening your own bar and doing things your way. But demanding that other people use their property in the way you want them to is a small measure of theft, not "choice."

Regardless of whether you think the bans are right or not, claiming that you don't have a choice because the state doesn't force people to use their own property to give you one is just asinine.

[lowbrass]

It's always amazing to me to hear people actually say something this stupid out loud.

To be brief: you do not have a constitutional right for someone ELSE to provide you a service in the way you want: that's not what "having a choice" means. If no bars live up to what you want, no one has taken a choice away from you. If you are so gung-ho about having things your way, nothing stops you from opening your own bar and doing things your way. But demanding that other people use their property in the way you want them to is a small measure of theft, not "choice."

Regardless of whether you think the bans are right or not, claiming that you don't have a choice because the state doesn't force people to use their own property to give you one is just asinine.
Fuck you, Apos. Pull your head out of your ass and try reading the fucking thread. I did not refer to any such constitutional right in any way, shape, or form.

You are exactly, 100%, ass backwards on the issue. I am not complaining. The fucking crybaby smokers are complaining because they do not like restrictions on smoking.

DianaG is opposed to the STATUS QUO, because she believes this is a property rights issue. That is an incorrect assessment. The government has the right to regulate even PRIVATE property if it's open to the public. They do it all the time. I never hear anyone crying about it until it affects them personally. I never hear, "Whaaaa! Why do we have to have fire doors?" or "Whaaaa! Why can't they serve tainted food? It's so unfair!"

DianaG wrote:


Hmm, I think you and I are using different definitions of the word "forced." What I suggest is offering "options" which both smokers and non-smokers are free to take advantage of. If one bar allows smoking, and one doesn't, neither of us is being "forced" to go to one or the other. We have the opportunity to make an informed decision as to where to spend our money.

I simply pointed out that if you leave the decision up to the property owner, and virtually all the owners decide the same thing, then there is no choice available.

I did not refer to any constitutional right.

I did not ask for anything to be changed.

I did not demand any "service" be provided to me.

I did not say I was "gung ho" about having things my way. In fact, the smokers are the ones who are complaining.

Having regulations for public places is not "theft", not even in the most extreme Libertarian-party propaganda.

Asshole.

[gonzomax]

I am a nonsmoker but both my parents were heavy smokers No one in my house smokes. When my son stops at a bar with his co workers he reeks from smoke. It just does not stay with the smoker. No matter how any smoker wishes to bend it ,the smoke travels to nonsmokers. Why should we be quietly accepting of that.

[villa]

I simply pointed out that if you leave the decision up to the property owner, and virtually all the owners decide the same thing, then there is no choice available.

No, there is choice. The choice of the owner. You don't have the choice you want maybe, but maybe you should open a bar then.

Fuck you, Apos.

Asshole.

Remember, lowbrass thinks I'm the angry one here...

[lowbrass]

Of course the government has the power to regulate businesses, in line with the strictures of the constitution. No one is disputing that. I know you don't have the power to dictate these kind of things. As I have said, the comment was not to do with any "right" to the extent of you being able to go out and enforce it, but referred to your apparent sense of entitlement to dictate that ALL businesses you might POSSIBLY ever visit should be required to prevent smoking on their premises, regardless of anyone else's wishes. Clear enough?

Aw, geez.

No, it's not clear at all. Why don't you just argue your point instead of making up ridiculous positions and attributing them to me.

Would you like me to play your game? O.K., it's obvious that you want to tie up children and force them to smoke cigarettes. Is that clear enough?

Oddly enough, I got it from talking to the staff at the cigar bar that I frequent. All the bartenders smoke. All of them could work in other bars, but choose to work there.

Of course the employees and customers at a cigar bar are o.k. with cigar smoke, because the ones who aren't don't go there and can't work there. Rather circular reasoning, wouldn't you say?

You could also say that all the customers and employees at a store that doesn't offer wheelchair access are o.k. with not having wheelchair access. Does that mean the government shouldn't be allowed to enact regulations regarding wheelchair access?


Tell you what, after the ban comes in next month, I will see if the place gets busier or less busy, and if any of the regulars start going to the non-smoking bars. If they do, or if business drops off, I will agree that there were customers there who did not want it to be a smoking bar. Sound fair?

Why would you do that? Do you think I ever suggested that nobody likes to smoke? If you think my argument was that nobody wants to be able to smoke in a bar, then you must be delusional.


Closing the bars - no, that was an exaggeration on my part. Preventing the bars from allowing smoking - that certainly seems to be on your agenda. You support the ending of 'smoking bars.' That was the point I was trying to get across.

Another strawman. I made no such claim; I simply refuted smokers' claims in this thread that this is a property rights issue. I'm happy with the status quo; you are the one complaining.

Where would I possibly get an idea you were interested in revenge?

Now that doesn't sound like you are vengeful about this at all, does it? No implication there that you are getting your own back on those nasty smokers?

You wonder why smokers react badly to you? Maybe you come off as self-entitled over this?

Yes, well in between killing babies and beating up grandmothers, I like to tie smokers to train tracks and twirl my moustache in an evil way. :p

I'll accept most of the bans.

Doesn't sound like it. You sound very opposed to them.


All I am saying is that you aren't doing this to ensure you have places to go to eat/drink that are non-smoking. That could be satisfied by allowing a limited number of smoking licenses.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Or another way to go is what they do in California - we have an exception for smoke shops. So smokers can go to lounges in the smoke shops and puff away to their heart's content. That doesn't bother me in the least. It's been several weeks since I went on a murderous rampage and shot up a smoke shop. ;)

Sorry if I destroyed your strawman image of me. :D


You start dictating to people about their lives when it in no way affects you, and people get angry.
I haven't dictated anything. Maybe you're just an angry person.

[lowbrass]

No, there is choice. The choice of the owner. You don't have the choice you want maybe, but maybe you should open a bar then.

Why? I'm perfectly happy with the status quo. You're the one bitching; maybe you should vote out the legislators who are enacting these regulations if you don't like them. Good luck.


Remember, lowbrass thinks I'm the angry one here...
Ha, ha - touche. I'm not angry at smokers, but I AM angry at Apos for calling me stupid, especially since his assessment was completely off. I think trading insults: stupid - asshole is pretty equitable, don't you think?

[kanicbird]

Did you just completely skip over my last post?

In a word, yes. I did think it made some good points, but it was incomplete, as you made no analogy to the smoking ban in the context of driving a car, which is what the OP is b-----ing about

[Shirley Ujest]

like the Constitution was written up in Crisco on a slab of bacon


How Kosher!

[Apos]

Fuck you, Apos. Pull your head out of your ass and try reading the fucking thread. I did not refer to any such constitutional right in any way, shape, or form.

Here's the statement I responded to, little guy:

"What if all the bars allow smoking? How is that a choice?"

I quoted it, but I reproduced it here for you again.

I simply pointed out that if you leave the decision up to the property owner, and virtually all the owners decide the same thing, then there is no choice available.

Which is incredibly stupid. You DO have a choice. When no bars existed, you had the choice to build one and set whatever goofass rules you want. When I build a bar, and allow smoking, you are no better or worse off, unless of course you are some sort of envious tool. You can't whine that I am restricting your choices. That's complete and utter backasswards bullshit.

The problem is that you can't defend your assertions, so you have to waffle around on other topics. Too bad.

[enipla]

I’m 47. I used to smoke full time. Up to two packs a day. I quit about 20 years ago, but will still enjoy an occasional cigar.

Forty years ago, just about everyone smoked, and have smoked less and less over the decades. Good. It’s bad for you. Though I’ll never believe that a tiny bit of second hand smoke is going to do you in. Say the smoke that you might smell when you go into a building while there is someone smoking outside.

Now, with that said, I’ll understand that folks are now a bit more sensitive to the smell of tobacco. That’s OK. I understand and am very considerate of where I might have a puff on a cigar.

What I don’t get is that there seems to be so many people that claim to have so many immediate health effects from even a tiny wiff of smoke from someone that may be smoking outside a building. Has our physiology changed that much in 40 years? I doubt it.

Where were the people that had these problems 30, 40 and 50 years ago. How could they have possibly dealt with the effects of nearly everyone around them smoking?

It’s fine if you hate it. It doesn’t bother me a bit. What I still wonder is how come humans can suddenly have such a strong physicalogical reaction to something that has been common practice for the last couple of hundred years.

How did the people that have such a problem with a little bit of smoke today, survive in the 60’s?

[kanicbird]

What I don’t get is that there seems to be so many people that claim to have so many immediate health effects from even a tiny wiff of smoke from someone that may be smoking outside a building. Has our physiology changed that much in 40 years? I doubt it.

I don't think it's so far fetched, people build up a immunity to what they are exposed to. Now that smoking is restricted, one can go a very long time without being exposed, but when one does get exposed, the effects are very apparent.

[Jackmannii]

What I don’t get is that there seems to be so many people that claim to have so many immediate health effects from even a tiny wiff of smoke from someone that may be smoking outside a building. Has our physiology changed that much in 40 years? I doubt it.What has changed is the increasing recognition that a variety of detrimental health effects, both immediate and long-term, occur due to exposure to secondhand smoke.

Among the immediate effects are those on airways and coronary blood vessels in the heart. Other important effects are built up through long-term exposure to secondhand smoke (i.e. chronic bronchitis and certain cancers).

Years ago, smoking was very common among adults, and there was little recognition of how bad it was for smokers, much less non-smokers. Times have changed. It used to be that horrific risks were taken by people working in many industries (coal mining, textile manufacture and so on). Workers once used a radium preparation to hand-paint watch dials so they'd glow in the dark. That was fine until they started dying from radiation poisoning. No one is saying secondhand smoke exposure is as bad for workers (and customers). But when one can readily control a risk without anything worse than inconvencing an increasing small minority of the population, why not do it?

[lowbrass]

Which is incredibly stupid. You DO have a choice. When no bars existed, you had the choice to build one and set whatever goofass rules you want.
That is absolutely the most idiotic argument I have ever heard in my life. Why don't you build your own bar? duh, yup. Take you asinine Libertarian cliches and shove 'em up your ass.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Forty years ago, just about everyone smoked,Like most smokers (or ex-smokers), I think you over-estimate the number of smokers.

From the statistics I could find, smoking peaked* in 1960-61, when 54% of adult males smoked. Then in 1964, the Surgeon General first publicly reported that smoking causes cancer, and the smoking rate began dropping. By the end of the 1960's, it was down around 40% for all adults (both men and women). It continued dropping about 1% per year thru the 1970's, 80's, and part of the 90's, when the drop slowed down. Currently, I believe the adult smoking rate is between 18 and 19%.

While this was considerably higher than today, it's quite a ways from "just about everybody smoked".
In fact, I don't think there was any time in the last 50-60 years when non-smoking adults didn't outnumber the smokers.


* Possibly smoking was higher in males during WWII & immediately afterwards, but I was unable to find statistics on that. They may not have been kept like we do today -- public perception of the dangers of smoking was much less then.

[lowbrass]

Where were the people that had these problems 30, 40 and 50 years ago. How could they have possibly dealt with the effects of nearly everyone around them smoking?

It’s fine if you hate it. It doesn’t bother me a bit. What I still wonder is how come humans can suddenly have such a strong physicalogical reaction to something that has been common practice for the last couple of hundred years.

How did the people that have such a problem with a little bit of smoke today, survive in the 60’s?
Seeing as how they didn't really have a choice (other than "building their own bar" :rolleyes: - see Apos' retarded post above), perhaps people simply accepted the adverse health effects as something they couldn't change.

There does seem to be evidence that second-hand smoke has determintal effects:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/10/health/webmd/main2078965.shtml


Menzies' team studied 77 nonsmoking bar workers in Tayside, Scotland, before and after the ban went into effect.

The bar workers completed questionnaires about their lung symptoms. They also took lung function tests and provided blood samples for the study.

Before the ban, nearly 80 percent of the bar workers reported having lung symptoms such as wheeze, shortness of breath, cough, and phlegm.

One month after the ban, that percentage dropped to about 53 percent and fell even further to 47 percent in the second month.

The bar workers' lung function also improved and they had lower levels of cotinine in their blood after the ban began. Cotinine is a measure of exposure to tobacco smoke.

The 12 bar workers with asthma also reported better quality of life after the ban, the researchers report.


This is admittedly anecdotal, but I heard a story of a jazz musician who played in clubs almost every night where patrons smoked heavily. He was getting a physical, and his doctor told him his lungs "looked pretty good for a moderate smoker". He said, "Doc, I don't smoke."

[villa]

That is absolutely the most idiotic argument I have ever heard in my life. Why don't you build your own bar? duh, yup. Take you asinine Libertarian cliches and shove 'em up your ass.

Hmmmm. I'm definitely thinking that maybe, after all, I am not the angry person here.

If there are so many people who want non-smoking bars, why aren't there non-smoking bars? Wouldn't that be a great business venture?

It's not an idiotic argument. Generally speaking, if there is a significant demand for a product that is legal to provide, the market provides it. While it may not be practical for you to go out and set up a bar tomorrow (though I don't really see why not), don't you think someone would do this? Or even lots of people?

