# I'm done with my state's GOP. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 9, 2005, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573 "2005-06-09T08:05:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/41 "2005-06-09T14:40:39Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > You don’t get to decide your choices outrank other people’s. If a restaurant’s non-smoking section is too smoky for you, go to a different restaurant. You’ll never have trouble finding smoke-free restaurants. Where is this magic place that you live that’s full of smoke-free restaurants. Except in areas that have smoking bans, I never find them. Ever. There are restaurants that may have fewer smokers that night - or an emptier smoking section, but no. There _is_ a huge, huge problem finding smoke free restaurants. They simply don’t seem to exist except in never-never land. And flying is just too inconvenient before a meal. > [@](#): > > That’s the thing with you people, though - it’s not about avoiding smoke, it’s about punishing people who choose to. No, not trying to punish. It may feel that way, no more than smokers are trying to punish me with their smoke. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/42 "2005-06-09T14:42:56Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > For those posters in the U.S.: No, I’m sorry, but you don’t have a “right” to smoke or drink or do anything else not provided for in the Constitution. You are allowed by law to perform certain activities, but only to the extent that you don’t break other laws that limit that activity, i.e., your ability to drink doesn’t permit you to then drive a car while drunk. A law that restricts you from smoking in a restaurant does not infringe on any of your “rights”; rather, it reflects the desires of a majority of the constituency of the elected officials to impose that restriction on a controlled substance. What a legalistic, shallow load of crap. Most of us are not **Bricker** , and we therefore do not see the constitution as some sort of holy writ. Who here used the phrase “constitutional right”? I’m so fucking tired of people going off on these irrelevent tangents in which they post some reference to the constitution as though there is nothing more to the law, and no other principle with which to examine the rightness of an action. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/43 "2005-06-09T14:43:51Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Seeking employment in a smoke-free business may not be an option Not if you are only able to seek employment in one of the 1% of jobs that still allow smoking. Are you seriously contending that you have to navigate a minefield of smokey places in order to earn a paycheck? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/44 "2005-06-09T14:44:07Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > Where is this magic place that you live that’s full of smoke-free restaurants. Lansing, Michigan. I’m betting, though, that you just haven’t looked around. ---
**Author:** ![Terrazzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Terrazzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrazzo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/45 "2005-06-09T14:48:47Z")
> [@](#): > > No, dear; there exist employers who don’t endanger my health, with whom I am perfectly free to seek employment. Amazing, innit. No smoking ban needed, yet - lo! I have found a smoke-free environment. How do I do it, eh? And blimey if I don’t find it pretty damn easy to find a smoke-free restaurant when I want a meal. It’s even easier for you to find outdoors, is it not? > [@](#): > > Yes, I am. My place of work does not permit smoking in the office, as is its right. Bear with me, it’s not all that complex. And those who _have_ to work in a smoky environment – shit outta luck, eh? As long as you got yours, then that’s just rosy. Let all those others who don’t have the luxury of a smoke-free workplace just quit or die. > [@](#): > > I guess we’ll have to go without policemen, then, and firemen. Builders too, that can be dangerous. God, the list is endless. Will no-one save us from this maelstrom of peril? And you have the gall to point out _my_ hyperbole? Classic. How is that even remotely similar? Do you think that the employer, in each instance above, does not have a legal responsibilty to ensure safety gear is appropiate (and used) and a full duty of care to provide all necessary training in the use of said equipment? > [@](#): > > Please, government! Ban all things naughty, we beg you! Naughty? Naughty is when a kid draws on a wall with a crayon – not when hundreds of people die due to unsympethetic and negligent employers. > [@](#): > > Or, perhaps we could do what makes sense, and accept that there is a risk involved with just about everything in life, allow potential employees to decide if they’re willing to accept that risk, and pay them appropriately. It’s a toughy alright. So why accentuate that risk with unnecessary activities that mean the health of workers is _more_ at risk that they normally would be in any given situation? Sure, a bit more health risk won’t _really_ matter, no? > [@](#): > > Why do those who propose such bans make such dickheaded hyperbole their stock-in-trade, pretending that employees are somehow being forced at gunpoint to work in smoky environments? If you have a job you have the right to be protected from all avoidable harm in your place of work. If you apply