California* has banned some outdoor smoking, like at concerts or sporting events. It’s getting nearly impossible to get away with outdoor smoking at a cafe; I don’t think there’s a law against it, but many places prohibit it. Also, I think smoking has been banned in some city parks. It’s getting just about impossible.
Why should you expect the gov’t to solve your problems? Why don’t you just frequent those businesses that don’t play the music so loud? Or ask the business owner to turn down the volume? Or ask to be seated farther away so you can still enjoy the music but it doesn’t hurt your ears? Why do so many people think the only solution to a problem is a gov’t solution?
If the majority of voters have a problem, why shouldn’t they expect the government to solve it?
Because this can go too far. The majority should only get their way if it doesn’t trample over other people’s rights to get it (within reason, of course, YMMV, LL&P, Don’t eat the daisies…)
Plus you can solve some problems yourself. start a grassroots campaign to alter society so no one feels the need to light a ciggarette. but whatever you do, don’t run more of those stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid Truth commercials.
“If the majority of voters would prefer racially segregated schools, why shouldn’t they expect the government to create them?” Which is by way of saying that the majority isn’t always right.
Look, I’m not trying to compare segregating schools to making bars and restaurants smoke-free, because obviously that’s an invalid comparison. But the idea that in order to reduce possible inconveniences to yourself, you’ll be happy to definitely inconvenience a host of other people engaging in a perfectly legal activity strikes me as morally suspect at best.
Tulley, I honestly don’t understand why you feel it’s okay to put smokers in a situation similar to what you find yourself in now. You have problems with pretty much all bars and some restaurants (or would, were you not in California), and in order to solve them, you want to make smokers have problems with all bars and all restaurants. I seriously don’t understand the reasoning. [little kid voice]Can’t we just share?[/little kid voice]
This isn’t much of a compromise at all, and that’s why I oppose it. YMMV. Actually, YM obviously does V, but such is life.
When the majority of voters preferred racially segregated schools, the government did create them. When the majority decided that was silly, the government got rid of them. Thats democracy.
I asked this question before. Assuming we agree that the smoker and I both have an equal right to go to any bar we choose, why should his right to smoke be any more or less valid than my right not to inhale smoke if I dont want to?
My right not to inhale smoke requires the smoker to smoke outside or in an effective smoking sections. His right to smoke requires me to not be able to go to the bar. Which is more intrusive on the other person’s freedoms?
Just how much of a problem is it to walk 20 freakin’ feet outside to smoke a cigarette? I would have more sympathy for the opposition if it didn’t resort to moronic hyperbole, comparing a simple request to smoke outside to fascism, segregation, and other things far more serious than this.
and yes I’m aware, g8rguy, that you weren’t trying to compare this directly to segregation. My point was, if you don’t like the law, go out and vote against it. But if it passes, don’t try to act like this is some fascist regime imposing draconian policies. There are enough really scary issues right now without having to blow the smaller ones out of proportion.
Excuse my ignorance…what’s YMMV?
Wow - this is a pretty contencious issue.
I’m a non smoker, and I have to say, if I was a Floridian I’d be all in favor of the ban.
I live in PA and it’s impossible to go to a bar that isn’t loaded with smoke. This may be a case of the market deciding, but I find this hard to beleive, I think it’s more likely that the status quo is for the non smokers to deal with the smoke and the bar owners aren’t going to change for fear of losing their customers.
I don’t mind smelling smoke too much, when it’s overbearing I really dislike it, but the main thing I find unpleasant is waking up the next morning and the clothes I wore last night and my hair smell like an ashtray. This really sucks if you wear a dry clean only jacket or such.
I was in Pasadena earlier this year for a conference and went out with a group to the bars in old town. I loved the fact that the smoke was kept with the smokers. They had to go either outside or into a tent area to smoke - it meant I could wear the same jacket the next day which was a first.
Another thing the smokers on this board don’t seem to understand is that a small amount of smoke is still very noticeable if you don’t regurlarly inhale the stuff - and it smells nasty. Outside is far better, let’s face it, the ventilation outside is usually better than in a bar.
