In the wise words of the late great Archie Bunker, " Everyone knows that California is the land of fruits and nuts".
I’m always hesitant about agreeing to additional government regulation.
The question I was posing was not meant to be whether adequate ventilation is required in general, but whether additional regulations should be in place to cater for smoking.
Thirty years ago, you could smoke anywhere. Then the workplace was banned, airplanes were banned, non-smoking sections were mandated, etc. Now, restaurants and bars are getting bans as well. How long until one can’t smoke on the street either? Don’t laugh, because we are definitely headed that way. The same arguments that apply to bars can apply to the street as well, but add in littering to that, just for a bit more oomph.
Actually, I’d be more in favor of an outside ban than a restaurant ban. Why? The streets are genuinely public places and people should have a reasonable expectation of being able to use public places without being exposed to a harmful or unpleasant experience caused by others. A bar or restaurant is a business owner’s property (and is therefore private) and the business owner should be able to specify what the environment will be, then the customers choose whether to frequent the business or not.
You know, the only argument for banning smoking in bars and restaurants that has ever made even remote sense to me is that the employees in a restaurant or bar are exposed to lots of smoke and can’t do much anything about that unless they either (a) quit their jobs, (b) wear filters, or (c) ban smoking. Fair enough.
But I can’t imagine I’m the only person who’s noticed that there are actually a goodish number of employees in such places who are smokers themselves. Heck, there have been a few memorable occasions when I’ve had to wait extra long for service because the staff was out on smoke breaks. Somehow, I’ve always thought it a little silly to say that we must protect chain smokers from the dangers of ETS.
But maybe that’s just me.
Silly ivylass. He can’t do that because it’s against the law! At least here in our wonderful state, eh? 
After people got sick of running the cancer alley gauntlet everytime they entered of left a building, laws were passed prohibiting smoking withing so many feet of building entrances. I’ve seen lines painted on the ground around them to make it completely clear. Nothing warms my heart more than the wretched sight of a Gollum-like smoker, his/her collar turned up against the cold wind and rain, huddled under a tree, frantically trying to light a damp cigarette butt; very much the same ambiance and charm of a heroin shooting gallery. You would think some of these poor creatures were King Lear, the storms they will hazard on that short break to get a fix! :rolleyes:
I agree. I think that’s going too far. And I noticed from the link that the law was repealed. But I’m still not buying this “slippery slope” argument that if we say no to smoking in restaurants and bars, that it will somehow lead to total smoking prohibition. I don’t like to have to smell smoke when I’m walking down the street, but I understand that you need to draw the line somewhere, and banning outdoor smoking is unreasonable, in my opinion. But does that mean there should NEVER be any kind of smoking regulation? No.
And please notice that I responded to you in a reasonable manner, because even though you were sarcastic, you presented a valid argument and didn’t hurl personal insults at me.
I’m really amazed by how some other people get so worked up into a lather because someone disagreed with them, and want to hurl insults and call people names - but then they are UTTERLY SHOCKED when that person responds in kind. I have responded to people’s reasonable arguments, but sadly, there haven’t been too many of those. I also responded to the unreasonable arguments, and a lot of unreasonable people called me nasty names. Apparently a lot of people have confused calling someone an “asshole” with refuting an argument. If you want to act like a jerk, be prepared for the consequences.
Ninety Wt:
Now you’re just arguing for the sake of argument. You aren’t even contending that I’m wrong. Another poster suggested that we do something about smog before we tackle smoking. I pointed out that we already have. That point is so well known that there is no need to prove it. We could look up auto emissions regulations, but unless you have lived in a cave for the last 50 years, you ought to know that they are more stringent now. If you disagree, tell me so - otherwise you are just nitpicking for the purpose of being a pest.
Yes, but you folks are missing the point entirely. When you compare smoking to drinking alcohol or eating peanuts, it tells me that you don’t understand why a lot of people favor smoking bans. When YOU drink alcohol, it doesn’t affect MY health. But when YOU smoke, it DOES affect my health. This failure to understand the difference tells me that some people need it explained to them exactly WHY non-smokers don’t want people to smoke in the same room with them. So do you see how it’s relevant to tell you why I don’t like smoking?
Besides, with the vitriol some of the pro-smoking crowd has been spewing in here, they have NO right to criticize anyone else. Play with fire, get burned.
Yes, yes ! much better blowero. Yes, I know why a pro- or anti-smoking stance colors one’s opinion of a law about smoking. What I like to see is folks on opposite sides coming to understand why they argue what they argue. Which is the same point you are just now trying to say. BUT when you jumped into the discussion you came in with a “shoot first ask questions later”. I wanted you to come away from knee jerk “all these smokers are arrogant asshats!” to see that there are some points worth considering in this argument: such as having control over what happens on your own private property.
you said:
. Aha, you are right in that one instance; that was my little trick to draw you on out.
BUT I DID say you were wrong re: the “assholes” the OP mentioned. Are we gonna ignore that? 
p.s. if this posts twice please 'scuse me.
Some of you have suggested that instead of banning smoking in all establishments, that some establishments should be allowed to have smokers, i.e. some kind of “T.G.I. McSmokey’s” or something, and could hire only smokers to work there. So, setting aside the obvious question of whether it’s fair to bar non-smokers from employment, my other question is: How would you insure that only some places are for smokers? How would you keep things from reverting to the way they were before smoking bans came into being? Where I live, the reality was that smokers could go to virtually any restaurant or bar, and be allowed to smoke, whereas the non-smoker had no places to go that were smoke free, and was basically forced to just have to put up with smoke. If you allow the choice of having a T.G.I. McSmokey’s, what prevents EVERY place from being a T.G.I. McSmokey’s? If you think supply and demand will just magically sort it out, let’s take an example like Nevada, where they don’t regulate smoking. Go to Vegas and notice how many people are smoking. Quite a few are smoking, but still the majority of people are not. But now see if you can find a non-smoking casino. Good luck - right? They are ALL full of smoke. That’s because even though there are plenty of non-smokers in the world who would enjoy a non-smoking environment, no business owner is going to take the risk of being the ONE place to be smoke-free.
