FWIW, the indoor smoking ban applies to the whole state and was passed by the California State Legislature and not the voters through any initiative, although there have been cigarette tax increases passed.
Here is the preamble to California’s smoking laws in its Health and Safety Code
[list=1][li]Um, I don’t know what airlines you’re flying, but I still get peanuts all the time on flights.[/li][li]If they did ban peanuts, remember that if someone accidentally eats one, the allergic reactions are violent, and, as **** just pointed out, can result in death. When you’re 35,000 feet in the air and three hours out, it’s kind of hard to get someone to a hospital.[/li][li]It’s my understanding that most manufacturers label their products if they use or other ingredients are near peanuts to prevent such a catastrophe.[/li][li]Again, if someone eats a peanut, it hurts and/or bothers only them - not so with smoking, so in general, I find this analogy flawed.[/list=1][/li]
[list=1][li]Patrons at a club want their music loud - they’re dancing. Bars are a little iffy, but there it is.[/li][li]I know plenty of people who wear earplugs if they go to loud clubs or bars. Are you suggesting that people who don’t want to or cannot be exposed to cigarette smoke carrying around oxygen masks? I think there are limits.[/li][li]Once again, in case you missed it - there are all-smoking clubs and bars for those who wish to be in a smoking environment.[/li][li]Once again, we’re talking about more than clubs or bars - we’re talking about public places where everyone is welcome - nay, expected - to congregate.[/list=1][/li]
In case you missed it, most people in this thread think banning outdoor smoking is ridiculous - you’re the one that drug indoor smoking bans into the discussion.
Esprix
(refusing to be provoked)
For the record, no I wouldn’t vote for this measure, because I am not allergic to peanuts and neither is my girlfriend. I do not vote from some paradigm that states that I must vote in favor of protecting society. My interests are purely selfish, and I will vote in favor of whatever makes sense to me and my girlfriend. I’m sure if the peanut ban affected me in some way, then I would have a different opinion. And obfusciatrist, please don’t assume anything about me.
Of course there is. You have glossed over my last remark, the one I where I invited you come to LA, create a proposition, and get it voted upon. As for my false trichotomy, they only false thing I see is that I forgot to tack on that 4th one, but I thought I made it clear that you should come down to my city and try to change the laws.
You don’t like it? You’re welcome to change it. As for me, maybe I’ll consider a career in politics in the future.
Sure, if the majority of community wishes it so. I believe Oklahoma has just such a law.
I wouldn’t vote for it, but if some community in, say, Utah wishes it so, don’t they have the right make that determination?
I wouldn’t vote for this personally, and while a community can technically enact this ordinance, this hypothetical community wouldn’t last very long for lack of popularity.
Come to think of it, yes, I would vote against anything that annoys me or will cause me health problems. Isn’t that how everyone votes, or does someone out there actually vote in favor of personal annoyances and health hazards? Seems a little bass-ackwards if you ask me.
I, personally, haven’t been on an airplane with a peanut in at least a couple years, but I am perfectly willing to accept that there are airlines that still do serve them. I didn’t say they were banned, just that (some) airlines have stopped giving them out. I apologize for poor phrasing.
Peanuts have been banned on Canadian airlines, because they pose a hazard not just to those who eat them, but to people nearby. If you have a severe allergy, airborne peanut dust or particles can cause a dangerous reaction.
And this is different from patrons wanting to smoke how?
I fail to see how a filter mask would be any stupider than earplugs.
What is an all smoking bar? Are you required to smoke when in there? Or is it simply a club where you are allowed to smoke, but don’t have to if you don’t want to? How is this different from what we had before? Doesn’t this defeat the “protect the innocent employees” argument?
I’m also guessing that it is not easy to become an “all smoking” bar, otherwise most bars would become one. If there is a large enough market for smoke free environments, then the market will provide them.
Upon review, I see that I did. I apologize for the hijack and will stop.
However, the proponents of banning smoking outdoors hang their argument on most of the same hooks as was/is used for indoor bans. If the indoor bans are stupid, then the outdoor bans must be stupider because the arguments are weaker (the smoke is easier to avoid and at much lower concentrations).
[Edited by Czarcasm on 10-31-2001 at 12:16 AM]
Shit, clicked the wrong button.
This would be a compelling rebuttal if Bryan had offered that trichotomy.
Looks to me like he was advising people not to move to localities where they didn’t like the local laws. Obfusciatrist, I don’t know how you read armed rebellion into that.
Good taste and good manners mean respecting local standards in other people’s communities. Unless you can argue that California’s smoking regulations violate the United States constitution or the Geneva Convention, or unless you’re a Californian (which I doubt), then this law has very little to do with you.
