Welcome to your first day at the widget plant. See that big machine over there? If you stand too close to it you are in danger of losing your arm. We could put a guard on it, and remove all possible danger, but we’ve not. We’ve decided it’s up to each employee to decide what their tolerance level is for arm-removing machines. If you don’t like working near an arm removing machine, go find another job.
Oh, and the government is ok with this. It’s up to us, as owners of the widget plant, to decide if we allow arm-removing machines on our property. No laws against it.
Oh, and see when it does remove your arm? You can sue us, but we’re not thinking that far ahead.
I’ll bet you $1,000 you couldn’t. There are significant barriers to entry in that market; in fact, in some cases, the barriers to entry are, for all intents, insurmountable.
For starters, you have to have a liquor license. They’re hard to get in most states anyway, and in some states, the legislature only allows a limited number of them, which I can guarantee you are all spoken for. If they aren’t, I’ll bet that as soon as you apply for one to open a nonsmoking bar, whatever beaureaucrat is responsible for approving it will think, “I’ll bet my good friends in the tobacco lobby will be very disappointed if I let this go through.”
Next, there’s insurance. The rates on bars are extremely high, and depending on where you propose to locate your new bar, you’ll find it next to impossible to get insured.
Here in Virginia, in any establishment that sells liquor to drink on the premises, at least half of their revenue must come from the sale of food. That means you can’t just open your bar; you also have to sell food, which means installing a kitchen, planning a menu, hiring a kitchen staff and passing all the relevant health codes.
Lots and lots of barriers to entry in the bar industry, I’m afraid. It’s anything but a free market.
As for our new friend M. Gatti:
Why on earth would you think for even a moment that you have the right to smoke in someone else’s house? Here you are going on and on about property rights – don’t I have the right to make the decision not to allow tobacco smoke in my home? Nonsmokers are under no obligation, moral, social, or otherwise, to accommodate your drug addiction in their homes. I don’t care what you put in your body in your house, but if you’re a crack addict, don’t expect me to supply a pipe to light up a rock while you’re in my living room.
I’m sure people minded, but were afraid of speaking up because, well, smokers tend to be bullies about their behavior. If they weren’t, they would be more considerate about whose lungs they put their smoke in, In any case, you smoke around my food, and rest assured I will vomit on yours. Don’t want puke in your food? Don’t smoke when I’m eating. Sound like a deal?
Well, gee, Mr. Big Tough Smoker Man, I’ve hated smoke as far back as I can remember, which is to about 3 years old, which was 1972. I couldn’t even read an EPA report then. And both of my parents, and my grandparents, were heavy smokers. In fact, I am the only person in my immediate family (mother, father, sister and myself) who has never smoked and does not smoke now. What, am I supposed to hate it less now just because you don’t like the EPA? Get real.
People say that nonsmokers are whiny, but holy cow, I have never heard a bunch of whinier people than smokers. I find it absolutely incredible – not to mention hypocritical – that smokers become such hardcore libertarians when faced with a smoking ban in restaurants. As if it’s their rights that would be infringed whatever the outcome of the referendum.
I am still wondering if there is any real data that contradicts the scientific consensus that second hand smoke kills. I mean not provided by tobacco company shills, or even provided by them but having gotten published in a real peer reviewed journal.
So far none has been presented.
All I can find is a plethora of articles documenting its dangers.
This is not just a matter of nonsmokers being annoyed. The overwhelming balance of evidence seems to be that second-hand smoke is a real and present health risk being imposed upon others.
The rest of the liberterian principled claptrap is, well, just smoke and mirrors.
read my earlier post - I’m not in favor of banning smoking in bars. I want to see non smoking areas in bars like there are in restaurants. I wouldn’t complain if smoking was banned, however.
I’m annoyed by the argument that if I don’t like cigarette smoke and the possible eye irritation, asthma and cancer that may accompany it, my only choice is to stay out of bars. Can you not see that?
Surely it would be beneficial for smokers themselves to advocate non smoking areas in bars, as that then takes all ammunition away from the banners?
