The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2006, 09:44 AM
black rabbit black rabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Ohio smokers: get a fucking grip

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.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-10-2006, 09:55 AM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-10-2006, 09:56 AM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
No offense to all the hippos, by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:00 AM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:20 AM
howye howye is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:25 AM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by howye
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:31 AM
black rabbit black rabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
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:

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:37 AM
Rilchiam Rilchiam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
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?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:43 AM
howye howye is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:46 AM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:50 AM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by black rabbit
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?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:50 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:53 AM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by howye
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:58 AM
hajario hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,143
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:00 AM
hajario hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:02 AM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:05 AM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:07 AM
DianaG DianaG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:12 AM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:15 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
I really don't agree with the relationship between SSM and smoking.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:17 AM
jjimm jjimm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:21 AM
hajario hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:22 AM
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 22,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird
I really don't agree with the relationship between SSM and smoking.
You don't believe smoking causes secondhand smoke?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:23 AM
hajario hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan
You don't believe smoking causes secondhand smoke?
SSM = same sex marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:47 AM
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 22,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario
SSM = same sex marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:48 AM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:49 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Oh good, another smoking thread where we can all come together in harmonious understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 (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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:57 AM
Canadjun Canadjun is offline
Non sum ergo non cogito
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 3,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-10-2006, 12:53 PM
Common Tater Common Tater is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-10-2006, 12:55 PM
Common Tater Common Tater is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
Non-smokers will have to keep the heat on to assure adequate enforcement.
Jawohl.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-10-2006, 01:02 PM
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Common Tater
I rather suspect the bans will be relatively shortlived.
I don't. Just like seatbelt and helmet laws, they will stick. People will adapt.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-10-2006, 01:59 PM
hajario hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-10-2006, 02:19 PM
Gukumatz Gukumatz is offline
Winter is Coming
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,719
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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-10-2006, 02:20 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,670
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-10-2006, 03:54 PM
black rabbit black rabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-10-2006, 04:16 PM
zamboniracer zamboniracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-10-2006, 04:26 PM
BabaBooey BabaBooey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by black rabbit
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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-10-2006, 04:27 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadjun
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-10-2006, 05:09 PM
PunditLisa PunditLisa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: 'burbs of Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 13,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-10-2006, 05:49 PM
t-bonham@scc.net t-bonham@scc.net is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
I am just astounded at the ignorance of history shown here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by black rabbit
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.

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-10-2006, 06:55 PM
gonzomax gonzomax is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: michigan
Posts: 26,307
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:53 PM
MisterThyristor MisterThyristor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamboniracer
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
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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:09 PM
Lissa Lissa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:28 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 9,366
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...
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-10-2006, 11:59 PM
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
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).
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-11-2006, 12:10 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lissa
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 in
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, 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.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-11-2006, 12:11 AM
kittenblue kittenblue is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 6,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lissa
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-11-2006, 12:20 AM
kittenblue kittenblue is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 6,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-11-2006, 01:15 AM
Lissa Lissa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
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, 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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-11-2006, 01:58 AM
lowbrass lowbrass is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Sorry, gotta jump on the bandwagon here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DianaG
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?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.