I understand that some will see this as infringing upon their rights, illegal or plain obnoxious but hey, I don’t smoke and I prefer not to smell it. I prefer the arrangement in California and it doesn’t seem to have decreased bar revenues there. I know how I’d vote. Sorry Joe.
ivylass, YMMV is Your Mileage May Vary.
Frankly, the idea that if the majority wants something, it’s by definition okay is one of the scariest things I’ve heard all year. Quite clearly, there are things that even if the majority wants, the majority should not have, and one has to draw the line somewhere. I just evidently draw it in a different place than you.
You asked why the smoker’s right to smoke should override your right not to smell smoke. Simple answer: it doesn’t. Nor, of course, does your right not to smell smoke override his right to smoke. I agree; you and the smoker have equal rights to go to the bar. Of course, given that it’s the bar owner’s bar, why should your right not to smell smoke override the bar owner’s right to allow smoking AND the smoker’s rights to smoke? You’ve essentially entirely failed to address this, except in saying that it’s just one more regulation and regulations are a fact of life. Yes, they are, but that’s not the point, is it? Why should your right not to smell smoke override the owner’s right to smoke in his own freaking building?
But you know, I get the feeling that you’re ignoring my main point. You even said yourself
and then… there’s a disconnect, as you immediately somehow conclude
I can only assume that you feel that no such thing as effective smoking sections can exist and that therefore, the only solution is to ban indoors smoking entirely and call it a compromise, ignoring that you aren’t giving up a freaking thing and hence it’s by definition not a compromise. I can call a donkey’s tail a leg, but it still only has four legs. I have yet to see anyone really address the idea that alternative solutions that are compromises must exist.
But you know, I should just give up. Your minds are made up that this proposed constitutional amendment (!) is fine, and my mind is made up that it’s not. It’s not fascist, nor did I say it was (that was someone else, and for the record, I wouldn’t go that far and am mildly irritated that you’d attribute such a statement to me, although I did use the word “draconian” and stand by it), but it is excessive and unjustifiable in my view. Yes, there are bigger things to worry about, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the small things.
Obviously, I have moral problems with this, and you don’t, just as I think there’s a bit of hypocrisy being expressed here, and you (I assume) don’t; this is fine and dandy, as we’re different people. Fortunately, I also have a vote on this, and you don’t, so nyeah. 
Of course, arguing about bars here may be a little silly; if I read the proposed amendment correctly, most bars will be exempt anyway, as ivylass mentioned early on and most of us apparently somehow missed. Still, of course, in the non-smoking section of a restaurant, you shouldn’t have to smell smoke, and I don’t see how this greatly changes your argument except that it would be idiotic to complain that the existence of smoking sections means that one cannot go to any restaurants, period, as there are already smoke-free restaurants and restaurants where smoking and non-smoking are adequately separated.
The reason i feel the owner’s rights are less important in this issue is that i imagine most owners don’t care what their patrons do so long as they are getting their $$$. Patrons can smoke, play darts, do handstands - they don’t care so long as money is coming in. Obviously many owners do care about this issue because they feel their rights are being taken away. I have addressed this issue already - we already take away rights of the owners, as seen fit by government regulations. Clearly society occasionally feels the need to step in and regulate businesses.
Because his building is a public place that anyone can enter. As such, he has a responsibility to people who enter to ensure a non-hazerdous environment.
Why do I get the feeling this argument is going in circles? And yes, I do think it is a compromise because it allows smokers and non-smokers to coexist, which in my mind is the real goal.
I did not mean to apply the term fascist to you and I apologize if it came across that way. I was simply trying to defuse ridiculous overstatments that seem to permeaete this discussion.
Sorry for double posting again…
replace “ensure a non-hazerdous environment” with “ensure an environment which conforms to standards mandated by law as acceptable.”
I’m all for exploring alternative solutions. So far I’ve heard “Smoke Outside,” “Separate But Equal,” and “Go Somewhere Else.” I’m more than willing to accept the possibliity of alternative solutions. Bring em on!