Hell, I don't even have any great attachment to the market as an ideal, but even I think it can allocate resources pretty effectively in this kind of way. But that hasn't happened, and so in an attempt to ensure you (and I am sure plenty of other people) can go to a bar without smoke being present, the "solution" has been the hammer of banning smoking in ALL bars.

[mhendo]

If there are so many people who want non-smoking bars, why aren't there non-smoking bars? Wouldn't that be a great business venture?

It's not an idiotic argument. Generally speaking, if there is a significant demand for a product that is legal to provide, the market provides it. While it may not be practical for you to go out and set up a bar tomorrow (though I don't really see why not), don't you think someone would do this? Or even lots of people?I tried to answer this, at least partially, in post #26.

As i said, the fact is that smokers and non-smokers aren't two discrete social groups. A Smoking bar and a Non-Smoking bar don't cater to different markets in the same way that, for example, a Sports Bar and a Cocktail Bar do. Smokers and non-smokers often hang out in the same social groups, and if such a group wants to go out for a drink, someone is going to be inconvenienced—either the smokers will have to go outside to smoke, or the non-smokers will have to put up with breathing smoke.

In my experience, it has always been the non-smokers who accept that going to a bar involves breathing in other people's smoke. I gave an example of a Sydney bar that went non-smoking, and had to halt the experiment for precisely that reason. It's not that there weren't enough non-smokers; it's just that they would always go to a smoking bar in order to placate the smokers in their group.

Now, i hold us non-smokers to blame for this, in considerable measure. If we constitute the majority—and, in many social situations, we do—then we should be ready to tell our smoking friends that we're not willing to breathe their noxious fumes, and that we are going to a non-smoking bar to drink tonight. The fact that we don't do this is often related to issues of social harmony. Legislating non-smoking makes our social lives easier, because it allows us to get a smoke-free environment without needing to personally express our disgust for smoking to our friends.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. As i said earlier, i've always been ambivalent about these smoking bans, and i've generally accepted that, if i go to a bar, i'll have to put up with some smoke. My main support for the bans is based on an occupational health perspective, thinking about the employees.

The funny thing is, just about every smoker i know personally has no trouble with the bans. They all recognize the reasons for them, and accept that it makes good health policy. Maybe that has something to do with the politics of my friends, or maybe they're just an unusual group; i don't know.

One thing i know for certain: despite some ambivalence about the idea of the bans, i absolutely love being able to leave a bar after hours of drinking and not have my eyes burning and my clothes and hair stinking of smoke.

[villa]

mhendo, I know, and actually agree with your analysis pretty much. lowbrass was the one trying to claim it is a ridiculous argument. The simple fact is, the market hasn't provided non-smoking bars, which is an indication that the demand for them is not that strong, for multiple reasons.

On a personal level, if I am not going to be allowed to smoke a cigar in a bar (which applies to the overwhelming majority of bars where I live), I would rather it was non-smoking as well. I find cigarette smoke somewhat unpleasant. I just don't think that is enough to justify a ban.

Health of workers, on the other hand, is a good argument (and notice that lowbrass crept towards the realization that it is a much better justification). That's why I would support a dual system - just as in some jurisdictions here, a separate license is needed to sell hard liquor, making some bars beer and wine only, I see no problem with a separate license for tobacco smoking on the premises. Then there would be non-smoking bars, there would be places where barstaff who wished not to be exposed to smoke could work, and there would be places people could go to smoke while drinking as well. Seems like a better solution to me than an outright ban.

Even when a (cigarette) smoker while doing my Masters, I would sometimes go to the only non-smoking bar on campus. The point was it was almost always empty, and had a good quality pool table.

[jsgoddess]

That's why I would support a dual system - just as in some jurisdictions here, a separate license is needed to sell hard liquor, making some bars beer and wine only, I see no problem with a separate license for tobacco smoking on the premises.

So some employers should be able to pay a little more in order to put their employees at risk? That doesn't make sense to me.

[villa]

I answered this already. Employers have always been allowed to do this - not all jobs carry the same risks. There are obviously limits on this, and I would support those limits, but I do not believe the extra risk a person places themselves in by working in a smoking environment justify overruling the wishes of the worker him or herself. This is particularly true if the person is a smoker themselves.

The workplace is not 100% safe. The argument exists about where the safety bar should be drawn. Generally speaking I am on the side of improving safety where possible. But I am also on the side of individual choice, and I see no benefit of telling a smoking bartender who wants to work in a smoking bar serving drinks to smoking customers that he or she isn't allowed to do so. Of course, this requires a genuine choice to be available to bar staff, and it probably isn't at the moment as there are very few non-smoking bar jobs available. Hence my compromise solution.

[jsgoddess]

I answered this already. Employers have always been allowed to do this - not all jobs carry the same risks.

Not all jobs carry the same risks because some jobs cannot be made less risky. Where the job CAN be made less risky, the laws have for some time REQUIRED the job to be made less risky. Employers do not get to ignore a risk just because it's their property.

So my workplace has to require that all employees wear hearing protection, even though the employees do not want to wear hearing protection, even though they may be damaging their hearing off the job, even though they might already have damaged hearing, even though the hearing protection is a hassle, even though they are at work, they are required to wear the hearing protection and we are required to
force them.

If we do not comply, we are first fined, then eventually shut down. That is the state of employment law right now. Smoking has been an exception to these laws, not the other way around.

[villa]

Not all jobs carry the same risks because some jobs cannot be made less risky. Where the job CAN be made less risky, the laws have for some time REQUIRED the job to be made less risky. Employers do not get to ignore a risk just because it's their property.

I'm sorry, that just isn't true. There is no requirement that ALL possible methods are undertaken to lower the risk of work. That's just not the law. The NFL is not flag football. There is no requirement that pizza delivery people are provided with and compelled to wear kevlar vests. You're just wrong as to the law.

You might think that banning smoking in the workplace is a reasonable requirement. And you might well be right in most cases. I would argue that there are times when it becomes not reasonable. I'd say that is the case when it fundamentally changes the nature of the business concerned. Most bars I don't think that is the case in. A cigar bar I think it clearly is.

Most risks that are controlled at work are those that are not generally, and voluntarily, encountered in a home environment. It strikes me as more than a little silly to campaign that a person should not be exposed to a hazard to which they voluntarily and much more directly expose themself to in their house. Of course, there might be people who have jet engines blasting in their front room and choose not to wear ear protection, and I would still enforce the requirement to wear ear protection when working as an airline baggage handler. However, I think that is a much less common domestic situation than the bartender who smokes. I could be wrong, though.

[jsgoddess]

I'm sorry, that just isn't true. There is no requirement that ALL possible methods are undertaken to lower the risk of work. That's just not the law. The NFL is not flag football. There is no requirement that pizza delivery people are provided with and compelled to wear kevlar vests. You're just wrong as to the law.

No, I am not wrong as to the law.

"Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees."

General duty clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

This rule does not apply if there is no way to avoid the hazard. Firefighters can't have a fire-free workplace, despite fires being an obvious hazard.

Smoking is a hazard. Just to take one example, cigarettes emit levels of carbon monoxide that are well beyond the Permissible Exposure Limits set by OSHA.

That the general duty clause has not been enforced, at least not evenly, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As I said, smoking has been an exception in the enforcement. I don't expect that to continue.

[villa]

I'm not an employment lawyer, but I would be willing to bet that reading the single general duty clause alone does not provide an adequate view of what the law as regards smoke at work requires. I also don't know if second hand smoke is considered a recognized hazard under the law.

Take a look at the CFR to see what regulations have been imposed regarding this. Or find a bartender to bring an action against his employer based on Section 5(a)(1) of OSHA. I have no doubt that if it were possible, it would have been done.

The NFL would be safer as a flag football league, but it wouldn't be the NFL any more. You can argue that bartenders in a cigar bar might be safer if smoking was not permitted there, but then it wouldn't be a cigar bar any more. I guess the root of the issue is how closely you define the job category as to whether a hazard is avoidable or not.

[lowbrass]

Hmmmm. I'm definitely thinking that maybe, after all, I am not the angry person here.

Boy, that really tweaked you when I said you were angry, huh? You can't seem to shut up about it.

[lowbrass]

mhendo, I know, and actually agree with your analysis pretty much. lowbrass was the one trying to claim it is a ridiculous argument. The simple fact is, the market hasn't provided non-smoking bars, which is an indication that the demand for them is not that strong, for multiple reasons.

Actually, what I said was that "you can build your own bar" was a ridiculous argument. I haven't addressed the argument that you're making now.

I don't think your argument is ridiculous, but I do disagree with it. The problem I have with your argument is that it tacitly makes three assumptions: (1) that a free market will automatically provide whatever people want merely by virtue of the fact that they want it - (2) that the market is free - and (3) that no other factors can affect the market.

Your argument assumes its conclusion:

-If the demand is strong for non-smoking businesses, then there will be a lot of non-smoking businesses <-assumption

-There aren't a lot of non-smoking businesses

-Therefore, the demand is not strong <- this statement derives from the initial assumption, yet is to be taken as evidence of that assumption.


Health of workers, on the other hand, is a good argument (and notice that lowbrass crept towards the realization that it is a much better justification).

I don't think I ever said it wasn't a good justification, did I? How exactly did I change my position?

[PharmBoy]

Good call. And I'd like to extend the hippocrite label to those who are fighting for their "right" to trans-fat (like the Constitution was written up in Crisco on a slab of bacon) but refuse to recognize the right for everyone to marry whomever they want.
There is no right to marry whomever you want. If you can find that in the Constitution, I'll give you $100.

[Canadjun]

Neither is there a "right" in either your or our constitution to consume trans-fats.

[lowbrass]

Neither is there a "right" in either your or our constitution to consume trans-fats.
I think you're correct; I'm not aware of any such right. But that doesn't mean banning them is necessarily good public policy. The fact that the government can do something doesn't mean it should. The reason I have a different opinion about smoking regulations vs. trans-fat regulations is that smoking regulations are for the benefit of non-smokers, while the purpose of trans-fat regulations are to protect people from themselves. I can go into a restaurant that serves items containing trans-fats without necessarily eating trans-fats. The choice is mine. I can NOT go into a restaurant full of smoke without breathing smoke.

One of the basic functions of government is to protect us from actions of others that might hurt us or diminish our quality of life. But to nag us about "you shouldn't do that because it's bad for you" isn't necessarily a good thing. You should be prevented from throwing rocks at your neighbor's house, but if you want to throw rocks at your own house, it's not really the same thing.

[Captain_C]

I don't smoke. In fact, I HATE smokers. I can't stand the smell. It makes me short of breath and my eyes water uncontrollably.

For this reason I don't go to bars. I can't stand the smoke.


But let me make this clear: This ban is bullshit! I don't expect people to bend over backward to my every whim, that would be selfish of me. Bars aren't FOR me, they are for people who like bars. If those people wanna smoke, let them!

Oh, so I can't be a bartender. So what? I knew that going in: If I don't like smoke, can't be a bartender. Fine, gotcha. I mean honestly, who goes to bartending school expecting not to be around smoke?

I really think this is all about some sort of twisted "it's our turn to oppress you now" strategy that the vindictive non-smokers have thought up because they didn't get enough hugs or something.

[Sailboat]

What I don’t get is that there seems to be so many people that claim to have so many immediate health effects from even a tiny wiff of smoke from someone that may be smoking outside a building. Has our physiology changed that much in 40 years? I doubt it.

Where were the people that had these problems 30, 40 and 50 years ago. How could they have possibly dealt with the effects of nearly everyone around them smoking?

A lot of them are dead from lung cancer. I've read several tearful reports from children of a nonsmoking spouse dying from lung cancer either before or after the smoking spouse does.

The fact that it wasn't recognized "officially" doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Unoffically, it was already clear. It's been perfectly obvious to me my entire life that "sidestream" smoke is dangerous. You can be killed by a bullet that wasn't aimed at you, can't you, if you get in its path? Why on earth would physics or biology care one whit whether you were the person who intended to light the cigarette?

As far as "small amounts" go, that's subjective, for one thing. For another, cancer is a game of statistics. It's not like you fill up a jar of pennies and only cash it in when it's full. It's more like being on a battlefield -- sure, standing in a stream of machinegun fire is *more* hazardous, but you can still be kiled by a single stray bullet far from the hottest action.

Sailboat

[Sleel]

The problem I've always had with smoking in bars and restaurants is that while not everyone smokes, everyone has to deal with the smoke generated by the smokers. Restaurants and bars aren't going to arbitrarily ban smokers because they know that if they do so without the backing of an ordinance or law, they're just alienating virtually all the smokers and discouraging a certain percentage of their non-smoking customers too. As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, non-smokers will sometimes make accommodations for their smoking friends by going to a place that allows smoking. Non-smokers, up until recently, have not wanted to make that big of a fuss about it, and so the status quo was that a minority was able to annoy the majority with impunity.

No business wants to throw away 20% or more of their patrons, so of course they allowed smoking. I'd argue that without legal backing, a bar or restaurant would not seriously consider banning smoking on their own due to the probable loss of business that might or might not be made up for by new patrons who liked the non-smoking rule. Businesses don't like to gamble that way. An ordinance forces things, but it's also the way you allow a business to have a choice. Before, the choice was between allowing smoking and probably losing money. Not much of a choice for a business.