for a job the employer has to ensure the job is available for all prospective applicants. Do you think if a job comes on the market that it is totally fine for the employer to discriminate and only hire peole who smoke, regardless of their experience? * * * Just curious: Do you also vehemently oppose any Disability Discrimination legislation which ensures businesses are accessible to any citizen equally? Do you appose any legislation regarding health and hygiene in restaurants? In private hospitals? Do you support the right of private taxi firms to only pick up white customers, if they desire? Do you oppose any form of building regulaitons or codes to ensure electrical saftey in businesses? Do you support the right for a business to only hire ginger-haired people, if the business wishes to? Do you have any support, in any category, for the rights of consumers or workers not to be mistreated or ignored, over the rights of businesses to make money in any manner? A business does NOT, catagorically, have the right to do whatever it wishes or run itself in whatever manner it sees fit. It is not a simple matter of a simple choice. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/46 "2005-06-09T14:49:11Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > They simply don’t seem to exist except in never-never land. Huh. Boston is never-never land, apparently. I can’t even remember the last time I was able to light up in a restaurant. I’d bet it’s been at leat 15 years. If it’s so very different in Washington, then I’m right with you on bans, or at least a good number of restaurants voluntarily going smoke free. But I have a hard time believing that it’s so very different in Washington. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/47 "2005-06-09T14:50:00Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > Which is MY choice. I choose to buy alcohol, if I desire it. Fine. But I don’t run about tipping part of my drink down other peoples throats and then complaining about my ‘right to do so’ when they object to me doing that. And I choose to buy cigarettes, if I desire them. I don’t run around grabbing people by the throat, sticking a lit Camel Light between their lips and forcing them to inhale and then complaining about my ‘right to do so’ when they object. If you go to a bar, expect to be around people smoking. I work part time as a bouncer at a bar, and I’d say around 90% of the people there smoke. If you don’t want to be around smokers, you are free to go find somewhere else to drink. I’m not forcing you to come to my establishment and I won’t exactly cry at the loss of your business. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/48 "2005-06-09T14:55:27Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Lansing, Michigan. > > I’m betting, though, that you just haven’t looked around. Here in Corvallis, Oregon we have smoke free restaurants and bars too. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/49 "2005-06-09T15:02:39Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > And those who _have_ to work in a smoky environment – shit outta luck, eh? Can you name 10 places of employment in your area where smoking is permitted in the general population? For now let’s exclude bars. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/50 "2005-06-09T15:05:51Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > If you have a job you have the right to be protected from all avoidable harm in your place of work. Not true at all. (Why do people even post things like this?) I work on the twelfth floor of a building. Should an earthquake occur or extremely heavy wind, I would be in significant danger. It would be safer to be on the ground floor. My workstation is not ergonomically perfect; our parking lot is located such that I have to cross streets to get into the office. Fact is that there are plenty of risks that are avoidable, but avoiding them is impractical or costly - this is a basic fact about living in the world. Meanwhile you’re arguing essentially that people don’t have the right to make choices for themselves - it’s not enough to let people choose to work in the environment they find suitable. They must be protected from their own inability to make correct choices. > [@Terrazzo](#): > > If you apply for a job the employer has to ensure the job is available for all prospective applicants. Do you think if a job comes on the market that it is totally fine for the employer to discriminate and only hire peole who smoke, regardless of their experience? Who said anything about that? Now you’re just making shit up. No one said that employers should only hire smokers if the environment contains smoke. Are you just incapable of reading properly, or are you making up imaginary arguments that you think we might have made just to try to make us sound worse? Employees have the right to decide not to work in an environment if the smoke bothers them. Employers have a legal obligation not to discriminate against certain groups of people - protected classes. I have never heard that non-smokers are a protected class, so legally speaking, an employer is not obligated to hire them. I’m not defending that, but employers have every right to discriminate. Your ridiculous absolute assertion at the top of the paragraph takes the cake, though. No one said anything about not permitting non-smokers to work around smokers. We simply feel that people have the right to make their own choices. Do I get to complain that a job moving pianos is “not available” to me because I don’t like lifting heavy objects? No, I apply for a job appropriate to my abilities and preferences. Why shouldn’t others do the same? You’re getting more and more ridiculous, **Terrazzo**. ---