I didn’t even think to check whether I had created a trichotomy or not. Shows how new I am to the boards. Thanks Gremlin!
I can see very good reasons for doing this, then:
[list=1][li]Death is a nasty business, and, as I said, being 35,000 feet in the air and 3 hours out isn’t an atmosphere conducive to treating an immediate life-threatening situation.[/li]
[li]Airplanes are enclosed environments, so, since it has already been established that mere contact with a peanut can cause a significant enough portion of the population to die, I’d guess that most people could make do with pretzels so that their neighbor, merely inhaling a whiff of their snack, won’t die. (Somebody correct me if I’m wrong about peanut allergies here.)[/li]
[li]In this instance, since opening that package of peanuts directly affects someone else’s health, I don’t see the problem in doing without for a few hours on a plane.[/li]
[li]In this instance, yes, eating peanuts is like smoking, because it affects other people. Is it just me, or are you not getting this? A plane is a public accommodation. An office building is a public accommodation. A bar, restaurant or club is a public accommodation. It makes sense in these instances to say, hey, maybe we should prevent people from adversely affecting other people in these public accommodations.[/list=1][/li]
People go to a club to dance, not inhale second-hand smoke.
How are earplugs stupid?
Exactly - there are all-smoking bars because, like you, there are a sizable number of people who do wish to smoke and be in a smoke-friendly atmosphere. Not surprisingly, these people are in the minority, so these hot spots are really a niche kind of community. From what I can remember, yes, it’s very difficult to become one of these places, and the types of these clubs, IIRC, vary - some are “cigar clubs” where you specifically go to smoke, some are like coffee houses/cigar stores where you can smoke freely, and, from what I remember, a dance club here in San Diego had a “smoking room,” but I think they did away with it because it wasn’t very popular.
And if you’re going to talk about markets, of course there’s a business angle to this - the majority of people do not like smoking, so it is in the business’ best interest not to allow it. I would say, though, the legislation preceeded that realization, but I don’t think the two are independent of each other. But even so, if smoking were so desirable by a large amount of people, there would a higher demand, and therefore would be more of these places, n’est-ce pas? They still remain, to my knowledge, unprofitable, unwelcome and in the minority. I can’t even think of any in the San Diego area (except for the one club that closed theirs).
(By the way, I could be wrong about these smoking places - I’m not speaking as any kind of authority, just my understanding of how things are/were around here. If I am in error, I hope someone can point this out to me, but this has been my understanding.)
Yes, we know, and again, we seem to agree on this point.
Esprix
hmmmm…maybe this has something to do with the fact that I don’t know anybody who goes into coughing fits at the smell of a burger. Or anyone who requries a hospital visit for sucking down on some alfredo…
But that’s just me
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by scampering gremlin *
This would be a compelling rebuttal if Bryan had offered that trichotomy.
[quote]
He did. He offered the first two options, to which I protested and he offered this third:
That looks like three options to me. To which I offered a fourth and he replied that he had meant to include the option.
I hope you didn’t put all of your money on that roll of the dice. Oakland, California. Which, in case you are playing your blindfolded darts from another part of the country is in an area of California much better at passing stupid invasive laws than Los Angeles ever will be.
Esprix, I’m not commenting on whether they should ban peanuts on planes. I only pursued that because you said that as far as you knew airlines were not avoiding peanuts. Since you now agree that peanuts are so dangerous that we should avoid peanuts on airplanes, should we ban Thai restaurants? A Thai restaurant is a public accommodation, so shouldn’t even people with peanut allergies be able to freely enter Thai restaurants?
GASP!! You mean that all those times I went to clubs and bars to get hammered and hit on women I was doing it wrong! What if you want to smoke and dance? What if you want to smoke without making it the primary focus of the evening?
**
I didn’t say earplugs were stupid. I said it was no stupider than wearing a filter mask to avoid cigarette smoke. Either would allow you to enjoy an environment you would otherwise find unsavory. I’ll stand by the equation, you tell me the stupidity value.
Do you actually read before you respond or simply pick sentences at random. I stated quite explicitly that I do not smoke and do not care to be in smoky environments. This was one of the reasons I didn’t go to bars often.
**
If you are going to allow them, why should it be difficult? Why not simply let the bar declare whether it is going to be a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar? Since you feel that the people who want to smoke publically are now a severe minority, your nightlife shouldn’t change much.
**
So which is it? Do I have a smoking option or not? Have the smoking clubs (which I’ve never heard of, but I won’t deny their existence) gone out of business because the market wsa low or the regulatory hoops were many?
Government distorts markets, you can’t let government put a type of business at a disadvantage and then say “See! There is no market!” when it goes out of business.