For the same reason, the labor laws mentioned by another poster were imposed upon all businesses. If there were no uniform labor law, a business that did not provide safety for its workers might have an unfair competitive advantage over a business that did since it wouldn't have to spend more money to provide equipment and conditions that would protect the workers. The more business-friendly among you might argue that the workers would choose to work for the safer company. Consider that the safe company might not be able to actually hire all the workers who wanted to work there, and that the possibly higher wages of the unsafe companies would provide an economic incentive for taking the risk. It's the same situation with smoking bans. An unrestricted free market is not always a realistic solution for dealing with human considerations.

The rights of workers is a worthy concern, but I don't think that's the reason any of these ordinances or laws were passed. I don't think public health considerations were really the reason either. I think that enough people got fed up enough that they decided to take action, and enough voters in their area agreed, so laws were proposed and passed. Don't like it? Get the law repealed.

Personally, I think that the situation of smoking in a bar or restaurant is a bit like peeing in the pool. You all came there to have a good time swimming and having fun being in the pool. Some people decide that their feeling good is worth annoying everyone around them. They enjoy the momentary warmth and the relief of voiding, and don't want to bother getting out of the pool to take a leak — besides which, they'd have to interrupt their fun — so they let loose right there. If someone complains about the yellow cloud in the water, they point out, "Well, you know that some people will piss in pools, so you shouldn't gave gone swimming in a public pool if you didn't want to splash in a little piss-water. Don't go swimming if you don't like it. Or, better yet, open your own pool and make your own rules if you don't want to be around pissers."

See, the thing is, enough people thought that whizzing in the pool was bad enough to deserve a rule against doing it. At public pools, they infringe upon your rights so egregiously as to ask you to pee in designated areas (restrooms) so that people who don't like swimming in yellow-tinged water don't have to. I don't see the problem there, and I don't see the problem with banning smoking in most public places.

If anything, smokers are getting off light since tobacco smoke is recognized to cause some health problems and smoking is a potential fire hazard, but the most you get is a dirty look or a minor fine if you smoke where you're not supposed do. Take a leak in an alley, on the other hand, and you might find yourself arrested and registered as a sex offender, piss in the pool and you might be banned from ever going there again, yet public urination is a lot less likely to cause any real problems than smoking.

(Note for the literal-minded: I am not agitating for Urinator's Rights.)

[villa]

No business wants to throw away 20% or more of their patrons, so of course they allowed smoking. I'd argue that without legal backing, a bar or restaurant would not seriously consider banning smoking on their own due to the probable loss of business that might or might not be made up for by new patrons who liked the non-smoking rule. Businesses don't like to gamble that way. An ordinance forces things, but it's also the way you allow a business to have a choice. Before, the choice was between allowing smoking and probably losing money. Not much of a choice for a business.

This is a fundamentally flawed argument, though. You make an assumption that a bar banning smoking would lose 20% of its business, because smokers would go to other places. OK - let us say 20% of the 'drinking' population are smokers. 70% are non-smokers who have smoking friends and will go sit in a smoking bar to be with those smoking friends, and 10% are, let us call them, the 'hardcore' non-smokers, who despise tobacco smoke to the degree they don't feel obliged to sit with their smoking friends. If you open up a non-smoking bar, and you are the only one around, wouldn't you attract those 10%? And that's also not including all the people who tell us they don't go out to bars because of the smoke, who would presumably dash out to get drunk in the new smoke free environment.

Now, either there aren't significant numbers of people who dislike smoking enough to drink in a non-smoking environment over a smoking one, in which case I would suggest non-smokers use their market power more, or there are, and some other factor is preventing the spread of non-smoking bars. If the latter is true, I don't know what it is.

But I will accept there is a reason that there aren't lots of non-smoking bars. I'll even accept that is a "bad thing." As I said before, I'd happily go to non-smoking bars, though I wish they would emerge without forcing bar owners to do something they don't want to do. What I don't see is the rationale behind the all-or-nothing approach. If this is about choice, and the choice to have a drink without breathing smoke, then allow the choice to have a drink and breath in smoke at the same time. Issue a limited number of smoking licenses.

For the same reason, the labor laws mentioned by another poster were imposed upon all businesses. If there were no uniform labor law, a business that did not provide safety for its workers might have an unfair competitive advantage over a business that did since it wouldn't have to spend more money to provide equipment and conditions that would protect the workers. The more business-friendly among you might argue that the workers would choose to work for the safer company. Consider that the safe company might not be able to actually hire all the workers who wanted to work there, and that the possibly higher wages of the unsafe companies would provide an economic incentive for taking the risk. It's the same situation with smoking bans. An unrestricted free market is not always a realistic solution for dealing with human considerations.

This is generally correct, except in a situation where there is widespread information and plenty of options. At the moment barstaff don't have a range of options within the industry, but that would change under a licensing scheme. And plenty of jobs provide an economic incentive for taking risks and we don't jump up in arms. I'm a pretty hard core union guy and I don't have an issue with it as long as it is done in a voluntary fashion, with widespread information, and within certain limits (gotta throw the qualifier in there).

The rights of workers is a worthy concern, but I don't think that's the reason any of these ordinances or laws were passed. I don't think public health considerations were really the reason either. I think that enough people got fed up enough that they decided to take action, and enough voters in their area agreed, so laws were proposed and passed. Don't like it? Get the law repealed.

Well, the rights of workers was the express reason for many of the ban. I think the powers that be realized that a ban couldn't be sold on any other basis as most people (with some exceptions) realized they don't have a right to a smoke free bar, where as the right to a smoke free workplace is much more powerful. And saying "get the law repealed or shut up" isn't really the point. I think it is a bad law on multiple grounds. I think a less bad law would be one that had a broader range of choice involved. Unfortunately, sensible solutions don't tend to get passed the DC Counsel. And, for varying reasons, I don't have a vote here.

[lowbrass]

This is a fundamentally flawed argument, though. You make an assumption that a bar banning smoking would lose 20% of its business, because smokers would go to other places. OK - let us say 20% of the 'drinking' population are smokers. 70% are non-smokers who have smoking friends and will go sit in a smoking bar to be with those smoking friends, and 10% are, let us call them, the 'hardcore' non-smokers, who despise tobacco smoke to the degree they don't feel obliged to sit with their smoking friends. If you open up a non-smoking bar, and you are the only one around, wouldn't you attract those 10%? And that's also not including all the people who tell us they don't go out to bars because of the smoke, who would presumably dash out to get drunk in the new smoke free environment.

Now, either there aren't significant numbers of people who dislike smoking enough to drink in a non-smoking environment over a smoking one, in which case I would suggest non-smokers use their market power more, or there are, and some other factor is preventing the spread of non-smoking bars. If the latter is true, I don't know what it is.

Sorry, I just don't buy the "if people had wanted it, it would have happened" argument. After all, I could turn that same reasoning back on you and say that if it's really true that 90% of the population does not want smoking regulations, then this huge voting block would have removed the legislators who are passing these regulations out of office, and replaced them with legislators who would repeal the regulations. That hasn't happened.

[lowbrass]

Personally, I think that the situation of smoking in a bar or restaurant is a bit like peeing in the pool. You all came there to have a good time swimming and having fun being in the pool. Some people decide that their feeling good is worth annoying everyone around them. They enjoy the momentary warmth and the relief of voiding, and don't want to bother getting out of the pool to take a leak — besides which, they'd have to interrupt their fun — so they let loose right there. If someone complains about the yellow cloud in the water, they point out, "Well, you know that some people will piss in pools, so you shouldn't gave gone swimming in a public pool if you didn't want to splash in a little piss-water. Don't go swimming if you don't like it. Or, better yet, open your own pool and make your own rules if you don't want to be around pissers."

That's beautiful. :D

[Apos]

That is absolutely the most idiotic argument I have ever heard in my life. Why don't you build your own bar? duh, yup. Take you asinine Libertarian cliches and shove 'em up your ass.

You really just CAN'T be bothered to formulate an argument, can you? You don't seem to get it. When I call you a turd, that insult is a fun little window dressing on a pit-style ARGUMENT. But with you, it's like you get the idea of nasty language, but forgot to bring points and rejoinders with it.

Yes: if you feel like some business establishment isn't catering to your needs, too bad. They built those businesses themselves with their own money and work. None of that is owed to you in the form of having to make things the way you like it, and certainly not with the laughable claim that they must do so to give you a "choice."

You have a choice: the choice to not be an envious tool.

[lowbrass]

You really just CAN'T be bothered to formulate an argument, can you? You don't seem to get it. When I call you a turd, that insult is a fun little window dressing on a pit-style ARGUMENT. But with you, it's like you get the idea of nasty language, but forgot to bring points and rejoinders with it.

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it: "You can build your own bar", is a shitty argument. You can call me all the names you like; it's still a shitty argument.


Yes: if you feel like some business establishment isn't catering to your needs, too bad. They built those businesses themselves with their own money and work. None of that is owed to you in the form of having to make things the way you like it, and certainly not with the laughable claim that they must do so to give you a "choice."

Speaking of "can't be bothered", you obviously can't be bothered to read what I wrote. I have no idea where you are getting this idea that I think anything is "owed" to me.

Here's the situation:

-A law regulating smoking has been passed.

-YOU and other smokers are bitching about it.

-Some of the smokers who are opposed to regulations are crying that it's unfair. They argue that there should be no regulations, and that the "free market" will automatically provide whatever people need. And you have advanced the preposterous argument that people can "build their own bar".

-I have simply disagreed with your reasoning. The "free market" didn't take care of the situation, so when enough voters decided they wanted to have non-smoking environments available, for the public good, our representatives in the legislature passed some regulations. If people are peeing in the pool, you enact regulations; you don't just say "open your own pool". That's how representative government works. I have no problem with that. YOU are the one having a problem.

YOU are the ones whining that something is "owed" to you, not me.

You are not "owed" a public bar where you can smoke without leaving your seat. You may desire one, but you are not owed one.


You have a choice: the choice to not be an envious tool.
For someone who throws around so many ad hominem arguments, you sure are sanctimonious about "formulating arguments". :rolleyes:

[Sleel]

This is a fundamentally flawed argument, though. You make an assumption that a bar banning smoking would lose 20% of its business, because smokers would go to other places. OK - let us say 20% of the 'drinking' population are smokers. 70% are non-smokers who have smoking friends and will go sit in a smoking bar to be with those smoking friends, and 10% are, let us call them, the 'hardcore' non-smokers, who despise tobacco smoke to the degree they don't feel obliged to sit with their smoking friends. If you open up a non-smoking bar, and you are the only one around, wouldn't you attract those 10%? And that's also not including all the people who tell us they don't go out to bars because of the smoke, who would presumably dash out to get drunk in the new smoke free environment.

And my argument is flawed? You're saying, "Hey, you might lose up to 90% of your patrons, but, oooh! look, you can keep 10% plus maybe, possibly, attract some new customers." Yeah, that's an attractive prospect for a business.

This is generally correct, except in a situation where there is widespread information and plenty of options. At the moment barstaff don't have a range of options within the industry, but that would change under a licensing scheme. And plenty of jobs provide an economic incentive for taking risks and we don't jump up in arms. I'm a pretty hard core union guy and I don't have an issue with it as long as it is done in a voluntary fashion, with widespread information, and within certain limits (gotta throw the qualifier in there).

It doesn't matter how widespread the information is, some people will have to take jobs knowing that they are putting themselves at risk because it's a choice between working and not working at all, unless you impose uniform rules for the whole industry. In addition, I can see free market competition driving wages down for non-smoking bars by glutting the market. You'd have people taking a job knowing that they were damaging their health just because the wage was better at the smoking place, or because they might not be able to get a job at the non-smoking place because anyone with a choice would preferentially apply for that job. In essence, the lack of a ban would force some people to work in a smoking job even if they would prefer a non-smoking one.

Well, the rights of workers was the express reason for many of the ban. I think the powers that be realized that a ban couldn't be sold on any other basis as most people (with some exceptions) realized they don't have a right to a smoke free bar, where as the right to a smoke free workplace is much more powerful. And saying "get the law repealed or shut up" isn't really the point. I think it is a bad law on multiple grounds. I think a less bad law would be one that had a broader range of choice involved. Unfortunately, sensible solutions don't tend to get passed the DC Counsel. And, for varying reasons, I don't have a vote here.

I'm not really talking about the specific case of Ohio, I'm talking about smoking and smoking bans in general. Yes, worker conditions was one of the hot points in getting this law passed, from what I understand. In California, where I used to live, I remember the topic being mostly about the patrons, while also considering the worker problem. I was talking about the underlying reality, not the expressed "reason" that got the most attention.

You guys really don't seem to get that the issue here is that of a few people (smokers) trying to force their choice of habits on the majority (non-smokers). This law and other like it provide a way for the majority to enforce their will. Before, there was no rule, so smoking was "allowed". Any smoker could say, in essence, "There's no law against it, so fuck off," and a non-smoker's only choices were appealing to the owner, putting up with it, or leaving. With an ordinance in place, the default position is that of the majority: no smoking. Really, you shouldn't have to make a law, it should be common sense that you don't have a right to harm or annoy someone in the absence of some law to force you to not to.

