What new rights are they wanting instituted? The rights that everyone else enjoys? It seems to me that folks are more interested in restricting the rights that everyone else enjoys when it comes to gays simply because they are gay.
Penn and Teller’s Showtime series Bullshit does a pretty good job of demonstrating the hysteria behind secondhand smoke is just that - hysteria.
Amusing anecdote time?
About ten years ago I worked in an office that had a designated smoking room. There was only one little door that seperated it from the “no-kill zone.” Smokers, being keenly aware of how offensive their death addiction was to others, were always mindful of keeping the door closed. But when a non-smoker needed to speak to a smoker who was in full murder-mode, the non-smoker would stand outside of the smoking room and hold the door open during the duration of the conversation. This of course had the effect of letting all that sweet sweet murder gas out into healthland. Non-smokers complained.
Management, naturally, came down on the smokers for forcing their Satan vapor on the poor innocents of the world. They threatened to eliminate the smoking room. When I explained that it was not the smokers who propped the door open, I was essentially called a liar.
Please tell me you’re being ironic here.
**Unclebeer ** : Do you know of anywhere I can view your link from outside the US? It only allows US access, so it says. What does it say?
Good to see that the party embracing “smaller government” is hard at work.
Does it? I’ve seen that episode and found it to be very interesting, but I’ve also found P&T to miss the mark on occasion. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but I’m not prepared to take their word as gospel without some supporting evidence.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to find a truly neutral expert on the subject.
Smoking bans in restaurants? I hate to say it, but I’m all for them. Having to endure cigarette smoke while I’m attempting to enjoy my meal really puts a damper on things.
And don’t talk to me about “no-smoking” sections in restaurants. No matter what kind of air filtering or circulating system they put in place, it’s about as effective as a “no-pissing” zone in a swimming pool…
As a heavy smoker, I’ve been fighting the good fight for smokers’ rights, but I have to agree with you on this.
It’s the ban in bars that strikes me as very odd.
I would just like to add that my enjoyment of bars has been severely hampered by smoking. When I was a teen (10+ years ago), no non-smoking bars existed. Basically, I had to either pick up smoking, suffer red-eyes, a sore-throat and foul smelling clothes, or become a total saint. I sortof became the latter, and although as a student I frequented bars a little bit more, it was always a trade-off like that. Things are greatly improving lately, with stricter requirements on ventilation and so on, and less people smoking - back when I was in high-school we still had an in school smoking area, in a section of the hall that we all had to pass through to get to class. These days I’m having to face smoking less and less, and I’m very happy about it. My sister is trying to kick this habit, but after a year she’s picked up occasional smoking again, first at parties because its too hard to not smoke there, with all her friends still smoking. This stuff is addictive as hell, and the more places people are allowed to smoke, the harder it becomes to kick the habit.
BTW, duffer, congrats on your telling the Generally Obtuse Party where to stick it. Stay with me, and I’ll have you hugging trees by year’s end.
Yeah, damn those smokers for trying to poison me with cigarette smoke while I’m doing a fine job of it myself with alcohol!
I’m sorry, I’m also for smoking bans. For years and years smokers were everywhere, and *everywhere * I wanted to go my enjoyment was hampered by foul-smelling cigarette smoke. Bowling? Come home reeking. Bar? Forget about it. Restaurant? Separate areas with no real divider doesn’t work.
And simply because there’s no data that second-hand smoke does not kill still doesn’t mean you have a right to inflict it. Just look around at how many times the so-called “authorities” have said something is bad, or something is not bad and then changed their minds later. Something’s going to kill me, I’m sure. I just prefer not to have it be something I didn’t even choose! If I eat a lot and die of a heart attack, or something like that, it’s my own fault, isn’t it? But if I inhale second-hand smoke for 30 years because everyone *thinks * it’s OK, and then they come out with another study suddenly saying it’s *not * OK, I’m fucked aren’t I?
Smoke in your own homes, in your cars, or outside by the smoker place. I even agree that smoking lounges and kiosks are a nice idea. I just don’t want to take that chance. Why don’t I get a choice?
