Yes, they are. But so are non-smokers. If they want to work in a bar (and trust me, a LOT of people do make careers out of it - my father, for one!) are they not entitled to a work environment that is right for them? That is SAFE for them? That is, one which won’t cause them cancer or emphysema or simply irritate their lungs and make their clothes reek of ashtray? A smoker can go outside, or go in their car, or wait until they get home, or quit altogether. A smoker has a choice. A nonsmoking employee or patron doesn’t have that choice in a bar that allows smoking. In asserting your right to smoke, you are taking away someone elses right not to smoke/be exposed.
Forcing toxic chemicals down the lungs of other people is NOT within your constitutional rights or “the American way”.
And you are a very lucky person if you have such means in your life as to choose the exact workplace to suit your needs and habits. Many people cannot do that. They either don’t have the skills, they don’t have the means to travel to better jobs, they don’t happen to live in the right town/part of the country, they have financial/family/school obligations that force them into one job instead of another, prefered one for the pay,hours, etc. I find it awfully arrogant for people to assume that wait staff are merely temporarily working in that industry and therefore undeserving of a safe place to work.
Probably the same arrogance/entitlement that leads someone to say “I don’t feel like going to the non-smoking bar, let’s make every bar smoke-free.”
You see, bars are already allowed to be non-smoking. Considering the number of places that allow smoking, and the majority that can’t, the employment (at least in this city) is moot. If you were to hit every single tavern in this city that allows smoking, you could count on one, MAYBE two hands the number of workers that don’t smoke. The aspect of saving the lives of employees in bars is absurd. It simply isn’t an issue. Of course, this may be different in anyone else’s locale.
BTW, good call-out on the name calling part upthread. Didn’t even realize it until you pointed it out. :o
well, sometimes they do, if all the non-smoking rooms are full. And hotels have been known to say “yes, that’s a non-smoking room” and quickly send a maid down there to remove the ashtrays, etc.
Also, the bedclothes from a smoking room retain a fair amount of the stink, even after washing. And hotels generally mix all this laundry together, not keeping separate the smoking laundry. It’s not hard to tell if the blanket of bedspread has come from a smoking room.
Shouldn’t the hot water, detergent and bleach be able to take care of the smell? Even though I smoke, I can smell smoke on clothes/sheets. Of course, I’m not of sensitive to it, but if they can’t get an odor out of the sheets, what else isn’t being removed? :eek:
I’m confused. If the majority of people don’t smoke, and wish to frequent non-smoking establishments, then what’s the problem with letting business and/or building owners allow or disallow smoking as they wish? It’s their money, after all.
And if the majority of people are either smokers or indifferent enough to frequent establishments that allow smoking, then why are legislatures needlessly infringing on property rights to “solve” an imaginary problem?
If there’s a desire for non-smoking establishments, then let the market meet it.
Well, you said it yourself…if people WANT to work in a bar. It’s a choice, based on a lot of different factors. If I don’t want to be around smoke, then I would probably not want to work in a bar. A nonsmoking employee or patron does have that choice. They don’t have to work in that bar. They don’t have to patronize that bar.
I believe that running a business establishment the way that I want to run it is within my constitutional rights. Smoking is a legal activity. If I want to allow people to smoke in my privately-owned establishment, then I should be able to do that. And if people don’t want to work there, then it is my problem to find employees who don’t mind being around smoke. Likewise, it is my problem if patrons don’t come because they don’t like being around smoke. If I have enough trouble finding employees or customers, I would be likely to change my policy.
Please tell me where these hard-luck towns are where the ONLY job available are the ones in the smoke-filled bars.
I don’t want to run the risk of getting that chemical crap on me so I CHOOSE to not apply for the job. Being a musician type, I care about my hearing. I’m not going to run a fucking jack hammer for a living.
If you don’t smoke, and don’t want to inhale 2nd hand smoke, why in the fuck would you choose to work (or visit) a smoky bar and complain. That’s the part I don’t get.
If you want to go to a nudist beach, don’t complain about sand in your crack.
It isn’t like there can only be one choice. There can be BOTH smoking and non-smoking places. The bartenders and waiters who do not mind the smoke (or smoke) can work in the smoke bars. The non smoker bartenders can work in the non-smoking bars.
I don’t see what the problem is.
Ok, I KNOW what the problem is. After reading a few of these threads and hearing people talk, a handful of people really hate the smell of smoke and they will not quit until the world is a smoke free enviroment. I call bullshit to their cries of “health” because many eat like shit, consume two 44 gallon Big Gulps of corn syrup a day, are overweight, couldn’t walk a flight of stairs without damn near puking, get drunk, take all kids of meds, speed on the highway and do various other things someone who would “treat their body like a temple” would not.