You keep talking about choice. I don't think you understand that there really weren't many choices involved. You could "choose" to not go out or you could "choose" to go to a bar where a certain amount of people would be smoking. Making a non-smoking rule wasn't a realistic economic choice for any business that depended on customers coming in and staying for an hour or more. For workers, the choices were even worse: job or no job, health risk or no health risk. There might have been an illusion of choice, but in reality there was no choice at all.

Like my location states, I live in Japan. Here, the smoking rates are around the level that they were in the US in the '60s, and there are very few choices about where to go if I don't want to deal with tobacco smoke. Virtually any bar that said, "No smoking," would go out of business due to the plethora of choice in bars that do allow smoking. Since I came here, there have been a few family-style restaurants that put in non-smoking sections, and in some places they have expanded those sections, presumably due to patrons requesting non-smoking seats. The chance of any jurisdiction actually banning smoking is nil, though, despite the popularity of non-smoking sections in a few venues.

So I have a choice of either not going out at all, going to one of three restaurants (no bars) in my area that have non-smoking sections, or being around smokers. Nice to know that the 80% of females and 50%+ of males in Japan who don't smoke have such great "choices".

And I have to agree with lowbrass. Saying, "Open your own bar," is a shitty argument.

[villa]

And my argument is flawed? You're saying, "Hey, you might lose up to 90% of your patrons, but, oooh! look, you can keep 10% plus maybe, possibly, attract some new customers." Yeah, that's an attractive prospect for a business.

No, you really don't understand what I am saying. I am not saying you will keep 10% of your customer base. I am saying you have 10% of the population as your customer base. Read it again.



It doesn't matter how widespread the information is, some people will have to take jobs knowing that they are putting themselves at risk because it's a choice between working and not working at all, unless you impose uniform rules for the whole industry. In addition, I can see free market competition driving wages down for non-smoking bars by glutting the market. You'd have people taking a job knowing that they were damaging their health just because the wage was better at the smoking place, or because they might not be able to get a job at the non-smoking place because anyone with a choice would preferentially apply for that job. In essence, the lack of a ban would force some people to work in a smoking job even if they would prefer a non-smoking one.

That's just not true. Do you accept that there are bartenders out there who will voluntarily work in a smoking environment, because they prefer it? I know for a fact there are. I was talking to some of them last night. Now, I think, in a situation where people are presented with information, and have a range of options, they are the best judges of what is best for them. In many situations that does not happen, and that is a bad thing. In a world I have posited, where there are smoking and non-smoking bars, I believe in allowing people the choice where they work. And we allow people all the time to take less safe jobs for better pay, or because they simply prefer that job.


I'm not really talking about the specific case of Ohio, I'm talking about smoking and smoking bans in general. Yes, worker conditions was one of the hot points in getting this law passed, from what I understand. In California, where I used to live, I remember the topic being mostly about the patrons, while also considering the worker problem. I was talking about the underlying reality, not the expressed "reason" that got the most attention.

Most places I have seen pass bans base it on workers' rights. That is a much more solid argument, rather than your right to dictate to a bar.

You guys really don't seem to get that the issue here is that of a few people (smokers) trying to force their choice of habits on the majority (non-smokers). This law and other like it provide a way for the majority to enforce their will. Before, there was no rule, so smoking was "allowed". Any smoker could say, in essence, "There's no law against it, so fuck off," and a non-smoker's only choices were appealing to the owner, putting up with it, or leaving. With an ordinance in place, the default position is that of the majority: no smoking. Really, you shouldn't have to make a law, it should be common sense that you don't have a right to harm or annoy someone in the absence of some law to force you to not to.

And you have not read anything I have said, clearly. I told people I would not object to a law banning smoking in the street. I am talking very specifically about limited places where people can smoke. Why is that so threatening - that there are a limited number of bars where people can drink and smoke. There would be a big sign on the door. You could drink elsewhere if you don't like it.

You keep talking about choice. I don't think you understand that there really weren't many choices involved. You could "choose" to not go out or you could "choose" to go to a bar where a certain amount of people would be smoking. Making a non-smoking rule wasn't a realistic economic choice for any business that depended on customers coming in and staying for an hour or more. For workers, the choices were even worse: job or no job, health risk or no health risk. There might have been an illusion of choice, but in reality there was no choice at all.

...

And I have to agree with lowbrass. Saying, "Open your own bar," is a shitty argument.

I do talk about choice. What I am suggesting gives choice, to the customers, to the bar owners, to the bar staff. What you are suggesting does not give choice. It dictates, no smoking. I agree with you - the market failed to provide no smoking bars. So you can go the other way, and have 100% non-smoking bars. Or you can look for a situation that pleases the most people. I like to think my solution gives everyone (except those who want to ban smoking entirely) a happy solution. The ordinances don't.

[Jackmannii]

I like to think my solution gives everyone (except those who want to ban smoking entirely) a happy solution. The ordinances don't.What you may not be aware of is that there were TWO initiatives related to smoking on the Ohio ballot this fall.

One initiative was to establish a state law banning smoking in all public places with a few exceptions.

The other (backed by Big Tobacco and some bar and restaurant representatives) was phrased as an anti-smoking initiative, but in reality would have overturned all local anti-public smoking laws in the state and allowed smoking in all bars and restaurants under certain conditions. It was presented as a constitutional amendment, so that if it passed, it would take precedence even if confused voters approved the real anti-smoking initiative as well.

Voters weren't fooled. They defeated Big Tobacco's bill and passed the ban on smoking in public places by a wide margin.

That's the "happy solution" most of us decided on.

[Sleel]

No, you really don't understand what I am saying. I am not saying you will keep 10% of your customer base. I am saying you have 10% of the population as your customer base. Read it again.

I read it, I just think that you're full of shit. Accepting 10% of the population as your customer base and completely passing up the opportunity to have the 90% come to your place is not usually sound business practice. Going for a different market is fine when you have access to a large population that can all patronize you without much difficulty. For bars and restaurants, which don't exactly operate on a nice thick margin to begin with and which depend upon foot traffic and people within a certain radius of travel time by other means, limiting yourself in this way is certain death.

That's just not true. Do you accept that there are bartenders out there who will voluntarily work in a smoking environment, because they prefer it? I know for a fact there are. I was talking to some of them last night. Now, I think, in a situation where people are presented with information, and have a range of options, they are the best judges of what is best for them. In many situations that does not happen, and that is a bad thing. In a world I have posited, where there are smoking and non-smoking bars, I believe in allowing people the choice where they work. And we allow people all the time to take less safe jobs for better pay, or because they simply prefer that job.

Funny thing, I also know people who work in bars. There's no choice here, if you work in a bar or restaurant you will be working in a smoking environment. I know a couple of non-smokers who hate it, but don't have much choice in employment. Yes, I accept that there might be people out there who prefer smoking jobs, but I doubt that they're anything like a majority. You haven't listened to anything I said when I pointed out reasons that bars wouldn't be able to offer the choice because of economic realities. You are proposing choice where there is none.

And you have not read anything I have said, clearly. I told people I would not object to a law banning smoking in the street. I am talking very specifically about limited places where people can smoke. Why is that so threatening - that there are a limited number of bars where people can drink and smoke. There would be a big sign on the door. You could drink elsewhere if you don't like it.

You're just talking past me. Again. I already explained why limited places to smoke isn't a realistic solution. What would happen is that the majority of places would allow smoking, leaving no real choice. You can smoke elsewhere if you don't like it. Go out to the fucking street or patio and leave the 80% of people who voted for the ban in peace.

My workplace is progressive for Japan in that the employees aren't allowed to smoke in the common room. There is an area set aside for them to smoke in. I don't mind that. I've got no problem with limited smoking areas. What I object to is a situation that would make allowing smoking the default. I'll tell you what, when I last went to California it was incredibly nice to be able to go just about anywhere without having to walk through random clouds of smoke. Even the smokers among my wedding guests from Japan remarked on how clean the air was inside, though they grumbled a bit about having to go outside to smoke.

I do talk about choice. What I am suggesting gives choice, to the customers, to the bar owners, to the bar staff. What you are suggesting does not give choice. It dictates, no smoking. I agree with you - the market failed to provide no smoking bars. So you can go the other way, and have 100% non-smoking bars. Or you can look for a situation that pleases the most people. I like to think my solution gives everyone (except those who want to ban smoking entirely) a happy solution. The ordinances don't.

It's a false choice. I don't think your solution would solve anything at all, actually. The ordinances seem to be something that most people don't object to, or they wouldn't have passed it. Hell, I just looked it up and it passed by a 5-1 margin. You don't get much clearer than 80% of people agreeing on something. According to what I've read of the law, you've still got the option of tobacco stores, patios, and clubs to smoke in too. If you're so adamant about choice, those are options for exercising your choice.

Look, I don't get this. Why is it so hard for people to get their heads around the idea that the people doing the annoying/disgusting/distasteful/unhealthy/whatever thing that affects other people are the ones who need to adapt themselves to the situation? Nobody's agitating for spitting and non-spitting bars. Nobody proposes that people who choose not to bathe should be allowed to stink up a place because they're exercising their rights to be dirty. Nobody wants to change the rules to allow pissing in the pool. Basic courtesy about behavior in public didn't work when it came to smokers, so they made a rule about it. After years of putting up with it, people said, "Enough. No more pissing in the pool."

[t-bonham@scc.net]

<off-topic>
Accepting 10% of the population as your customer base and completely passing up the opportunity to have the 90% come to your place is not usually sound business practice.[/QUOTE]Seems to work fine for gay bars.

The largest bar in the state of Minnesota is a gay bar, and they seem to do quite well. (Though they do have quite a few non-gay customers. For some reason, pre-wedding bachelorette parties seem to like the male strip show at the gay bar.)
</off-topic>

[lowbrass]

What you may not be aware of is that there were TWO initiatives related to smoking on the Ohio ballot this fall.

One initiative was to establish a state law banning smoking in all public places with a few exceptions.

The other (backed by Big Tobacco and some bar and restaurant representatives) was phrased as an anti-smoking initiative, but in reality would have overturned all local anti-public smoking laws in the state and allowed smoking in all bars and restaurants under certain conditions. It was presented as a constitutional amendment, so that if it passed, it would take precedence even if confused voters approved the real anti-smoking initiative as well.

Voters weren't fooled. They defeated Big Tobacco's bill and passed the ban on smoking in public places by a wide margin.

That's the "happy solution" most of us decided on.

Wow, thanks for the info. Not knowing much about the Ohio law before now, I was surprised to find this out. So I read a few articles on it, and yes, this thing was passed by a DIRECT VOTE OF THE PUBLIC. And here I am arguing that the people's elected representatives passed the law, when actually the people themselves did. Well, so much better for my position.

Now I am just utterly mystified that ANYONE here was making the unbelievably stupid argument that there was no demand for non-smoking venues. This law wasn't forced on the public, the public VOTED for it. That just makes my case a slam-dunk. Is there any better evidence that people want something than the fact that the majority of them voted for it? How could anyone argue otherwise?

"If people want non-smoking bars, then the free-market will provide non-smoking bars". BULLSHIT! It wasn't providing what people wanted. If they already had what they wanted, they wouldn't have voted for the ban, now would they?

Case closed.

[lowbrass]

By the way, it would have helped if I had read the OP more carefully in the first place, since the fact that it was a ballot initiative was mentioned in the very first post. :smack: :o

[villa]

I read it, I just think that you're full of shit. Accepting 10% of the population as your customer base and completely passing up the opportunity to have the 90% come to your place is not usually sound business practice. Going for a different market is fine when you have access to a large population that can all patronize you without much difficulty. For bars and restaurants, which don't exactly operate on a nice thick margin to begin with and which depend upon foot traffic and people within a certain radius of travel time by other means, limiting yourself in this way is certain death.


I'm going to try to explain this without resorting to insults, because given that I have said this whole thing multiple times, and given that you seem intelligent, it must be that I am not explaining myself very well - for that I apologize.

Bars, and other businesses, can chose what segment of the market at which to target themselves. Not every bar tries to be everything to every customer. There are bars that are more like dance clubs, karaoke bars, sports bars, etc. No one suggests a sports bar is trying to attract 100% of the population. And no one suggests establishing a sports bar (or a Red Sox bar, more specifically, to think of one example near me) is not a sound business practice. I hope that is clearer now.

Funny thing, I also know people who work in bars. There's no choice here, if you work in a bar or restaurant you will be working in a smoking environment. I know a couple of non-smokers who hate it, but don't have much choice in employment. Yes, I accept that there might be people out there who prefer smoking jobs, but I doubt that they're anything like a majority. You haven't listened to anything I said when I pointed out reasons that bars wouldn't be able to offer the choice because of economic realities. You are proposing choice where there is none.

You mean there are people out there who want to work in non-smoking bars and people who want to work in smoking bars? And also customers the same? I agree, they might not be the majority. Hence my repeated suggestion, which you don't appear to have read, that, for example, 20% of the total number of bars be permitted by license to be smoking bars, and the rest are tobacco free. I did listen to what you said about economic realities. I even accept there is an element of market failure here. Hence my suggestion that there is a solution that increases choice for non-smokers, both customers and employees, and does not eliminate choice for smokiers, both customers and employees.

You're just talking past me. Again. I already explained why limited places to smoke isn't a realistic solution. What would happen is that the majority of places would allow smoking, leaving no real choice. You can smoke elsewhere if you don't like it. Go out to the fucking street or patio and leave the 80% of people who voted for the ban in peace.