So while the idea of just having a few places where smokers can go sounds quite reasonable in theory, I’m wondering how you would do it in actual practice.
the owner of the establishment is ticketed for smokers, not the smoker. Each fine is $100. All someone has to do is complain. Enough of these fines and the management figures it out and keeps the place clean of the stinky minority.
The market. Supply and demand. Enough people like you, clamoring for a TGI McNoSmokingHereThankyouverymuch, and someone will set one up. They’ll probably be in the majority. Same as what allows me to ask for a McSmokeys: I want somewhere that I can smoke without pissing non-smokers off (and being engulfed in their poisonous clouds of smugness qv Virgowitch).
They’re doing it now.
In my town, there are four chain restaurants. Two, Outbacks and Cracker Barrell, allow smoking. Two others, Perkins and Sonny’s BBQ, do not.
I understand some sushi restaurants do not allow smoking. As I understand it, most smokers do not have a problem if a restaurant does not allow smoking…they can go elsewhere. Same with asthmatics. But when the gov’t gets involved, you have unintended consequences.
Show me one asthmatic that’s been dragged kicking and screaming into a restaurant that allows smoking. No one is forcing people into restaurants where they don’t want to go. But now, at least in Florida, people are being forced out of restaurants whether or not the business owner agrees.
I don’t think anyone here thinks the government is allowed to come into a private business and hand out regulations simply because some people find certain things offensive. If second hand smoke did not cause health problems I would not be in favor of this law AT ALL. I am very much against government meddling, but I do believe the government has a responsibility to protect the individual’s rights and freedoms. A right to a non-poisonous workplace is one thing I think should be handled by the government. See below for more.
When I started in on this, and has been pointed out since, the biggest question is to what extent employees should be guaranteed a safe and healthy working environment.
If you believe the employer has no responsibility towards the safety and health of the employees, then that is where the argument can end. I, and others, see it differently. Where the reasonability then lies can be discussed if you do believe the employer has any responsibilities.
Arguments I consider to be without merit (and why):
-
Customers are entitled to a smoke free bar. No, you aren’t. If you don’t like it, don’t go. You don’t HAVE to be there. Do there have to be alternatives for CUSTOMERS (NOT WORKERS) who don’t like smokey bars? No. But workplaces, airlines, public transportation, government buildings (i.e., court), etc. are places people HAVE to go to. In places that are not where you have to be, you have no claim to regulating a legal activity.
-
Smokers have a right to smoke wherever because it is legal. Yes, you have rights, but no, you don’t have a RIGHT to inflict smoke upon me. See 1) concerning where and when you have the right to smoke. Smoking is legal, yes, but that doesn’t mean you are free to light up wherever and whenever you want.
-
This law will lead to the eventual banning of smoking everywhere. Based on this argument, the first law prohibiting smoking anywhere should never have been passed. If you feel that way, that is fine and now we know and the argument is over. If you do think there are places in which smoking should be banned (let’s say around gas pumps…), then this line of argument isn’t about bars per se, but rather about “what’s next?”. This is about bars, so let’s just talk about that point. What’s next will logically follow based on the results of this discussion.
For those who wish to weigh the reasonableness of my arguments and the veracity of what I’ve said, I welcome the feedback. For those who wish to argue with emotion and pride, I will leave you to your tirades.
I think the jury is still out on this on.
The claim that ETS causes 53,000 deaths a year.
The amount of dangerous chemicals in cigarettes…scroll down for the grid.
The effectiveness of ventilation systems.
The jury is still out on second-hand smoke to people who desperately want to believe it’s not harmful.
Especially when the stakes are your own health and the health of those around you. The bottom line for me is the smell. Maybe it’s a Virgo thing. Maybe it’s the kind of people I grew up around who smelled that way. It’s a very visceral reaction I get to it. I mean, forget about any kind of attraction to a woman that smells like that, no matter how beautiful.
In fact, you look at an actress who has smoked all her life, and you have to cringe on the toll it takes on the face; not to mention the voice :cough:frandrescher:cough:
So, Virgo you want to ban smoking because you don’t like the smell?
Since when do you get to ban something because it’s inconvenient?
In addition to the Friendship Heights total ban on outdoor smoking I mentioned earlier, there’s now the North Dakota proposal to make smoking a felony.(!!!)
Wow, that’s pretty amazing.
The interesting thing is that such a move would make many of the arguments on this thread moot, at least in ND. Because a key argument put forward by quite a few people has been, essentially:
Hey, smoking is legal, and if it’s legal then private property owners like restauranteurs etc. should be able to choose whether or not they allow it.
If smoking and the use of tobacco products generally were made illegal, that argument would no longer apply. Of course, we could then have a whole different debate on whether or not it should be legal. And that involves a whole lot of other questions about personal liberty and social responsibility. Personally, i don’t think drugs like marijuana and cocaine should be illegal, even though i don’t have any interest in using either of them.
The North Dakotameasure was defeated.
There’s some talk the representative who sponsored the bill did it in an effort to expose the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking crowd.