It’s like religious fanatics. There is only ONE way to do things and they won’t be happy until all the others are gone or convert to their way of doing things.
Because if the only room left is a smoking room, and you are a non-smoker… Do I have to draw you a diagram? Read on if you are having trouble understanding this.
Speaking just for myself, smoke makes my eyes water, airways constrict, and makes me cough /sneeze. I once checked into a hotel that only had a smoking room left. Took a nap. Two hours later I could barely breathe. Had to go to a different hotel. Car exhaust (particulary modern cars) does not effect me at all. Compared to cig smoke car exhaust smells like roses.
So yes if I have to inhale smoke from your cig, I will cough and it isn’t fake.
Can this issue be compared to pet-friendly hotels? There are a lot of people who have allergies to pets ranging from the merely annoying to severe. More and more hotels are now accepting pets (including the Mariott chain which has banned smoking.)
A lot of times, the pet policy isn’t emblazoned on signs and it’s often buried down at the bottom of the company website so it’s possible that a severely allergic person could go to a hotel room unaware that the last guest could have had a dog or cat in there.
I take my dog with me on vacation all the time. Isn’t this also polluting other peoples’ environment with their dander?
What about peanut butter-free schools?
My mom is allergic to perfumes. She gets a smashing migraine if she ends up sitting near someone who’s wearing a lot of it, which happens all too frequently, in her opinion.
All I’m wondering is how much accomodation allergy sufferers should be expecting.
Allergies are a rare condition that affects a small percentage of people, while leaving the vast majority unaffected.
Cigarette smoke affects everyone, and will cause a terminal disease in ALL people who are exposed to it, if they are exposed long enough.
Allergy sufferers did not choose their allergy; it came in their genes.
Cigarette smokers freely chose their tobacco addiction.
So there is a significant difference in the amount of accomodation offered.
I’m really sorry that happened to you, but I still don’t see it as the fault of the hotel or the smokers who used it. You could have made an advance reservation. Now, if you had done that and been given a smoking room when you specifically requested non-smoking, I’d be pissed too.
Now, you know as soon as you use a word like “all” ten people will jump in and say that their grandfather smoked six packs a day and lived to be 112.
I can certainly see a good rationale for an absolute ban on smoking in any place where people are forced to be: government offices, public accomodations and the like.
Having said that, I can see certain places that are intrinsically appropriate for smoking: bars, strip clubs, … smoking clubs.
The fact is that the market will not meet that desire, even if it exists. Witness that there are HUGE numbers of people who prefer non-smoking establishments, yet non-smoking bars never seem to exist before legislation forces it. You can’t claim the market will handle it because we have decades of evidence to the contrary. The whys and wherefores behind it may be confusing, or unknown, but it is a stone cold fact.
I think it’s similar to the cartel problem. If you’ve taken economics, you will have heard of it. Here’s the concept in a nutshell:
You have an oil cartel that can restrict production and raise the price of oil. If they restrict production 10%, the price goes up more than 10% and each producer makes more total profit than if they produce at full steam. Therefore they will make the most money if they all restrict production 10%.
OTOH, for each individual producer, they will make more money if they increase production. Individually, they do not affect the price of oil much so 10% more production = 9% more money.
In order for the cartel to work, they have to rigidly enforce the restriction, because the members will not continue the restriction individually. The action that is best for the entire group is not the action that is best for the individual. If you remove enforcement, the production and price will go right back to the normal market levels.
So too with bars and smoking. You can restrict smoking in bars when the entire group restricts at the same time, but you can’t count on individual bars restricting smoking, because it’s not in their individual best interest.
I did make a reservation for a non-smoking room, but 12 years ago attitudes in Europe were not the same as attitudes in the US today. (they saw it as no big deal)
But…people still have the choice to patronize or not patronize an establishment. No one HAS to go to a bar. If the owner of a bar can maximize his business by letting people smoke, then that should be his choice. The smokers come because they like to go somewhere where they can smoke. The non-smokers come because they don’t care enough about the smoke not to. If they were dead-set on not being around smoke, they wouldn’t patronize a bar that allows smoking.
There are issues that the market is unprepared to handle. Economists call them externalities and you learn about them in Econ 101. When the market has shown itself unable to deal with issue X, then it must be dealt with another way.
People want non-smoking bars and restaurants, the market absolutely does not provide them, so the only way to get them is to make it the law.
I’m not going to pretend to know WHY the market fails to provide, knowing that it does fail to provide is enough to justify making a law instead of relying on the market. Saying “why not let the market…” is just keeping your head buried in the sand. The market has had the option to provide non-smoking bars for decades, and hasn’t, even though there are tons of people who prefer non-smoking bars.