Smoking has been socially accepted for decades, but it is becoming less so. The health risks may be debatable, but it is very difficult to completely deny any negative effects of SHS. Attitudes of the general public have changed, with good reason, but bars have not. Sure, it’s their right, but don’t you see what’s coming?
There are far more non smokers than smokers. A lot of these non smokers also dislike cigarette smoke.
75% of americans do not smoke, yet cannot go to a bar and avoid cigarette smoke.
California has already banned smoking in bars.
It seems to me that either smokers should support non smoking areas, or prepare to lose the right to smoke in a bar. Too many people dislike it, and the possible health risks could easily turn into lawsuits should conclusive evidence surface that proves SHS causes cancer.
I fully agree with your points, but at the same time these things are decided by votes. 75% of people do not smoke, so you have to convince 1/3 of the non smoking population that it is worth it for them to vote to keep smoking in bars. Bitching about the “right to smoke” while stinking up my clothes and making my throat hurt won’t further the cause.
Not in Florida they aren’t. We get new bars all the time.
Hypothetical conspiracy theory nonsense. Yes, the number is limited. You have two choices, buy one from an existing owner or enter the annual lottery for reassignment of forfeited licenses. The standards for qualifying for the license don’t allow the kind of decision making you’re assigning to this hypothetical bureaucrat with friends in the tobacco lobby. Again, this is true for Florida. YMMV, I suppose.
Okay. Wouldn’t you think that showing an insurance company that you don’t allow smoking might decrease your rates? Less risk of fire, your employees will be healthier without all that nasty smoke…
In Florida, I’ve heard this referred to as a 51/49 license and unlike those for “pure” bars, these are available all the time (no limit).
Not one of your “barriers” has anything to do with smoking/non-smoking. So, how did all those bars get there?
What, suddenly the same politicians who the smokers are fretting are going to sell them down the river to the Evil Antismoking Conspiracy are paragons of virtue? Politicians, taking money from tobacco companies to influence policy? Outrageous! Who ever heard of such a thing?
How do you think that politicians most commonly close down business establishments they don’t want around, like strip bars? They yank their liquor licenses. It isn’t at all outside the bounds of reality to imagine a tobacco lobbyist calling some state senator and saying, “Hey, Non-Smoking Bar’s liquor license is coming up for renewal; think you can do something about it?” Farfetched? Maybe, probably. Impossible? Not at all.
Yes, but if you decide to open your bar in, say, the Hough neighborhood of Cleveland, you run the risk of your drunken patrons getting beaten up or shot or stabbed. Insurance companies don’t like that a bit.
But in the legislation in question, we aren’t discussing anyone forcing smoke on anyone else, we’re discussing people who don’t like smoke going where there’s a lot of it and then bitching about how they’re being forced to smell smoke. I don’t see how the distinction is nontrivial.
Nor, even if it is trivial, do I see why the solution is to require that no bars allow smoking. Why, for instance, would it be bad if there were both smokeless bars and bars as is common today?
But of course no one is forcing anyone to be either a customer or an employee, so, umm… why again is this even relevant?
Umm… okay, I suppose, if you stretch it a bit. I think you DO have to stretch the reasoning a bit, since the opposition to racial-divided transport and the like is fundamentally an opposition on moral grounds and the opposition to smoking in bars, as I was trying to point out, is on grounds of “but I just don’t like it because it inconveniences me.”
Of course, there’s also the “I don’t like it because I think it might kill me” issue, to which I repeat: then don’t expose yourself to it, and of course, as I suggested above, if you must have bars, allow those who choose to poison themselves to have a place to do so; to state that it’s not okay for there to be no smokeless bars but that it is okay for there to be no smoking bars is quite obviously hypocrisy.
phil, I stand corrected. Thank you. Why, though, couldn’t I instead just buy an existing bar? In other words, though there are apparently barriers to deciding I want to start a smokefree bar, are their barriers to converting an existing bar to be a smokefree one?