But why isn't it realistic. Why is not allowing one out of every five bars to continue permitting smoking realistic? If you don't think one out of five bartenders wants to work somewhere where people smoke, how about one out of ten? Under my proposed sustem, the majority of bars couldn't allow smoking, as there would not be sufficient licenses. What is unrealiztic about that solution? I actually think it is better than yours. My way people walking past the bar who don't like smoke are not subjected to it, while only those who chose to enter the premises are.

My workplace is progressive for Japan in that the employees aren't allowed to smoke in the common room. There is an area set aside for them to smoke in. I don't mind that. I've got no problem with limited smoking areas. What I object to is a situation that would make allowing smoking the default. I'll tell you what, when I last went to California it was incredibly nice to be able to go just about anywhere without having to walk through random clouds of smoke. Even the smokers among my wedding guests from Japan remarked on how clean the air was inside, though they grumbled a bit about having to go outside to smoke.

Wouldn't my solution make non-smoking the default? I would absolutely oppose smoking in common rooms at work on a personal level.


It's a false choice. I don't think your solution would solve anything at all, actually. The ordinances seem to be something that most people don't object to, or they wouldn't have passed it. Hell, I just looked it up and it passed by a 5-1 margin. You don't get much clearer than 80% of people agreeing on something. According to what I've read of the law, you've still got the option of tobacco stores, patios, and clubs to smoke in too. If you're so adamant about choice, those are options for exercising your choice.

I'm really sorry, but I don't understand why you think 20% of bars allowing smoking and 80% not is a false choice. I appreciate this is voted for by a significant majority. I think Big Tobacco, and a very significant percentage of smokers have, through their behavior, brought this upon themselves. I accept that a government has the power to do this. Doesn't mean I have to agree it is either the best, or even a good solution.

Look, I don't get this. Why is it so hard for people to get their heads around the idea that the people doing the annoying/disgusting/distasteful/unhealthy/whatever thing that affects other people are the ones who need to adapt themselves to the situation? Nobody's agitating for spitting and non-spitting bars. Nobody proposes that people who choose not to bathe should be allowed to stink up a place because they're exercising their rights to be dirty. Nobody wants to change the rules to allow pissing in the pool. Basic courtesy about behavior in public didn't work when it came to smokers, so they made a rule about it. After years of putting up with it, people said, "Enough. No more pissing in the pool."

To be honest, I would absolutely support a business' right to allow in people who did not bathe if they chose to do so. I'd also support the right of a business to operate a pool in which people could urinate, as long as they did not hide that fact. Spitting bars I would have no issue with on the same grounds, unless (and I am not a doctor) spitting plays a role in the transmission of serious disease - I seem to remember TB but that could be an old wives tale. If it does, I would oppose the spitting bar on public health grounds. Not, mind you, because people who entered that bar might catch TB - that's their choice to take the risk. But because they would then spread it to people who had not made that choice outside the bar.

So, if you can show me smoking in a bar damages the health of people outside the bar, then I would be more likely to be on your side. But the difference between you and me on this is that you want the smokers outside the bar, blowing smoke into the faces of passers-by on their innocent way down the street, where as I want the smokers in the bar, in a limited number of venues, where everyone who enters knows and accepts that they will be exposed to smoke. You don't think that is a reasonable solution, but you haven't said why.

And I hope I have expressed this without any insults.

[lowbrass]

But why isn't it realistic. Why is not allowing one out of every five bars to continue permitting smoking realistic? If you don't think one out of five bartenders wants to work somewhere where people smoke, how about one out of ten? Under my proposed sustem, the majority of bars couldn't allow smoking, as there would not be sufficient licenses. What is unrealiztic about that solution?
I haven't studied this a lot, but our office does frequently handle cases that involve licensing and/or zoning. In my experience, in the case of liquor licenses, they are granted based on objective criteria, and legally cannot be denied on the whim of the government. I'm not aware of a cutoff number being used for any kind of licensing, although I can't say for sure that it's never done. I can see some problems with enforcement. First of all, businesses that are denied licenses can legally challenge the decision. An argument that is frequently used is that other businesses were granted licenses, therefore it is inequitable to arbitrarily tell a business that they can't have a license. If there is a finite number being granted, then the counter-argument would basically be, "They asked first." I don't know if that's valid. Maybe a lawyer can anwer that question.

Second, how do you decide how many licenses to give? Is it statewide, so that if Ohio grants 1,000 licenses, and Cleveland businesses apply for 900 licenses, then the rest of the state is SOL? Or is it by city, and who decides how many each city gets? By population? I don't know. Could be a problem. Could be unenforceable.

I'm not really sure about this.

[PunditLisa]

FYI, we've been to two local bars since the passage of the law. Both times I was assailed by cigarette smoke as smokers puffed away with impunity. Seems that the law has no teeth as there's no prescription as to who is in charge of enforcing the ban (the Board of Health? the local police? the National Guard?) and so a lot of bar owners are simply ignoring the law. Proponents of the issue will have to wait until the legislators meet again so that they can hammer out the details.

We Ohioans are the modern day Tea Partiers.

[zamboniracer]

FYI, we've been to two local bars since the passage of the law. Both times I was assailed by cigarette smoke as smokers puffed away with impunity. Seems that the law has no teeth as there's no prescription as to who is in charge of enforcing the ban (the Board of Health? the local police? the National Guard?) and so a lot of bar owners are simply ignoring the law. Proponents of the issue will have to wait until the legislators meet again so that they can hammer out the details.

We Ohioans are the modern day Tea Partiers.

Yes, but if the cops have to chase the lawbreakers down the street the smokers' won't be able to outrun them due to the smokers' hacking and wheezing. :D

[lowbrass]

Tazer 'em - according to many, that's now considered an appropriate response to people who break rules.

[lowbrass]

...and refuse to comply with orders.

[PunditLisa]

Yes, but if the cops have to chase the lawbreakers down the street the smokers won't be able to outrun them due to the smokers' hacking and wheezing. :D

Except most of our cops don't look like they'd survive a mile on a treadmill their own selves....

[Sleel]

But why isn't it realistic. Why is not allowing one out of every five bars to continue permitting smoking realistic? If you don't think one out of five bartenders wants to work somewhere where people smoke, how about one out of ten? Under my proposed sustem, the majority of bars couldn't allow smoking, as there would not be sufficient licenses. What is unrealiztic about that solution? I actually think it is better than yours. My way people walking past the bar who don't like smoke are not subjected to it, while only those who chose to enter the premises are.

I'm pretty sure I said it earlier, but the reason partial bans are not realistic is because businesses usually won't do anything to affect their bottom line. When I looked up how many people actually voted for this ban in Ohio, I also found information that Cleveland had imposed some ordinances before the issue went state-wide. Business very definitely dropped off in Cleveland as some customers chose to go outside the metropolitan area to where the smoking ban was not in effect.

Given the choice, the bar owners would probably opt to allow smoking, knowing that they would be alienating a certain amount of non-smokers and damaging the health of their workers, but also knowing that they would be keeping the level of patronage that they are used to having. With full bans, it's been shown that business for bars and restaurants is basically unaffected. Sometimes, custom even increases a bit. Partial smoking bans, on the other hand, seem to be bad for business. It might only be a short-term downturn, since I'm not aware of any area that banned smoking without being followed by other municipalities around them, but short-term loss is enough for a business to not want to take the risk. In some cases, short-term loss might be enough to drive restaurants and bars out of business.

What would probably happen with a partial ban is that a majority of bars and restaurants would go for the smoking option, few would take the non-smoking one, and smokers would be lighting up practically wherever they wanted despite the wishes of the majority of the public. Halfway measures don't seem to be good for either businesses or non-smokers. Like I said, I don't see why it's such a big deal to use designated smoking areas. You don't piss wherever you want; you use the bathroom. Smoker? Addicted? Gotta get your fix when you're out? Use the smoking area. If a bar really wants your business, they'll make the effort to set up an appropriate area.

If someone wanted to start a smoking bar, where all the employees and customers were smokers and there by choice, I guess they would have to ask for an exemption to the law. That might be a legitimate grievance. As written, the Ohio law looks like it pretty well blocks the loopholes of having any kind of wait staff—compensated or not—in a smoking-only club, and of having a combined tobacco-alcohol bar since you have to make a majority of your revenue from tobacco only. That may have been to block end runs around the law; where, for example, an alcohol bar could claim to be a "tobacco bar" by also selling some cigarettes, or claiming that you run a smoking club with "uncompensated" wait staff who miraculously are "tipped" at a rate that looks remarkably like the average wage-plus-tips. I don't know what the intention there was for sure. Since I don't live in Ohio, don't plan to visit, and don't smoke in any event, I don't care enough to do the background research on that.

Oh, something I let slide before: we do have problems with paying people a higher wage for hazardous jobs if a dangerous condition is avoidable. Some jobs are unavoidably hazardous, but you can't ignore safety rules and equipment by simply paying employees extra. The risk of falls in doing high-rise construction is part of the job, but you can't offer bonuses if the workers forego the use of safety lines. The safety rules are uniform so that businesses can't claim that their workers are voluntarily working without the necessary safety equipment. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, and maybe they're just saying they don't mind so that they don't get fired for ratting on the boss.

[Jackmannii]

When I looked up how many people actually voted for this ban in Ohio, I also found information that Cleveland had imposed some ordinances before the issue went state-wide. Business very definitely dropped off in Cleveland as some customers chose to go outside the metropolitan area to where the smoking ban was not in effect.What was your source of information, and was it derived from actual reported income?

[hajario]

FYI, we've been to two local bars since the passage of the law. Both times I was assailed by cigarette smoke as smokers puffed away with impunity. Seems that the law has no teeth as there's no prescription as to who is in charge of enforcing the ban (the Board of Health? the local police? the National Guard?) and so a lot of bar owners are simply ignoring the law. Proponents of the issue will have to wait until the legislators meet again so that they can hammer out the details.

We Ohioans are the modern day Tea Partiers.

The same thing happened in California. The original fine was something like $100 so the bar owners didn't care that much. Eventually the culture changed and smoking in bars is now considered to be totally unacceptable.

[Apos]

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it: "You can build your own bar", is a shitty argument. You can call me all the names you like; it's still a shitty argument.

And yet, you can't be bothered to explain why: just to scream and shake your fist at the heavens.

It's a perfectly good argument to the incredibly asinine claim that you don't have a choice. It's like arguing that since I got a job, worked as a wage slave, and bought a house with the money, you don't have a choice of where to live because while I'll let you stay over, I won't change the drapes to the shade of purple you demand. Well, fuck you. Buy your own house if you want to be king of the drapes.

Speaking of "can't be bothered", you obviously can't be bothered to read what I wrote. I have no idea where you are getting this idea that I think anything is "owed" to me.

I quoted the statement several times. You whined about not having a choice if no PRIVATELY OWNED bars didn't cater to YOUR WISHES. Clear enough now, tits?



I'm not a smoker, not that it really matters. And I was responding to YOUR LOGIC, not any particular situation. You keep trying to change the subject.

[quote]You are not "owed" a public bar where you can smoke without leaving your seat. You may desire one, but you are not owed one.

The difference is that now, even if I want to build one and bartend it myself, I can't. Because you and people like you are pricks.

The same sorts of pricks who decide that if I want to be gay, I can't do that either.

[villa]

I'm pretty sure I said it earlier, but the reason partial bans are not realistic is because businesses usually won't do anything to affect their bottom line. When I looked up how many people actually voted for this ban in Ohio, I also found information that Cleveland had imposed some ordinances before the issue went state-wide. Business very definitely dropped off in Cleveland as some customers chose to go outside the metropolitan area to where the smoking ban was not in effect.

Given the choice, the bar owners would probably opt to allow smoking, knowing that they would be alienating a certain amount of non-smokers and damaging the health of their workers, but also knowing that they would be keeping the level of patronage that they are used to having. With full bans, it's been shown that business for bars and restaurants is basically unaffected. Sometimes, custom even increases a bit. Partial smoking bans, on the other hand, seem to be bad for business. It might only be a short-term downturn, since I'm not aware of any area that banned smoking without being followed by other municipalities around them, but short-term loss is enough for a business to not want to take the risk. In some cases, short-term loss might be enough to drive restaurants and bars out of business.

Kind of a moral hazard problem then. Or a prisoners' dilemma - if all bars prevent smoking, all bars are better off. However, that creates an incentive to cheart. It's an interesting argument. I'm not sure I believe it, though. I think the market is big enough, especially in cities, to support smoking and non-smoking bars.

What would probably happen with a partial ban is that a majority of bars and restaurants would go for the smoking option, few would take the non-smoking one, and smokers would be lighting up practically wherever they wanted despite the wishes of the majority of the public. Halfway measures don't seem to be good for either businesses or non-smokers. Like I said, I don't see why it's such a big deal to use designated smoking areas. You don't piss wherever you want; you use the bathroom. Smoker? Addicted? Gotta get your fix when you're out? Use the smoking area. If a bar really wants your business, they'll make the effort to set up an appropriate area.

That's why the proposal I suggest would limit the number of smoking bars, at a minority of establishments. If you have a cap based on available licenses, doesn't that get around this problem? Or is the worry that the smoking bars would be too popular (something I think is unlikley, personally) and the policy might be shown up?