**Author:** ![Terrazzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Terrazzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrazzo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/51 "2005-06-09T15:11:40Z")
Smoking is NOT an ability, much as you seem to think it is. More later. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/52 "2005-06-09T15:15:22Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > Naughty? Naughty is when a kid draws on a wall with a crayon – not when hundreds of people die due to unsympethetic and negligent employers. Cite for the underlined please? And make it relevant to the discussion at hand. No links about people dying because their employers neglected to get rid of the asbestos in the office building or some other irrelevant nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/53 "2005-06-09T15:15:58Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > Smoking is NOT an ability, much as you seem to think it is. > More later. Was that sentence an experiment in surrealism, or did your attempt to make a point just go very badly awry? ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/54 "2005-06-09T15:19:38Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > [In the bars in Irealnd, they say (one year on)-](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7326032/) > [@](#): > > “The general support for this health initiative is extremely high and has increased further since its introduction, even among smokers – and exceeds all expectations,” said ASH, noting the new law had 97 percent support in pubs and restaurants. Getting ASH to talk about this is like getting PETA to talk sensibly about meat eating. No way do 97% support it. The question most likely asked was something along the lines of “do you support not killing workers in their workplace” This has effected bars quite a bit > [@](#): > > A new survey has reportedly found that one-fifth of Irish drinkers are choosing to drink at home more frequently since the introduction of the workplace smoking ban. > > Reports this morning said 21% of respondents to the Retail Intelligence survey had indicated that they were drinking more at home since the ban was put in place just over a year ago. [http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=141149168&p=y4yy49874](http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=141149168&p=y4yy49874) I and my friends are these people. Before the ban the pubs around my work would have had me buying on average about 20-30 pints a week now they’re lucky if I go out one night and have 3-6 pints a week. I buy beer and go home. Cheaper and less hassle from a smokers POV. I’m not alone. A lot of the people who have returned to bars are not people who tend to drink to the same level as the smokers who have left. The ban has definitely hit business. It’s also helped people give up and helped workers who were previously potentially at risk. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/55 "2005-06-09T15:21:33Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Cite for the underlined please? From some posts, it would seem that some workplaces resemble medieval battlefields, with bodies strewn all over the place. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/56 "2005-06-09T15:28:24Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > The ban has definitely hit business. It’s also helped people give up and helped workers who were previously potentially at risk. Assuming, at least, that they still have jobs . . . ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/57 "2005-06-09T15:41:22Z")
This just in: [The Hudson River Cause Heart Attacks](http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/?ArID=134684&SecID=33) [quote] Let proprietors decide. If they can earn enough to support a smoker-friendly tavern, let them hire smokers and cater to smokers. If you want to regulate them, make them put a sign on the door. If you wanna be punitive and throw your majority weight around, charge them 50% more for their liquor licenses. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/58 "2005-06-09T15:41:58Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > From some posts, it would seem that some workplaces resemble medieval battlefields, with bodies strewn all over the place. All the severed hands probably have tobacco stains on them. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/59 "2005-06-09T15:48:29Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > This has effected bars quite a bit…Before the ban the pubs around my work would have had me buying on average about 20-30 pints a week now they’re lucky if I go out one night and have 3-6 pints a week. I buy beer and go home. Cheaper and less hassle from a smokers POV. I’m not alone. There’s also less hassle [from a non-smoker’s POV](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15643373&query_hl=4) when it comes to avoiding smoky public places. And the fearful predictions of horrendous turndowns in business after the implementation of smoking bans in the U.S.[are not being borne out.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14985652&query_hl=4) [Here’s a nice little article](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15741361&query_hl=4) about cooking research on the effects of secondhand smoke - only it’s Philip Morris that appears to be doing the cooking. More on [secondhand smoke and cardiovascular risk](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15911719&query_hl=4). But maybe it’s all a GOP plot to help take away smokers’ freedoms. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573/60 "2005-06-09T15:49:41Z")