Why is that because of this apparently I am trying to control everyone’s lungs but if smokers are allowed to smoke everywhere they’re not blamed for the same thing?
And all we’re saying is that a business owner has the right to run a business the way they like. That’s the trouble with living in a free society - sometimes people make the decisions they want to rather than the ones you want. If it’s a big issue to you, you get to shop somewhere else. 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.
That’s the thing with you people, though - it’s not about avoiding smoke, it’s about punishing people who choose to. You have every right to vote with your dollars, and just like I don’t expect to walk into any restaurant in the world and be permitted to smoke, you don’t have any right to expect that every restaurant will me smoke-free. You still have plenty of places to choose from. Stop whining.
And should employees not be allowed to choose their working conditions? A lot of them smoke - I’ve had servers at the diner I hang out in bum smokes off of me in the past, so the nonexistent threat of “passive smoking” is irrelevant much of the time anyway. If a nonsmoker chooses to work in a bar or smoky restaurant, that’s their choice. Should people also not be allowed to take other risks for employment? Do construction workers need to be saved from themselves to prevent them from working a risky job?
You have 90% of the world smoke-free. Your selfish demands that every square inch of public space conform to your choices are childish. The fact that you can easily avoid the places smokers hang out belies your claims about health concerns. Keep your self-righteousness to yourself.
And you feel you have some right to have legislation to fix that? Where did this notion come from that we should use the government to fix every minor inconvenience, even if it means taking others’ rights away?
Maybe some restaurants don’t have effective non-smoking sections. Most certainly do. And where do you live? Because around here there’s a good number of smoke-free restaurants. So what it comes down to is you, for your own comfort, have to avoid maybe a tenth of the restaurants out there. Why are you entitled to legislation to fix that? Where is it written that you have an inalienable right to like the ambience in every restaurant that exists?
This is the same disturbing mindset behind the Sex Police’s attempts to make every little bit of the public world child-safe. It’s not enough to have family-friendly places available - no, it’s necessary to make sure nothing on TV is ever inappropriate for 8-year-olds. Adult businesses have no right to operate. Why? Because it’s not enough to have different places for different people - it’s our God-given right to ensure that every place that exists is set up to accomodate my own preferences.
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.
If you wish to smoke, again, that’s fine. Just don’t spread it about in places where others, who catagorically do not want to experience your smoke, are obliged to do so because of your behaviour. Simple.
Common sense, common decency, common respect for the wishes of others. In other words, take it outside.
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. I wonder how these things ever existed before the government told us what to do. Must have been some sort of freak accident with a time machine and a camel.
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.
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? Please, government! Ban all things naughty, we beg you! 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.
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? I only ask rhetorically, as it’s pretty fucking obvious - you don’t have a leg to stand on otherwise.
Excellent point. Many on this board and out in the world complain that they can’t go anywhere without breathing in smoke. That’s just wrong. In today’s America you can go practically anywhere and be smoke-free. Non-smokers complaining that the world is too smokey are like American Christians complaining that they’re a repressed minority. It just ain’t so.
In fact, other than my apartment and outdoors, I’m having a hard time thinking of anywhere I’m allowed to smoke any more.
Yeah, and all those stupid starving people can just move to where the food is! What’s the matter with them anyway?
If you have options, you can exercise them. If you don’t, you’re stuck with whatever situation you have. Seeking employment in a smoke-free business may not be an option, regardless of the health problems one may suffer that are aggravated by smoke.
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.
How so? I would venture to say that something like 99% of the office environments in the UK are smoke free at this point, without government intervention. There are many, many smoke free restaurants, and to be perfectly honest with you, a lot of bars these days aren’t too smoky. So what’s forcing people to become bar staff? Why is the calling to serve beer so strongly felt that we’ve got to ban the nation from smoking to protect these devotees of the pint?
Your (half-joking, I know) comment about the starving is completely inapposite, since a) they did not choose to be in that situation in the first place, and b) enormous barriers prevent them from escaping it. There is nothing to stop a bar worker from getting another job, and there was nothing forcing them to take the bar work in the first place, which they will have done in the full knowledge that smokers would be present.