If someone wanted to start a smoking bar, where all the employees and customers were smokers and there by choice, I guess they would have to ask for an exemption to the law. That might be a legitimate grievance. As written, the Ohio law looks like it pretty well blocks the loopholes of having any kind of wait staff—compensated or not—in a smoking-only club, and of having a combined tobacco-alcohol bar since you have to make a majority of your revenue from tobacco only. That may have been to block end runs around the law; where, for example, an alcohol bar could claim to be a "tobacco bar" by also selling some cigarettes, or claiming that you run a smoking club with "uncompensated" wait staff who miraculously are "tipped" at a rate that looks remarkably like the average wage-plus-tips. I don't know what the intention there was for sure. Since I don't live in Ohio, don't plan to visit, and don't smoke in any event, I don't care enough to do the background research on that.

Oh, something I let slide before: we do have problems with paying people a higher wage for hazardous jobs if a dangerous condition is avoidable. Some jobs are unavoidably hazardous, but you can't ignore safety rules and equipment by simply paying employees extra. The risk of falls in doing high-rise construction is part of the job, but you can't offer bonuses if the workers forego the use of safety lines. The safety rules are uniform so that businesses can't claim that their workers are voluntarily working without the necessary safety equipment. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, and maybe they're just saying they don't mind so that they don't get fired for ratting on the boss.

I agree with pretty much everything you have said in this last paragraph. However, it isn't true that all avoidable dangers have to be removed. As I said, I am not an employment lawyer, but the NFL isn't required to be touch football. I think the issue is going to be how a job is defined. The job of bartender, for example, can be seen as one that does not necessarily involve exposure to tobacco smoke. The job of cigar-bar bartender, on the other hand, clearly does by its nature involve that exposure, just as the job of firefighter involves exposure to danger.

Tobacco smoke is also different to other occupational hazards, in that it is one to which many workers voluntarily expose themselves at home. That makes it a little different I think to, say, benzene. It certainly makes the idea that people would voluntarily remain in a workplace with tobacco smoke more plausible, wouldn't you agree?

[jsgoddess]

Tobacco smoke is also different to other occupational hazards, in that it is one to which many workers voluntarily expose themselves at home. That makes it a little different I think to, say, benzene. It certainly makes the idea that people would voluntarily remain in a workplace with tobacco smoke more plausible, wouldn't you agree?

It makes it perfectly analogous to noise, with the exception that noise won't kill you.

Our factory is quieter than a lawn mower. Our employees don't want to wear hearing protection. It doesn't matter. We must provide it. They must wear it.

[Jackmannii]

Tobacco smoke is also different to other occupational hazards, in that it is one to which many workers voluntarily expose themselves at home. That makes it a little different I think to, say, benzene. It certainly makes the idea that people would voluntarily remain in a workplace with tobacco smoke more plausible, wouldn't you agree?No, I don't agree that tobacco smoke is somehow safer because workers have put up with it for so long.

You cite benzene as though it represents some bad toxin radically different from what's found in cigarettes. But benzene is a component of tobacco smoke, as are radioactive substances like polonium-210 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8850254&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum).

The number of workers "voluntarily" willing to remain exposed to such a readily controlled health hazard is shrinking rapidly.

[BMalion]

It makes it perfectly analogous to noise, with the exception that noise won't kill you.


So if all this is for the health of the worker, Why stop there? Let's pass laws that protect all workers from being overweight, lonely, underpaid, bad money managers, selfish or boring.

Makes about as much sense.

[villa]

No, I don't agree that tobacco smoke is somehow safer because workers have put up with it for so long.

You cite benzene as though it represents some bad toxin radically different from what's found in cigarettes. But benzene is a component of tobacco smoke, as are radioactive substances like polonium-210 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8850254&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum).

The number of workers "voluntarily" willing to remain exposed to such a readily controlled health hazard is shrinking rapidly.

Seriously, you are totally missing what I am saying. I am saying tobacco smoke is a little different because people do it for fun at home. I also support a system that would have a limited number of smoking bars, which would presumably be staffed by those who would work there voluntarily. This is a total guess based on too much time spent in bars, but I am betting the percentage of bartenders who smoke is greater than the percentage of the overall population who smokes. I think if you had 20% (or 10% or whatever) of bars allowed to hold smoking licences, you would find sufficient staff to work there voluntarily.

If you don't think that is the case, well we will have to agree to disagree. If you do think there would be enough volunteers (and enough customers), you can still think it is a bad idea, but do it on other grounds.

[devilsknew]

The defenders of this smoking ban are all about the bullshit and petty. This isn't about protecting people's health from second hand smoke. This is about an agenda. And they have twisted science and second hand smoke studies to support their agenda.

The real second hand smoke that kills is outside and all around you and it comes from combustion engines, and other industrial processes. I can't tell you how much diesel smoke and smog I ingest on a daily basis. I am much more worried about the health effects from cars, trucks, the power plant, the oil refinery, and the berylium plant all within ten miles of me than someone burning a negligible amount of an organic substance in my vicinity. If the anti-smoking crusaders arguments have any internal logic and real integrity then their goal would be the cessation of the real killer that is truly affecting our health and wellbeing and ultimately destroying our environment: Industrial and Combustion Engine Emissions.

In reality they see only the hated tree of their personal agenda and miss the forest. The smoke and toxins from cigarettes is a miniscule one one hundreth of a percent of the sea of toxins and smoke, literally the tons that surround us of the majority coming from gasoline engines and industrial processes, yet I don't see them pressing for laws to outlaw these frumious fumiers. Personal agenda and revenge is what it's all about, they don't care about your health, that's just the trojan horse they use to take away freedoms in their vendetta and absent logic.

[jsgoddess]

So if all this is for the health of the worker, Why stop there? Let's pass laws that protect all workers from being overweight, lonely, underpaid, bad money managers, selfish or boring.

Do you honestly not grasp the idea of a safe workplace? A safe workplace isn't about making your life perfect. It isn't about giving you whiter whites or shiny hair. It's about keeping you safe while you are at work.

Most of us have little choice about going to work. We have to work to survive. Back in the day, employers had the option of letting us get killed without any penalties. Today, employers are required to make the job as safe as they reasonably can. It has nothing to do with whether you live a long, satisfying life. It has to do with whether you get killed or injured or sick on the job.

Get injured off the job? Not your employer's problem. Get injured on the job? Your employer's problem. Just as getting sexually molested off the job isn't your employer's problem. Getting sexually molested on the job is your employer's problem. Someone pays you $5 to drink lye? Not your employer's problem. Your job requires you $5 to drink lye? Definitely your employer's problem. "Keeping you safe" and "keeping you safe on the job" are not the same thing.

I can't believe I just wasted a few minutes of my life typing that.

[lowbrass]

And yet, you can't be bothered to explain why: just to scream and shake your fist at the heavens.

Yes, whatever you say, Apos. :rolleyes:


It's a perfectly good argument to the incredibly asinine claim that you don't have a choice. It's like arguing that since I got a job, worked as a wage slave, and bought a house with the money, you don't have a choice of where to live because while I'll let you stay over, I won't change the drapes to the shade of purple you demand. Well, fuck you. Buy your own house if you want to be king of the drapes.

Yes, Apos - it's exactly like that. :rolleyes:


I quoted the statement several times. You whined about not having a choice if no PRIVATELY OWNED bars didn't cater to YOUR WISHES. Clear enough now, tits?

1. That is not a quote.

2. Even in your fake characterization of what, in your delusional mind, you think I said, there still isn't anything in there where I say something is "owed" to me.

But hey, you called me another dirty name, so I guess you must be really smart. Is this the best you can do? Seriously.


I'm not a smoker, not that it really matters. And I was responding to YOUR LOGIC, not any particular situation. You keep trying to change the subject.

Get with the program. I was responding to another poster's logic. Do you think you might trouble yourself to actually READ the fucking thread? I know you'd rather just hurl insults, but it'd be nice if you figured out what the fuck you think you're talking about.

Look, I'll run this by you one more time, although I'm sure you're never gonna get it.

1. Another poster stated his/her opinion that the law in Ohio shouldn't exist, and that the choice of whether a business should be smoking or non-smoking should be left to the business owner, because then people would have a choice.

2. IN RESPONSE TO THIS ASSERTION, I pointed out that it's not a choice if all the proprietors choose smoking. That's all. Notice the conspicous absence of the words "demand" "owed" and "right".

3. In your warped mind, you imagined all sorts of things that you thought I said. You built a gargantuan strawman, which you proceeded to try to knock down with asinine, illogical arguments peppered with childish insults.

So, as you would say, "Is that clear, tits?"


The difference is that now, even if I want to build one and bartend it myself, I can't. Because you and people like you are pricks.

Waaaah! Waaaaah! It's just SO unfair. There, there. :rolleyes:

The same sorts of pricks who decide that if I want to be gay, I can't do that either.
Yes, Apos, it's the exact same people. Voting for a law that provides non-smoking public places for people to enjoy is exactly the same as being an anti-gay bigot. :rolleyes:

[Jackmannii]

Seriously, you are totally missing what I am saying. I am saying tobacco smoke is a little different because people do it for fun at homeI understood you fine. Your attempt to classify toxin exposure from smoking in bars as somehow being radically different from other occupational toxins backfired when you used the benzene example, and in any case does not make sense on a scientific basis.I am betting the percentage of bartenders who smoke is greater than the percentage of the overall population who smokes. I think if you had 20% (or 10% or whatever) of bars allowed to hold smoking licences, you would find sufficient staff to work there voluntarily.There never seem to be any figures to back claims like yours, but in any case it's a moot point. Voters, health agencies and (as an ominous looming threat) personal injury lawyers are not going to go for the idea of an unprotected class of workers who will "voluntarily" accept occupational hazards (which in your scenario would include not only bartenders but servers, cleaning staff, delivery people etc.).

I can just see your model applied in other lines of work:

"Hey there, all you smokers, heavy drinkers and dudes who love to ride motorcycles without a helmet! You live the freewheeling high-risk lifestyle, so why not come to work at the Ajax Not-Quite-Up-To-OSHA-Standards Coal Mine? We offer high pay and exciting jobs without all that cumbersome safety equipment. Apply now!!!"

Nah, somehow I don't see that happening. :dubious:

[jsgoddess]

In reality they see only the hated tree of their personal agenda and miss the forest. The smoke and toxins from cigarettes is a miniscule one one hundreth of a percent of the sea of toxins and smoke, literally the tons that surround us of the majority coming from gasoline engines and industrial processes, yet I don't see them pressing for laws to outlaw these frumious fumiers.

Riiiiight. The EPA doesn't actually exist. It's just a product of Lewis Carroll's vivid imagination.

See, I did not know that.

I also didn't know that smoking was actually a necessary part of our economy. The things you learn on the internets! I'm so glad I have the Dope to learn me these tricksy and complicatious things.

[lowbrass]

So if all this is for the health of the worker, Why stop there? Let's pass laws that protect all workers from being overweight, lonely, underpaid, bad money managers, selfish or boring.

Makes about as much sense.
Do you really not get this? Everything you cited are things that are exclusively within the control of the worker himself, except for "underpaid". And there already are laws against underpaying employees. Can you not understand the difference?


The real second hand smoke that kills is outside and all around you and it comes from combustion engines, and other industrial processes. I can't tell you how much diesel smoke and smog I ingest on a daily basis. I am much more worried about the health effects from cars, trucks, the power plant, the oil refinery, and the berylium plant all within ten miles of me than someone burning a negligible amount of an organic substance in my vicinity. If the anti-smoking crusaders arguments have any internal logic and real integrity then their goal would be the cessation of the real killer that is truly affecting our health and wellbeing and ultimately destroying our environment: Industrial and Combustion Engine Emissions.

If internal combustion engines were banned, you would soon die of starvation. Are you going to die from a smoking ban? There already are laws in place to try to minimize smog emissions. I'd be all in favor of strengthening those laws, but powerful industries have powerful lobbyists, so it's difficult to do. An outright ban would be impossible, because we would all die.

[villa]

I understood you fine. Your attempt to classify toxin exposure from smoking in bars as somehow being radically different from other occupational toxins backfired when you used the benzene example, and in any case does not make sense on a scientific basis.

OK. My point is that people knowingly and voluntarily, for pleasure, within their own homes, subject themselves to a cocktail of dangerous chemicals which together form the concotion 'tobacco smoke.' People do not, in any large numbers, suck down 100% benzene for pleasure. That's the difference. If you cannot see there is a difference between a person doing something willingly at home, and not minding it at work, to being exposed to something that gives them no benefit without their choice, then I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

There never seem to be any figures to back claims like yours, but in any case it's a moot point.

Nice bit of selective editing on your part there, attempting to make it look like I was asserting something as an absolute truth without providing figures to back it up. In the part you chose to eliminate, to save space, I said that it was a total guess. You are right, there aren't any surveys I have seen done on this. Do you deny it is true though? It certainly was during the long time I worked as a bartender.

Voters, health agencies and (as an ominous looming threat) personal injury lawyers are not going to go for the idea of an unprotected class of workers who will "voluntarily" accept occupational hazards (which in your scenario would include not only bartenders but servers, cleaning staff, delivery people etc.).