> [@Terrazzo](#): > > It’s even easier for you to find outdoors, is it not? Ah, so we’re arranging the law for your convenience, are we, rather than just allowing people to choose which venues they go to? Bugger off to a non-smoking joint, and I’ll stay in a smoking one and we’ll _both_ be happy. Your way, one of us has to lose. I’d say it’s easier to make pissy whiners like you fuck off and eat at home than it is to ban the entire population from smoking indoors, but hey; that’s just me. > [@](#): > > And those who _have_ to work in a smoky environment – shit outta luck, eh? As long as you got yours, then that’s just rosy. Let all those others who don’t have the luxury of a smoke-free workplace just quit or die. For fuck’s sake, who _are_ these poor mythical souls who seem to be destined by birth to be able to work only where smokers are found? Are they barcoded, or what? How do I spot one in the street? > [@](#): > > How is that even remotely similar? Do you think that the employer, in each instance above, does not have a legal responsibilty to ensure safety gear is appropiate (and used) and a full duty of care to provide all necessary training in the use of said equipment? It is remotely similar in that all elements of risk can not be eliminated from those jobs, and that the employer is expected to provide a _reasonable_ level of protection. Those jobs still entail risk, and the people who do them are made aware of that risk, and are paid accordingly. I don’t see why this should be any different with bar staff, especially since there is no inalienable right for someone to work in a bar. > [@](#): > > If you have a job you have the right to be protected from all avoidable harm in your place of work. Absolute bollocks. You have the right to a _reasonable_ level of protection, or else we would all be working in foot-thick steel cubes with filtered air to protect us from the possibility of meteor strike and gas attack. I don’t know about you, but my employer has signally failed to protect me against such dangers. Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. > [@](#): > > Do you think if a job comes on the market that it is totally fine for the employer to discriminate and only hire peole who smoke, regardless of their experience? Of course, if the requirement is relevant to the job. I imagine the people who market new cigarette brands are asked “so, um - do you smoke?” at interview, and don’t bat an eyelid. Never mind that this is a complete red herring, since this has _nothing_ to do with employer discrimination, and everything to do with employee choice. An employer is under no obligation to make the job he offers equally palatable to all, I’m sorry to tell you. Your pathetic invocations of racism and disability discrimination are typical, but worthless. > [@](#): > > Do you also vehemently oppose any Disability Discrimination legislation which ensures businesses are accessible to any citizen equally? Do you appose any legislation regarding health and hygiene in restaurants? In private hospitals? Do you support the right of private taxi firms to only pick up white customers, if they desire? Do you oppose any form of building regulaitons or codes to ensure electrical saftey in businesses? Do you support the right for a business to only hire ginger-haired people, if the business wishes to? Do you have any support, in any category, for the rights of consumers or workers not to be mistreated or ignored, over the rights of businesses to make money in any manner? No, no, no, yes, no, yes, and yes, in that order. Specifically, I am in favour of regulation where it prevents the deception of the customer or employee, or enables them to make a fully informed choice about their purchase or employment. I believe hygiene standards and building standards fall in to this category, since they are the sort of thing that are not easily assessed by the general public, so providing a baseline of safety is prudent. I do not support pointless unenforceable legislation on private businesses, into which category I lump your examples. How do I force the minicab driver to pick up an ethnically diverse selection of passengers? How do I know the business is not shooting “Redheads Who Smoke 2006 Calendar”? And if it is, why aren’t you taking up the cudgels for the oppressed brunette non-smoking models? For that matter, isn’t the entire modelling industry a brutal oppression of the ugly underclass? Smoking is not analogous to any of your examples, since it is obvious to both potential employee and customer alike that they are about to enter an environment containing smoke. They may choose not to do so if they wish, and that’s the end of the story. Oh and for the record, I don’t smoke, nor will I ever. Stupid habit, but by god sometimes arguments like this make me wish I did. Here’s a question: what about people who have cleaners, maids and au pairs? Should they be banned from smoking in their own homes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-done-with-my-states-gop/307573.md?page=4)