Yes, yes, if ETS is shown to be hazardous, by all means, regulate it. As the studies on this are far from conclusive, there’s no reason to ban it except that some people don’t like it. I don’t believe this is a sufficient reason to override the owner’s call on whether or not to allow smoking. I’m not question our ability to regulate, merely whether it’s warranted in this case. Clearly, you feel it is. I am less sure of that, though I tend to agree with you that too often non-smoking sections aren’t smokeless, this isn’t so great, and it’d be nice if it were changed. And I feel that even if regulation is warranted, the form of regulation proposed is sub-optimal.
You see, I did indeed catch that you’re all for the shelling out $$$$ if the owners are willing; what I didn’t catch is where you were willing to give them that choice. If we must regulate, why can’t we just mandate that if there’s a smoking section, it must meet certain requirements stricter than whatever requirements there are now? That would give owners the option of allowing smokers to smoke indoors, without offending the non-smokers of the world. That’s the piece of your position that I’m missing. I understand why you feel regulation is necessary, but not why you feel this particular form of it is necessary.
BTW, I think the reason you get the feeling this is going in circles is because it is going in circles… 
I have no problem with this. I championed the smoke outside policy for several reasons:
-
It is vastly cheaper than making every business with a smoking section remodel the section to conform with new regulations.
-
Even with stricter regulations, I doubt they will be totally effective in keeping smoke out of non-smoking sections.
-
Unless I can find a compelling reason not to, I tend to use Occam’s Razor when it comes to public policy - the simplest solution is probably the right one.
If the voters would rather change the smoking section regulations than have smokers smoke outside, I fully support that.
D’oh! :smack: Teach me not to preview…
Well, off the top of my head, here are some possible solutions:
[list=1]
[li]Maintain the status quo[/li][li]Go somewhere else[/li][li]No smoking indoors[/li][li]Separate smoking and non-smokig rooms[/li][li]Greater separation between smoking and non-smoking; perhaps further subdivide things into smoking, non-smoking, and smokeless?[/li][li]Tax credits for smoke-free restaurants, so as to encourage their creation[/li][/list=1]
Obviously, the first two are unacceptable to you, and the third is unacceptable to me. ivylass doesn’t like option 6, and I’m not really fond of it either, but perhaps if tax credits are phased out after a sufficient number of smoke-free restaurants are established that people can then vote with their dollars and let market principles take over? Presumably, option 4 would be pricey and many owners would choose to eliminate the smoking section entirely, but I would think that some owners would be willing to make the necesary adjustments, counting on getting a larger percentage of the smoking crowd than before. I don’t know if option 5 would work or not; I assume that would depend on the size of the smoking section, the size of the buffer section, the room layout, and so forth, but perhaps it’s also workable.
As for other places of business, like bookstores and grocery stores and so on, I never see people smoking there anyway, but if Smoker Bob wants to smoke in Smoker Bob’s Books, I don’t see why we can’t allow him to set up a little smoking room that doesn’t vent into the main part of the store if he so chooses. I’m not sure a smoking room is much better from his perspective than being kicked outside, but at least he doesn’t have to deal with the weather…
I see on preview that you’ve already addressed options 4 and 5 while I talked to my boss. sigh But seriously, I can imagine no way whatsoever in which forcing smokers outside is superior to allowing the owner to choose between forcing smokers outside or, say, creating separate rooms for smokers and non-smokers, if that’s what it takes. Unfortunately, the voters don’t have this choice at the moment.
Stand alone bars would be exempt. So if smoking is so bad, why aren’t they trying to ban it everywhere? Could they be hoping to add that part later?
I have truly enjoyed this debate, and I think it’s one of those polarized arguments…you’re either for it or against it and by God no one is going to change my mind. I’m glad it has been kept civil albeit heated.
I just ask that all Florida voters who feel strongly about this issue one way or the other vote Nov 5. I don’t know that my little website will do any good. But I can at least say I tried.
By the way, the Florida Restaurant Association is opposed to this amendment.