I can just see your model applied in other lines of work:

"Hey there, all you smokers, heavy drinkers and dudes who love to ride motorcycles without a helmet! You live the freewheeling high-risk lifestyle, so why not come to work at the Ajax Not-Quite-Up-To-OSHA-Standards Coal Mine? We offer high pay and exciting jobs without all that cumbersome safety equipment. Apply now!!!"

Nah, somehow I don't see that happening. :dubious:

This is ridiculous. I have answered this earlier, but here goes again. I support allowing people to take extra risks when it is truly voluntary. There is pretty incredible evidence that people voluntarily chose to accept the risk of tobacco smoke. That evidence is the fact lots of people smoke. I see no evidence that people voluntarily would work in unsafe mining conditions if there were safe mining jobs available. It may be certain people would, but I think the risk of people being forced by economic situation to work there is unacceptably high. If there were hundreds, possibly thousands of individual mines within close distance of a city, then that system might be more acceptable. And I think if people were presented with 999 safer pits, and one unsafe pit, the unsafe pit wouldn't have workers.

On the other hand, with lots and lots of bars around, I think it more than likely that even if the pay were exactly the same, you would find bartenders more than happy to work in smoking bars. Once again, I apologize for not having studies to back this up, and say simply that this is an opinion formed from conversations with bartenders who find the idea that they don't actually know whether they want to work somewhere that allows them to smoke pretty insulting.

If for one moment I thought there was not a way to make this a voluntary decision, I would support the bans. But I get kind of tired of seeing people trumpeting the rights of workers to justify their own personal preferences, without actually considering what the workers they are championing would want. Not saying this category includes you, of course.

[BMalion]

Do you honestly not grasp the idea of a safe workplace?

Sure, but what if I sign a paper that says I am willing to work with 2nd hand smoke and take full responsiblity for said effects of same. Are you saying I am not free to do so? So, I ask again, why stop there?

[villa]

Do you honestly not grasp the idea of a safe workplace? A safe workplace isn't about making your life perfect. It isn't about giving you whiter whites or shiny hair. It's about keeping you safe while you are at work.

Most of us have little choice about going to work. We have to work to survive. Back in the day, employers had the option of letting us get killed without any penalties. Today, employers are required to make the job as safe as they reasonably can. It has nothing to do with whether you live a long, satisfying life. It has to do with whether you get killed or injured or sick on the job.

Get injured off the job? Not your employer's problem. Get injured on the job? Your employer's problem. Just as getting sexually molested off the job isn't your employer's problem. Getting sexually molested on the job is your employer's problem. Someone pays you $5 to drink lye? Not your employer's problem. Your job requires you $5 to drink lye? Definitely your employer's problem. "Keeping you safe" and "keeping you safe on the job" are not the same thing.

I can't believe I just wasted a few minutes of my life typing that.

This is, of course, absolutely correct. The fact I don't agree with you on a smoking ban in bars doesn't mean I am willing to drink the Koolaid and come out with the sort of hysterical garbage that some people are to oppose this. It doesn't strengthen the case for those of us in favor of a limited, truly voluntary (for all concerned) solution when people make such ridiculous analogies.

[BMalion]

Do you really not get this? Everything you cited are things that are exclusively within the control of the worker himself, except for "underpaid". And there already are laws against underpaying employees. Can you not understand the difference?...

No, I'm afraid I cannot understand the difference. Can you understand "hyperbole"?

[lowbrass]

Can you understand "hyperbole"?
Yes, I can. Can you? Hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration for effect, as in "this bag weighs a ton" or "this is taking forever". What you wrote is not hyperbole. You are suggesting that two dissimilar concepts (things within ones own control vs. things in the control of others) are the same. That's not an exaggeration, it's simply wrong.

[BMalion]

Yes, I can. ...

Cite?

[jsgoddess]

Sure, but what if I sign a paper that says I am willing to work with 2nd hand smoke and take full responsiblity for said effects of same. Are you saying I am not free to do so? So, I ask again, why stop there?

Why stop there? Because it's the workplace. The workplace is not the rest of your life. That's why it's not called "The rest of your lifeplace."

There are many aspects to work that do not apply to the rest of your life. In my life, I can be a racist and refuse to associate with a black person. In my workplace, I can't refuse to hire a black person. In my life, I can plaster my room with sexually explicit images. In my workplace, I would be fired for doing so.

If there are no repercussions for employers, they will use you and spit you out. They will get you to "voluntarily" sign all sorts of documents saying they are allowed to use you and spit you out. Your arguments are the same arguments that people use to defend slave wages, lack of safety equipment, child labor, etc. Someone somewhere is desperate enough to do it.

These threads honestly puzzle me. Do people think that employees go along willingly with other workplace safety rules? They don't. Employees try to get around lockout/tagout. They take the shields off saws. They bend or break the safety features from a drill press. They put their goggles on the tops of their heads. They hang their earplugs around their necks until a supervisor comes in the room. They smoke in the paint booth. They hang a spent fire extinguisher back on the hook. They disconnect the back up beeper from the tow motor. They sabotage, lie, cheat, and hide.

People in these threads act like smoking is the only time workers don't get to do what they please, like smokers are some terribly persecuted class of worker. Well, I'll repeat it. Smoking has been an exception to workplace safety rules--a political exception. Smoking isn't more regulated than other hazards. It's much much less regulated. A workplace hasn't allowed to expose you to the levels of CO that are found in cigarettes for years. It takes a law passed by popular vote just to get these rules to apply to smoking when they should have applied already.

And I'm in Ohio. Over half of the employees at my workplace are smokers. This law is an absolute pain in the ass, but you know what? So are all of the other safety laws and rules we have to follow.

[lowbrass]

Yes, I can. ...

Cite?
You see the spot where you typed three dots? There were words there. I realize the words sounded like white noise in your brain, but if you had a functioning cerebrum you would have seen an explanation of what hyperbole is and why you are using the term incorrectly. :p

[BMalion]

You see the spot where you typed three dots? There were words there. I realize the words sounded like white noise in your brain, but if you had a functioning cerebrum you would have seen an explanation of what hyperbole is and why you are using the term incorrectly. :p

You really don't get out much do you?

But, this is pointless, you won. I cannot smoke in Ohio where I used to. Enjoy your smoke-free environs. Good luck in your pursuits. May God grant you a Merry christmas and a Happy New year. Please consider paying your membership fee as your contribution to this board would be most welcome.

I look forward to our future conversations.

[Jackmannii]

If you cannot see there is a difference between a person doing something willingly at home, and not minding it at work, to being exposed to something that gives them no benefit without their choice, then I think you are being deliberately obtuse.If someone does not see the difference between their own habit at home, and the added effect of secondhand exposure to the habits of hundreds or thousands of people in an enclosed space over the course of a workshift, I'd say that goes obtuse one better.Nice bit of selective editing on your part there, attempting to make it look like I was asserting something as an absolute truth without providing figures to back it up. Well no - your quoted use of phrases such as "I am betting" and "I think if" makes it clear that you are pulling conclusions out of your ass.If for one moment I thought there was not a way to make this a voluntary decision, I would support the bans. But I get kind of tired of seeing people trumpeting the rights of workers to justify their own personal preferences, without actually considering what the workers they are championing would want. Not saying this category includes you, of course.If you go back and look at the history of laws enacted to protect workers, from child labor laws to various health and safety regulations, you will find plenty of dire warnings about how jobs were being jeopardized, wages lost etc., and an amazingly high percentage of these false alarms came from the businesses that stood to lose (or thought they would lose) profits.

Interestingly, in the case of Ohio's public smoking initiative, I never heard of any protests from waitstaff or bartenders. The loud opponents of the ban were big tobacco companies and elements of the bar and restaurant industry. So excuse me if I don't buy this as a "workers' rights" issue.

[Apos]

Yes, whatever you say, Apos. :rolleyes:

Yes, Apos - it's exactly like that. :rolleyes:

A bunch of rolleyes still isn't an argument. It's a little harder to grasp, but restating accusations like "you misrepresented my argument" isn't itself the same thing as MAKING that argument, and supporting it.

2. Even in your fake characterization of what, in your delusional mind, you think I said, there still isn't anything in there where I say something is "owed" to me.

You whined about not having a choice because no one would offer you the terms for trade that you wanted. This was your given reason for why the law should be able force all others to only trade in the way you desire. That certainly sounds like a whiny bitch who thinks he's owed.

Get with the program. I was responding to another poster's logic. Do you think you might trouble yourself to actually READ the fucking thread? I know you'd rather just hurl insults, but it'd be nice if you figured out what the fuck you think you're talking about.

You're real good at accusing me f being off-topic or mangling your words, but you never manage to follow up and show that I have, let alone try to refute my arguments.

1. Another poster stated his/her opinion that the law in Ohio shouldn't exist, and that the choice of whether a business should be smoking or non-smoking should be left to the business owner, because then people would have a choice.

2. IN RESPONSE TO THIS ASSERTION, I pointed out that it's not a choice if all the proprietors choose smoking. That's all. Notice the conspicous absence of the words "demand" "owed" and "right".

Irrelevant. Your contention was that because no one offered you want you wanted, this somehow meant you didn't have a choice. Well, you do: the choice to do whatever you want on your own property. If your choice is to look for a bar that caters to your exact specifications, you have a choice to search that out, and if you can't find anyone willing to provide it, then provide it yourself.

Your alternative, however, is apparently to take the choice of others away from them and legally force them to cater to what you want.

Yes, Apos, it's the exact same people. Voting for a law that provides non-smoking public places for people to enjoy is exactly the same as being an anti-gay bigot. :rolleyes:

Such a moron. Yes: it's the same basic legal theory, sorry. It's the idea that what you desire should be mandatory for all: even if they practice it on their own time, not impacting you in the least.

[Derleth]

Why should clean air laws apply to private companies if the employees all agree that they would rather have that job at that pay than clean air and less pay? If a private company wants to belch unfiltered coal smoke rich in radioactive isotopes (Yes, coal smoke normally is radioactive to a certain extent.) that's nobody's business but the people who work there. Period.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a simpering whiner who would vote in Stalin Pol Hitler if it meant inconveniencing a few smokers.

[lowbrass]

You really don't get out much do you?


Such a moron.


That certainly sounds like a whiny bitch
You guys are really bowling me over with your well-reasoned arguments.

It's a little harder to grasp, but restating accusations like "you misrepresented my argument" isn't itself the same thing as MAKING that argument, and supporting it.

I'm not going to support a strawman argument that I never made. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You whined about not having a choice because no one would offer you the terms for trade that you wanted.

Nope. I have what I want. YOU are whining.

Your drivel is growing tiresome, Apos.

[lowbrass]

Why should clean air laws apply to private companies if the employees all agree that they would rather have that job at that pay than clean air and less pay? If a private company wants to belch unfiltered coal smoke rich in radioactive isotopes (Yes, coal smoke normally is radioactive to a certain extent.) that's nobody's business but the people who work there. Period.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a simpering whiner who would vote in Stalin Pol Hitler if it meant inconveniencing a few smokers.
Damn straight - and if you don't like it, get your own planet. :D

[Sleel]

Re: Columbus' bars loss of revenue under a partial ban
What was your source of information, and was it derived from actual reported income?

Like I said, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, so I didn't really dig deep for information. Besides, this isn't a GD type cite-fest. I googled the text of the law in Ohio and a couple of pages that gave the gist of what happened there. There was a brief mention here ( http://columbusoh.about.com/od/medical/i/smokingban_2.htm) and I remember similar reports of initial losses when some jurisdictions in California went smoke-free in the late 90s before the state followed in 1998.

[Jackmannii]

Like I said, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, so I didn't really dig deep for information. Besides, this isn't a GD type cite-fest. I googled the text of the law in Ohio and a couple of pages that gave the gist of what happened there. There was a brief mention here ( http://columbusoh.about.com/od/medical/i/smokingban_2.htm) and I remember similar reports of initial losses when some jurisdictions in California went smoke-free in the late 90s before the state followed in 1998.Your link illustrates the problem with these anecdotal reports. Studies relying on actual revenue figures consistently show no significant changes in income (or an increase) after public smoking bans go into effect - as in New York, El Paso and other cities. From the El Paso study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14985652&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum):

"...no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. "

The alarms about lost revenue seem to be based more on fear than reality.

[villa]

If someone does not see the difference between their own habit at home, and the added effect of secondhand exposure to the habits of hundreds or thousands of people in an enclosed space over the course of a workshift, I'd say that goes obtuse one better.

Of course I see there is a difference. I never said they were identical. But I tell you what - go to a court and represent a moderate smoker, say someone who smokes a pack a day. And claim harm from second hand smoke at work. I fyou don't think their voluntary exposure to the harmful elements of tobacco smoke is going to be a major, if not determinative factor in a decision, well, let's just leave it at you'd be wrong.

Well no - your quoted use of phrases such as "I am betting" and "I think if" makes it clear that you are pulling conclusions out of your ass.

Yes - I admitted I don't have numbers on this. Do you think I am wrong? Do you think that my observation that barstaff tend to smoke in a higher proportion than the population as a whole is incorrect?