(And for the rest of your post, well said!)
keith, I misread you. I apologize. Still, while I would love to see non-smoking sections in bars myself, I don’t see why it’s my place to force the owner to do this (unless of course the owner would like to do this but won’t be allowed to as per pldennison’s post, in which case legislation would be required to give the owner the option; legislation that gives the owner no option I would still fundamentally oppose.)
As an aside: since there are still a bunch of people who complain about smoking sections in restaurants, I’m not sure this would be a workable solution: I strongly suspect that this debate will continue until we end up with smoking banned entirely except maybe possibly in the privacy of one’s own home.
Finally, DSeid, a few links from the perfectmaster. Any further comments I wish to make about your post belong in a different forum entirely.
Ivylass, you may be opposed to all worker-safety laws. Lots of us aren’t.
If you dismiss concerns that wait staff might have, because you don’t believe in worker safety laws, that’s your prerogative. It’s not, for most folks, a compelling dismissal.
Of course not but the EPA report doesn’t say some will find tobacco smoke irritating, it says it will kill you. That report was vacated in federal court. Therefore people were intentionally frightened under false pretenses.
**People say that nonsmokers are whiny, but holy cow, I have never heard a bunch of whinier people than smokers. I find it absolutely incredible – not to mention hypocritical – that smokers become such hardcore libertarians when faced with a smoking ban in restaurants. As if it’s their rights that would be infringed whatever the outcome of the referendum. **
[/QUOTE]
Depends on your point of view as to who the whiners are. Some smokers could look at your post and think that of you.
Of course, Daniel, it would help if we knew that waitstaff are concerned about the evils of smokers. If not, I would suggest that if the people who are being protected don’t want to be protected we shouldn’t protect them.
And once more, no one is forcing waitstaff to be waitstaff. This trivial point seems to be often overlooked, but ignoring it is not a compelling dismissal.
And once more, again, with vigor; why are the only options either the status quo or its complete reverse with smoking banned entirely? I don’t know that keith’s suggestion will be acceptable, nor do I know that allowing some bars to permit smoking will be acceptable (although I can’t for the life of me see why not), but these are surely at least options worth considering.
Sure there are, even outside the Peoples Republic of California.
They’re called Juice Bars and they’re in almost every gym and health spa in the country.
On the upside;
You can sit down, socialize and have a kale and avacado on the rocks without being exposed to other peoples nicotine. There are less fights and both the male & female patrons who congregate there are usually much better looking.
On the downside;
You won’t find a pool table, a jukebox or as many loose women.
That survey was done in New Zealand! I worked in a bar in California when the smoking ban was enacted, and of the many dozens of bartenders and waitresses I knew, none supported the ban. All but a couple smoked themselves, and the non-smokers appreciated not smelling the smoke, but not enough to support the ban. I found the advertising campaign by the state very offensive. They tried to create the impression that tthe law had been a grassroots movement among young women who worked in bars. How dare they speak in our name!
Or the workers can choose to abide by the law, keep their jobs and throw smoker’s butts in the slam for violating their rights. And I hear vast numbers deciding for themselves (about 1 out of 4, like the general population) that they would rather work in an area free of stinky smoke. “Protecting the tobacco companies…” I see. And that’s just what they have done through their elected representatives.
I find it disturbing that smokers presume to know what is best for me and what my choices are. I decide that I don’t want you smoking where I eat and work, and the legislature, elected by a majority, agrees with me, not you. I am not willing to let filthy, disgusting cancer causing smokers decide for me, I want them to stay at home and reek in their own filth, where they belong.
Smokers should be aware that there is no laws prohibiting them from opening a club where there are no employees or us awful non-smokers, where they can pour themselves drinks and make themselves sandwiches.
As for “owner’s” rights, nobody has the right to break the law so that they can pollute my lungs at work or at a bar or at a restaurant.
Smokers are a filthy pestilence on the face of the earth.
Guess what, folks? You don’t have to go to a bar to socialize, watch sports, play pool, or pick up women. If you do choose to go to a bar, there are going to be people there who like to relax with a drink and a cigarette.
