How does the more-or-less 12% increase in people eating out compare to the loss in sales of cigarettes following a blanket ban? If they’re talking about levelling the playing field across all business, they have to include convenience stores and gas stations, which make a huge amount of their profit margin by sales of cigarettes.
Yeah, it does. I know that. But they’re designated rooms. The stink is confined because most hotels have the smoking rooms on their own floor or at least all in one section.
Non-smokers don’t have to stay in those rooms, after all.
Many hotel chains idea of a non-smoking room is simply removing the ashtray. And many smokers will not let the lack of an ashtray stop them from smoking in the room (I have spoken to many hotel managers about this in my quest for room that doesn’t smell like an ashtray).
And sometimes, hotel rooms are scarce, as I found out in the last round of power outages in LA.
How will making the entire hotel non-smoking stop this?
Some of the hotels in which I’ve stayed make you sign a form that says that smoking in a non-smoking room results in a fine to pay for intensive cleaning. I’ve never smoked in a non-smoking room and I don’t know how enforcable this fine actually is but it seems like it would eliminate a good deal of that problem.
I don’t see why this should be an issue, frankly.
It won’t. And I do not really advocate making an entire facility non-smoking. But at the very least, when a smoker fires up in a non-smoking room, the sprinklers should go on. Maybe halon gas.
Sometimes non-smokers do not have the option of simply staying somewhere else when a smoker has polluted a “non-smoking room”.
I’d hate to find out I couldn’t become a cop in my town because I choose not to be assulted by a drunk.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
There are risks in many jobs. Why is it fine an oil worker can have their hands snapped off, a cop can get shot, a stuntman can break their back in a fall, but we must protect the bartenders lungs at all costs?
Do you think dudes are going to stop smoking 'cause they can’t smoke in a bar, restaurant or hotel? They’ll just go outside, to their car, or smoke at home.
It is not ok for an oil worker to have their hands snapped off. It is not ok for a cop to get shot. It is not ok for a stuntman to break their backs in a fall. Ideally, safety precautions are in place or procedures are such that these things can be avoided as much as possible. But here’s the thing… these people take this risk for themselves. If I, as a stuntwoman (I’m not!) were to take a bad fall, your back won’t get broken. If I, as a cop, were to get shot, the person across the room isn’t getting hit by that bullet (and you have to admit, this is a bad example, because the shooting is a crime to begin with). If I, as an oil worker, get my hands ripped off, your hands are still attached to your body.
But if I, as a smoker, light up next to someone else, that person is exposed. What right do I have to force that risk onto someone else? How is it OK to force an employee to take on a risk such as second hand smoke (and remember, not everyone is in such a position that they can simply go find another job) ? If they don’t want to breathe it in, why is it ok to make them, just so a smoker can enjoy their habit?
While I’m sure there are plenty of smokers willing to take that job, non smokers need jobs too, and its not right to discrimitate against them because they choose not to breathe in poison smoke! It is not actually a part of the job of being a waiter or bartender. It is a side effect that has serious health consequences that can be stopped. And so it should be. Same logic as safety harnesses and nets for your stuntman, or bullet proof vests for your cop, or machine guards and lock-outs for oil workers.
I work with chemicals. If I’m in a hurry to get something done, and I grab something without wearing the right pair of gloves and it gets on my skin, then I chose that risk for myself. I do not have the right to go pour the chemical on someone elses skin. I cannot make that choice for them.
If you can find a way to smoke without having it affect anyone else, then go for it. Until then, please consider that our choice NOT to smoke is just as valid as yours.
Sure, but not being able to chain-smoke while having a few beers is going to cut into the smoking some, resulting in fewer cigarettes being smoked.
Having just one type of room removes a big hassle for the hotel and allows them greater flexibility in room assignments.
And smoke never stays put. Nonsmoking floors still stink when smoking is allowed in the room below.
I can vouch for this: I smoke about 60% less when drinking beer in pubs in Ireland because of the ban. It’s a pain in the ass having to go outside regularly, but I appreciate it the next day.
The same way it’s OK to expect a taxi driver to take on the risk of being in a fatal car accident, or a firefighter to risk burning to death. It’s part of the job.
It is part of the job of being a waiter or bartender in an establishment that allows smoking. If the waiter or bartender doesn’t want to take the risk of developing lung cancer many years down the road, they can find another job, just like a deep-sea fisherman can find something else to do if they don’t want to run the risk of drowning.
So give the workers respirators. That’s more analogous to things like safety harnesses and machine guards.
But bar and restaurant staff aren’t being unwillingly exposed to smoke – they CHOOSE to work there, just as you choose to work with hazardous chemicals.
There are avoidable risks and unavoidable risks. The nature of firefighting is fighting fires. The nature of taxi driving is driving a taxi. The nature of bartending is tending bar, not breathing smoke. The nature of serving food is serving food, not breathing smoke.
Similar arguments have been made in the case of coal miners and textile workers, who have historically faced marked risk of respiratory ailments (black and brown lung for starters). Rather than make facile comments about how workers can just find other jobs, we’ve considerably diminished those risks through regulations limiting dust exposure.
Based on those precedents, it makes perfect sense to protect bar and restaurant workers from toxic respiratory exposures. The people who can readily “go elsewhere” are smokers as their livelihood is not at stake, just the inconvenience of going outdoors.
As to the idea of getting workers to wear respirators while serving drinks and food - in the first place, safety gear like this is quite uncomfortable and impractical to wear on an extended basis. Second, it’s hard to see anyone in their right mind, even committed smokers, enjoying a nice outing in a setting that suggests “Night Out At The Love Canal”.
Imagine what that ambience would do for business. 
Christ am I sick up to here with the anti-smoking brigade.
Find something else to beef about fer chrissake 
I see a big difference between a mining job and a waiting job. Being a coal miner is one of those support-a-family-and-put-your-kids-through-college jobs. They’re often the only good-paying jobs in an area.
Waiting is different. There are usually dozens of resturants to chose from and the turn-over is huge. Most people don’t make a career of it.
The employment situation varies among locales, as does job skills. I see a lot of older people waiting on tables who are clearly not doing it as a stopgap on the way to a higher-paying job elsewhere.
Even if someone is only planning on working in a bar or restaurant for a few years at most, does that mean that they are not entitled to a safe working environment for that period? And if there are limited numbers of such establishments which are non-smoking in a given community, should workers have to compete for limited numbers of jobs in order to gain a non-toxic working environment?
I don’t understand the sense of entitlement/arrogance on the part of smokers that leads them to tell people “If you don’t like working here, go somewhere/do something else.”
Isn’t that sort of the American Way, though? We have the freedom to choose what we want to do. It’s not so much that we are told to go somewhere else if we don’t like our job…it’s more that we can go somewhere else. Currently, I sit at a desk all day. This is what my job requires. If I want to work in the fresh air, this is not the job to choose…I would have to find something else.
I would guess based on my own personal observation, that the vast majority of people who work in bars that allow smoking are people who smoke. It’s very likely that they actually PREFER working in this kind of environment. Are they not entitled to a work environment that is right for them?
My way or the highway?
Not in the labor arena.
And not for the great majority of Americans when it comes to secondhand smoke exposure in any public environment.
As was noted in another of the recent secondhand smoke threads, times have changed. Smokers can either adjust, or waste time with threadbare arguments and useless rearguard battles.
Actually, we’re protecting the lungs of bartenders at very little cost. If it was this easy to protect oil workers, cops & stuntment, I’d be all for that too.