Here in California the ban was done as a health measure for the people that work in bars and lounges. Seems their lung cancer rates were much higher than expected. Anyway the expected doom of bars closing did not happen.
Now when I travel to a state that allows smoking in restrauants and bars, I hate the way that smoking places smell. I had forgeotten just how bad this smell is.
I fail to see how your forced to attend a smoke filled bar. Thats like some ultra-conservative Christian finding your use of alcohol offensive to their well-being. How about non-smokers that can’t take the atmosphere stay home and let the rest of society be?
And the right of a bar/property owner? Should he/she not have a say in this? I mean banning smoking in restaurants is one thing, you have children to consider there.
But as an adult I know I’ll be exposing myself to second hand smoke when I enter bars. No one is “forcing” me to be exposed. As far as the workers go, they’re all adults also. Nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to work in a pub, at least not here. And as far as them being exposed? I am a welder by trade, it was my adult choice to become a welder. There is very good money to be made welding. But I am exposed to welding fumes (burning paint fumes,etc) and far worse things than second hand smoke. I knew I would be exposed before I decided to become a welder. But I made my choice just as bartenders/waiters do.
Read DrDeth’s post. Thank you.
I don’t see any problem with banning smoking in bars or pubs. Afterall, the owner of a pub has to satisfy certain ordinances, regulations and laws to obtain a drinking permit.
The cart seems to be in front of the horse here. Why should anybody be exposed to second hand smoke in a bar involuntarily? That just says that the previlege of smoking is more important to non-smokers’ right of breathing clean air.
Again, as I said, I cannot see why it is a given that bars and pubs must be filled with smoke. There is simply no basis for that assumption at all.
Non-smoker here, and I would prefer a ban on smoking in pubs. I do believe that bar owners won’t lose any business through such a regulation.
Hmm funny all the arguements FOR the ban of smoking in bars has pretty much eluded the whole point all together.
So far all I’ve heard are pretty much two arguements here (and weak ones at that)
1.) "I don’t smoke so I prefer there be a ban.
This arguement does nothing more than to show how self serving one can be.
2.) “It won’t hurt bussiness”
This has yet to have been proven. It may be true for big name companys like TGI Fridays and what not but what about the common man? Also it doesn’t matter if it hurts bussiness or not; as a bar owner I should have the right to run MY bussiness in the way that I see fit. (and obtaining city ordinances or liqour licenses has nothing to do with this. Bar owners pay fees and taxes for this privilage)
Also, if there is indeed such a demand for non-smoking bars how come there aren’t more of them around?
I’ll tell you why. BECAUSE THERE ISN’T A DEMAND for non-smoking bars.
Sin and sin go hand in hand folks. Lets the people smoke for crying out loud.
We can save that for GD, SHAKES. This is simply an opinion poll.
You’re missing the major argument: that this is a occupational safety measure designed to protect the health of bar workers. The inevitable objection raised is that bartenders knew what they were getting into, akin to working in a dangerous industry such as welding (above) or offshore oil-drilling. Of course, the reply is that even in dangerous jobs such as these, laws exist to protect the health and safety of workers to the extent that is economical and doesn’t unduly constrain the functions of the industry. Smoking bans arguably protect workers without undue cost to the bar industry.
… and then there’s the libertarian response that informed adults should be able to consent to dangerous work without the government interfering, but let’s not go there.
Personally, I don’t entirely agree with the idealogy behind banning smoking in bars–plus I feel for the people who have to huddle out in the cold to have a durry–but as a non-smoker I must admit that I’ll be pleased to able to go out and not come home smelling like an ashtray.
I support a ban 100% A group of my co-workers often go to a local bar after work on Friday. Many others don’t come along because of the smoke. Restaurants, even with non smoking sections, usually have you wait in a smoking area. Ban it, Ban it, Ban it!
This is one of those issues I’m perpetually undecided on. On the one hand, I would personally be overjoyed if I didn’t have to deal with smoke in restaurants, bars, pubs, etc. As it stands I just don’t go to bars or pubs (not a terribly hardship as I don’t drink anyway), and refuse to eat in restaurants where people are smoking.
That being said, I don’t feel it’s something the government should legislate - as people have said; It’s a free market. If there was enough call for non smoking bars & pubs, there would be more of them. There are actually a few here in Cambridge, but they’re all a bit out of the way, which makes them less popular anyway even without losing custom from smokers, and the fact that they’re non smoking isn’t that widely advertised. Further, I think it’s at least partially a matter of personal freedoms, so not really something that should be subject to legislation. That being said, I can see the arguments in favour of a ban as well.
I suppose if I absolutely had to choose for or against a ban, I’d be against it. On the other hand I wouldn’t exactly shed any tears if one were passed either.
Go to a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. Why insist that big-mommy government rule everybody else’s lives just for you?
Of course, that there is no non-fraudulent science to back it up makes it fairly shaky.
Except it isn’t just for me, is it? There are really quite a number of people who’d rather not be fumigated with tobacco smoke when all we want to do is go out for a quiet drink or two … and the question of the bar workers is a serious one, too.
(I’ve read some of your previous posts on the subject of second-hand smoke studies, Dogface, and I have to say, I don’t find your viewpoint in the least bit convincing.)
“Big mommy government”, in a democracy, only does what the majority wants her to. If enough people are fed up with tobacco smoke, well, bans are likely to happen. If there aren’t enough people in this category, they won’t. Democracy in action.
There’s no non-fraudulent science to back up (i) that bar workers are more at risk from smoking-related illnesses than the general population; or (ii) that passive smoking is damaging to one’s health?
(Sorry if I don’t reply immediately; it’s late here.)
No, it is not serious. The science has shown this. Only junk science, pseudoscience, and scientific fraud maintains otherwise.
Please demonstrate how altering a study’s methods to deviate from accepted scientific and statistical standards, specifically lowering the bar for coming to a conclusion to the point where, had it been any other topic, it would have been denounced as scientific fraud, is good science. Tell me why is it that refusing to stand by long-established principles of p>0.05 and RI >2.0 is good science. Go ahead, explain how it is that violating all standards of ethical epedemiology is good science.
Like putting gay marriage to a majority vote.
Both. The one big “study” that all the antismokers keep citing is massive scientific malfeasance. Here is what they did:
The EPA announced their “results” before they had finished.
The EPA pre-excluded data that did not not agree witht their predetermined results.
EVEN if one only uses the EPA’s data, if one analyses it according to ethical scientific standards, one cannot get a significant correlation between ETS and health conditions. Therefore, one must VIOLATE scientific standards to get a significant correlation. In addition, the EPA classified ETS as a “class A carcinogen” even though risk was 10% or less of substances that the EPA has REFUSED to so classify. Politics have been permitted to violate science.
The World Health Organization released a larger, more comprehensive, HONEST, and ethically analysed study that contradicts the EPA’s findings.
Bollocks. Bar workers know exactly what they’re getting in for when they sign up for bartending school, or whatever. You might as well ask for legislation protecting farmers with hayfever, or protecting lifeguards from brine.
I do not smoke tobacco.
However, I believe the government should stick to maintaining roads and providing a defense for the nation. If there is a demand for smoke free bars, they will open up to make $ from those who will support them.
No ban. It’s none of the government’s business. It should be up to the business. I’m a non-smoker. If it’s too smokey, then I won’t be a patron or an employee.