If you go back and look at the history of laws enacted to protect workers, from child labor laws to various health and safety regulations, you will find plenty of dire warnings about how jobs were being jeopardized, wages lost etc., and an amazingly high percentage of these false alarms came from the businesses that stood to lose (or thought they would lose) profits./QUOTE]

Thanks for the labor history lecture. Of course, it was stuff I had learned in the past, but it never helps to be reminded about these things. Not sure on the relevance of it as I at no stage made any argument that there would be any jobs jeopardized, wages lost etc. But as I said, it is always good to be reminded of things we learned at university.

It is also interesting you see the continuation of a small minority of bars where people voluntarily enter in the knowledge that there will be cigarette smoke, run by people who want to run a smoking bar, and staffed by people who have made the choice to work in a smoking bar rather than the majority of bars which ban smoking, and who may well smoke themselves, as the equivalent of children working in textile factories or miners being exposed to firedamp. I can't think why anyone who wanted to work in a smoking bar might find your attitude incredibly patronizing.

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]Interestingly, in the case of Ohio's public smoking initiative, I never heard of any protests from waitstaff or bartenders. The loud opponents of the ban were big tobacco companies and elements of the bar and restaurant industry. So excuse me if I don't buy this as a "workers' rights" issue.

It's a workers' rights issue if people are forced to work in an unsafe environment. If people choose to accept a certain degree of risk, it isn't. I'm not trying to make it a workers' rights matter - while there is an element of that invovled, that aspect is being coopted by a bunch of people who couldn't care less about workers' rights in general.

[Jackmannii]

]It is also interesting you see the continuation of a small minority of bars where people voluntarily enter in the knowledge that there will be cigarette smoke, run by people who want to run a smoking bar, and staffed by people who have made the choice to work in a smoking bar rather than the majority of bars which ban smoking, and who may well smoke themselves, as the equivalent of children working in textile factories or miners being exposed to firedamp. I can't think why anyone who wanted to work in a smoking bar might find your attitude incredibly patronizing.How can I get through to someone with your mindset, where protection against secondhand smoke is just an annoying governmental interference with your life and not a reasonable response to a well-characterized health threat?

Can you picture how relatives of the nearly 50,000 Americans estimated to die annually from the effects of secondhand smoke (see the Surgeon General's report) might find your offhand dismissals more than patronizing? Are you another of the Flat Earthers on this subject? Do you believe that vast amounts of research data can be waved away on the basis of your convenience? Is there a fundamental difference, some vast gulf between bar and restaurant workers and workers in other occupations in regard to whether health and safety regulations are applicable? Please explain what this difference is, and how it applies to voluntarily waiving one's right to a safe workplace (seeing as how this principle is not permitted in other lines of work).

Smokers in Ohio can still establish a club, staff it themselves and puff away all they like. If you want to make things truly voluntary, that's the way to go.

[villa]

I already said I think second hand smoke is a health hazard. I'll say it again - second hand smoke is a health hazard. I don't know if this has been proven in any scientific way, but it seems absolutely bloody obvious to me.

Happy?

I don't think bar workers are different. What this comes down to, and what you steadfastly refuse to address, is what is defined as the job which must be made as safe as reasonably possible. You want to cast the net broad, and say all workers in the food and alcohol business, I assume. I am making it more narrow, and saying there could be a category of "smoking bar workers." Within that category, there should be efforts made to make the job as safe as possible. Presumably those would include ventilation systems, etc. But different jobs have different accepted risk levels allowable under law, and the precautions that must be taken differ. I don't see a problem with that if the choice is truly voluntary. You do. We will have to differ on that.

[jsgoddess]

I am making it more narrow, and saying there could be a category of "smoking bar workers."

So, should my workplace be able to enter a category called "loud factories," and then hire "loud factory workers" instead of providing hearing protection?

[lowbrass]

Villa, I don't get what "truly voluntary" is supposed to mean. How is any employment "truly voluntary"? In the bad old days, when coal miners got black lung disease, was that voluntary? Well, they agreed to take the job, so I guess it was as voluntary as anything else. EVERY job is voluntary, the way you're defining it. I just don't understand the reasoning - you would seem to be saying that so long as someone agrees to take a job, that it's not necessary to protect that worker's health?

[villa]

jsgoddess

No.

I doubt a court would find that a reasonable distinction to draw. While there are owners who no doubt would prefer to run "loud factories," I highly doubt there are significant numbers of employees who would make a real choice to work in a "loud factory," nor customers who would chose to purchase items from there for the reason that it was a "loud factory."

But what the job description is makes a huge difference when we are determining what are 'reasonable' precautions that an employer should be mandated to take, wouldn't you agree?

lowbrass

Truly voluntary - two bars on same street, one has smoking, other doesn't, pay (including tips) the same. Bartender (who happens to be a smoker) chooses to work in Joe's Cigar Bar rather than Tom's Smoke Free Martini Lounge.

Is that a situation that will play out exactly - probably not. But in cities with large numbers of bars, of varying types, sizes, motifs, themes etc., and with a limited small number of them allowed to have smoking, I think you would be very close to it. If the situation developed where smoking bars were forced to pay higher wages to get the staff, I might look again at whether it was a truly voluntary decision. I don't think that is likely to be the case.

Not truly voluntary - one coal mine outside a pit village, no other employment, unsafe working conditions, miner with children to support does not really have an option to refuse the job unless conditions improve.

Hope that explains it to you more. I have little hope it will, but there you go.

[lowbrass]

I doubt a court would find that a reasonable distinction to draw. While there are owners who no doubt would prefer to run "loud factories," I highly doubt there are significant numbers of employees who would make a real choice to work in a "loud factory,"

I don't think you're understanding how the job market works. There will always be workers who will choose a particular job, so long as there are more workers than there are jobs. Would you doubt that anyone would have chosen to work in a coal mine and get black lung disease? Well, people did.

nor customers who would chose to purchase items from there for the reason that it was a "loud factory."

There might be financial reasons to have a loud factory; they may want to save money on noise abatement measures.

lowbrass

Truly voluntary - two bars on same street, one has smoking, other doesn't, pay (including tips) the same. Bartender (who happens to be a smoker) chooses to work in Joe's Cigar Bar rather than Tom's Smoke Free Martini Lounge.

That sounds like a pretty idealized situation. How would you ensure that there was exactly a one to one correspondence between employees who want to breathe smoke and available jobs?

Such a situation doesn't exist. I happen to know that people have worked in smoking venues who would have preferred not to have the smoke. I have talked to many, and I happen to be one myself. In the past, I worked as a musician in many smoking venues. My choice was to work in a smoke-filled environment, or not work. I chose to work. This is not a complaint, mind you - I made that choice. I just don't believe the term "totally voluntary" can ever be applied to a job. When you accept a job, you must accept the conditions of that job. But again, that's not a complaint, just an observation of how the real world works (although I can hear Apos busily stuffing his strawman in preperation for his next assault.)

If you have 5 jobs at the beer-tasting factory, and 5 jobs at the toilet-cleaning shop, and 10 people looking for jobs, 5 of them are going to have to clean toilets. It's kind of stretch to say they voluntarily took that job over the other one.

Not truly voluntary - one coal mine outside a pit village, no other employment, unsafe working conditions, miner with children to support does not really have an option to refuse the job unless conditions improve.
Exactly my point. It gets a little tricky when you start talking about jobs being "truly voluntary". There is no such animal.

[lowbrass]

Hope that explains it to you more. I have little hope it will, but there you go.
By the way, fuck you and your snide little comments.

[jsgoddess]

jsgoddess

No.

I doubt a court would find that a reasonable distinction to draw. While there are owners who no doubt would prefer to run "loud factories," I highly doubt there are significant numbers of employees who would make a real choice to work in a "loud factory," nor customers who would chose to purchase items from there for the reason that it was a "loud factory."[/quote

Well, the prices could be lower than at the other factory. And those who get so hysterical about property rights, maybe they would support a factory that chose to eschew safety guidelines.

How about if the bar wants to have cock fights and consumers are more likely to come to see the cock fights? Should bars be able to be "cock fight bars"? Is there something truly sacred about mixing an otherwise forbidden activity with alcohol that would turn it sacred?


[quote]But what the job description is makes a huge difference when we are determining what are 'reasonable' precautions that an employer should be mandated to take, wouldn't you agree?

Sure. Which is why if you were allergic to alcohol touching your skin, the employer shouldn't have to stop serving alcohol in order to employ you.

But I disagree that smoking is a necessary component of a bar the way alcohol is (excluding "bars" that don't sell alcohol). Bars, taverns, whathaveyou existed in the Western world long before smoking. And they have continued to exist where there isn't smoking.

[villa]

By the way, fuck you and your snide little comments.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

[villa]

Well, the prices could be lower than at the other factory. And those who get so hysterical about property rights, maybe they would support a factory that chose to eschew safety guidelines.

Which is why I tried to carefully phrase it as people who would chose to purchase it because it was made in a loud factory - like people who would chose to go to a bar because it was smoky, not, let's say, because the drinks were cheaper. It's also why I don't think property rights provide an absolute defence, either here or generally.

How about if the bar wants to have cock fights and consumers are more likely to come to see the cock fights? Should bars be able to be "cock fight bars"? Is there something truly sacred about mixing an otherwise forbidden activity with alcohol that would turn it sacred?

No, because I don't think the animal welfare grounds on which cock-fighting laws are based are in anyway affected by alcohol consumption. And no, there is nothing sacred about that - see below.


Sure. Which is why if you were allergic to alcohol touching your skin, the employer shouldn't have to stop serving alcohol in order to employ you.

But I disagree that smoking is a necessary component of a bar the way alcohol is (excluding "bars" that don't sell alcohol). Bars, taverns, whathaveyou existed in the Western world long before smoking. And they have continued to exist where there isn't smoking.

I think you are generally right here. Which is why I would limit public smoking to a limited number of areas, including some where I would allow the sale and consumption of alcohol. In a 'smoking bar' employers would not be required to prevent smoking. They would be required to have adequate ventilation, of course. It's once again all about how broadly you draw the category. You maintain a bar is still a bar without smoking. That's 100% correct. I say a cigar bar is not a cigar bar without both drinking and smoking.

But we could go narrower, for the fun of it - a person (myself) is made nauseous by the smell of Pernod, Sambuca, and other similarly flavored beverages. Now a bar is undoubtedly still a bar without selling these products, as I am sure you would agree. But I would also think it is an acceptable occupational hazard for me, the bartender, to be exposed to that odor, even if it did more than turn my stomach. Defining a job too narrowly is foolish; but then again, so is defining it too broadly. The ability to be blindsided by a 350 lb man is relevant to a professional football player, and the dangers involved are legitimate there. But define him as an entertainer, and I am sure we would not feel happy with stand up comedians (with certain exceptions - Carrot Top, I'm looking at you) being exposed to the same dangers.

[jsgoddess]

No, because I don't think the animal welfare grounds on which cock-fighting laws are based are in anyway affected by alcohol consumption.

Nor are the worker safety grounds on which smoking ban laws are based.

[lowbrass]

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Sorry, what's snide about my last post?

Villa, I don't get what "truly voluntary" is supposed to mean. How is any employment "truly voluntary"? In the bad old days, when coal miners got black lung disease, was that voluntary? Well, they agreed to take the job, so I guess it was as voluntary as anything else. EVERY job is voluntary, the way you're defining it. I just don't understand the reasoning - you would seem to be saying that so long as someone agrees to take a job, that it's not necessary to protect that worker's health?

Where in there did I insult your intelligence, as you did to me in your response?

[treis]

Why can't we just give the employees respirators?

[Jackmannii]

Why can't we just give the employees respirators?Why not sealed bubbles for the smokers, like giant hamster balls?

I'm gonna send specs to Inventors Anonymous. :D

[lowbrass]

But we could go narrower, for the fun of it - a person (myself) is made nauseous by the smell of Pernod, Sambuca, and other similarly flavored beverages. Now a bar is undoubtedly still a bar without selling these products, as I am sure you would agree. But I would also think it is an acceptable occupational hazard for me, the bartender, to be exposed to that odor, even if it did more than turn my stomach.
There is certainly precedent for banning a particular kind of liquor if it is a health hazard:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/absinthe/absinthe_law.shtml

In the U.S., traditional Absinthe is illegal to sell for human consumption because it contains the chemical thujone which is banned by the FDA for use in foods but allowed in some herbs known to contain thujone (Title 21, Chapter 1, Part 172.510).


However, I suspect that your complaint of being made nauseous by being in the vicinity of the beverages you named is an exaggeration. If those liquors truly made a significant portion of the population ill, they probably would be banned. I doubt that they do.

[villa]

Nor are the worker safety grounds on which smoking ban laws are based.

Shoddy, shoddy reasoning on my part. The animal welfare laws exists for reasons separate to where the cockfighting occurs. The laws defining a safe workplace and the steps that must be taken to ensure it are dependent on are, by their very nature, related to the workplace itself. Therefore I would not permit cockfighting in a bar, because I don't think the locus of the fight is relevant to the reasons for the ban. I would, however, permit smoking in a 'tobacco bar' because the act of smoking is part of the rationale for the existance of such a premisis.

[treis]

Why not sealed bubbles for the smokers, like giant hamster balls?

I'm gonna send specs to Inventors Anonymous. :D

Because the smokers are customers and businesses cater to their comfort, not the other way around.