As has been stated before, waitstaff have a choice of whether to work in a smoking restaurant or a nonsmoking one. They have a choice to be waitstaff or to work in a non-smoking customer service environment such as a department store or supermarket.
If smoke is seeping into your apartment from smokers standing outside, shut your doors and windows. But, gosh, it’s much easier to bitch, isn’t it?
As far as Eve’s mother and pldennison’s wife… hell, I’ve got a ton of anecdotes of my own portraying the other side. Just a few: paternal grandmother, smoked from the age of 20 to the age of 88, when she died from pneumonia. Father, smoked from the age of 13 until 72, when he died from bladder cancer (man never could hold his urine). Uncle, damaged stomach lining in youth from habitually getting high off aspirin mixed with whiskey; had stomach problems all his life. Developed emphysema in his 40s from severe exposure to life-threatening levels of carbon monoxide. Smoked from 13 to 70, when he died of stomach cancer.
Oh, and that whole “low birth weight” thing? My mother chainsmoked during her pregnancy with me, and I weighed 11 pounds, 14 ounces.
Of course, anecdotal evidence only counts when it comes from non-smokers, right? :rolleyes:
Oh Christ, taggert, I’m sure you’ll be happy to note that after reading this masterpiece of logic and close reasoning, I’m going to have to go to the doctor to fix the sprain in my eyelid. Let’s go through this m. of l. and c.r. piece by piece, shall we?
Umm… yeah. That law would be that smoking is allowed. Helpful to your argument, I’m sure. I’m afraid I don’t see how, but then, given how far back my eyes are rolled into my head, I’m not seeing much anything right about now.
I normally don’t play this game, but… cite? Further, if a whole 1 in 4 people support the ban, doesn’t it follow that the legislators who have been elected to represent us ought to oppose it? Can you at least be consistent here? I wouldn’t think that’s too much to ask.
Funny, I must have missed it when we argued for the benefit of the poor downtrodden tobacco companies of the world. If that’s what you’ve extracted from this thread, I suggest a careful re-reading.
I find it disturbing that you presume to know what is best for me and what my choices are. Have you a point? And more importantly, how again are smokers presuming to know what is best for you and what your choices are? Is it just that gasprestaranteurs choose to cater to both? Oh, the horror! The supreme, soul-destroying horror! How shall I ever sleep again?
:rolleyes: Non-smokers should be aware that there are no laws prohibiting them from opening a club where there are employees or not as the owner desires and where they can pour themselves drinks and make themselves sandwiches, all free from the evils of smoke. Very constructive, I’m sure. Why won’t you extend smokers the same courtesy? Or is that, like a little consistence, too much to ask?
Fortunately for all involved except you, no one is breaking any laws. And I am very glad to learn that business owners don’t have the right to permit a perfectly legal practice on their own grounds. It gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. God, I love that warm fuzzy feeling.
Once again, you have utterly no grounds for complaint when you go into a smokey environment and breathe smoke, excepting only the case where you have no choice but to do so. Whining about how your head hurts after you spend an hour pounding on it with a hammer will get you zero sympathy (although trust me, at this point I can say that I know exactly how you’d feel).
In any event, since it is entirely possible to work, eat, and drink without having to be exposed to smoke (evidence: me), I conclude that you voluntarily go somewhere and inhale the stuff; why, then, are you complaining about it? If you find the risk of crossing the interstate on foot to be too high, you might consider using the footpath just over yonder rather than banning all vehicle traffic. Just a helpful little suggestion. Free of charge. Unlike the medication I’ll need to fix the sprain. Or, for that matter, the Advil used on my poor aching head.
pldennison, how many states have any tobacco lobby at all? How many have are strong enough to influence liquor licensing decisions, which are made at the local level?
There are no voluntarily non-smoking bars because they would go out of business. There are no non-smoking sections in bars because no one would want to hang out in them. Does anyone who supports a smoking ban actually spend time in bars? Drinking and smoking is what goes on there. Even non-smokers smoke in bars. I don’t know any non-smokers who would want to hang out with you in your smoke-free zone. All the easy, drunk girls would be in the smoking area.