My only point is that it is stupid for government to prohibit behaviors in the name of protecting the person engaging in the behavior. If I want to go to a bar where chlorine gas comprises 10% of the atmosphere I should be able to. If I don’t want to, then I shouldn’t go to the bar.
If you want, you can see the text of the smoking ban (statewide) here
Interesting sentence: “It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in all (100 percent of) enclosed places of employment in this state…”
While people go to clubs to dance, they apparently go to Bingo parlors to smoke, because gaming clubs are exempted.
Finally, you keep making it sound like everybody here all got a good chuckle at the stupidity of the idea.
tlw expressed support. Violet, LaurAnge, and BobT all seemed to be ok with it. JimSox5 was in complete support of the idea, even to the extend of simply making cigarettes illegal.
JustPlainBryan, we’re just going to have to disagree. The fact that you are ok with the idea of a government entity within the United States banning a form of personal expression (you wouldn’t have a problem with Utah banning tattoos) simply means we are beginning at starting points too divergent for cogent discussion. I, personally, feel that civil liberties are of sufficient importance that I should protest their truncation, even if I am not caught under the particular law.
So you’re from Oakland! I wouldn’t have guessed. I hope you love a lot of other things about the bay area. Doesn’t look like the prevailing political winds there blow in your direction.
Guess you and I will cancel each other out the next time a smoking initiative comes up on the state ballot.
I know such people. Ever met an extremely ideological vegan? (No, I’m not saying that all such people grow ill at the smell of meat, but the people I know who do grow ill are all very extreme vegans)
Does that change your mind? Can we ban walkup hamburger joints now?
I’m cool with disagreeing. Just outta curiosity, based on you’re posts, are you liberatarian?
By the way, try to avoid Utah at all costs. IIRC, it is the most repressive state in the nation (with Alaska being the least). You can’t even buy porn there, and they even have a porn czar! :eek:
I lived in Honolulu before moving here so it actually seems almost Republican. But no, the political winds do not blow in my direction (but the political winds blow my way in very few locations since I’m a liberal libertarian – that label is one I’ve made up for myself, if it is some real category, I am not necessarily associating myself with it).
First off let me state that I think I contributed to some of the problems on this thread by my OP that used somewhat harsh language to show my irritation with what the LA City Counsel is proposing. I toned down my rhetoric to try and keep things civil on this thread, but the damage was done. I should have phrased my OP differently or acknowledged earlier in the thread that I had contributed to an atmosphere that was negative towards any real debating. My mistake, lesson learned.
I don’t think that there is a magical number. I did some searching and found no set level for the number of people with a specific disability that would be required to pass anti-discriminatory laws (on a side note I did find out that the Americans with Disabilities Act specifically does not cover transvestites; not that that has anything to do with this debate but I thought it was interesting). I did however find something else that I think might help answer the question. Here’s a link to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The part that needs to be looked at is this:
And then it goes on about how much money this costs the US.
Now I could be wrong here but, the key part of the sentence for what you’re asking is being able to pursue opportunities as equally as everyone else, and I believe that we can reasonably infer that measures to rectify the situation should not cause the general public an unequal atmosphere to compete in either. So therefore we need to find ways to accommodate people with disabilities that will not be detrimental to the general public. Installing wheelchair ramps and automatic doors does not cause the general public any form of inconvenience, but turning down all the lights in public buildings for people who are light sensitive most certainly would. So the best answer I can give to your question is that only those measures that can be taken that will help compensate for people’s disabilities and do not cause the general public undue burden should be implemented.
**
When I saw this argument yesterday morning I skipped it because it seems at face value a reasonable rationale for banning smoking in parks and I needed to think about whether or not there were any valid arguments against it. If there were not I would have admitted so but I wanted to be reasonably sure, at least in my mind, before I posted anything. After mulling over your argument I see two problems with it.
The first problem I see with your argument is that it misses the fact that the proposed law bans smoking in city parks only. For parks within the county that have a high susceptibility to fire you are absolutely right, laws prohibiting smoking would only be common sense. However the proposed smoking ban only pertains to city parks, which are reasonably well watered and reasonably well attended so the chance of a serious fire occurring in them is nil.
The other counter-argument to your point is that the City Council is proposing the ban based on health issues, not on fire prevention. If there was a reasonable chance of a fire being caused within a city park due to a lit cigarette butt a ban on smoking would, again, be common sense, however the City Council did not express this as the motivation for the proposed ban and instead cited health issues. If the motivation for the proposed ban was fire prevention the City Council should have stated so, but instead they claimed, in my opinion, a false and PC façade of protecting people’s health.
Not trying to be flippant, but what are you trying to answer directly: a specific point of mine, or my OP?
There are several arguments against what you are saying.
For starters the purpose of this board is to eradicate ignorance. That strikes me as meaning anyone who posts on this board has the right to start any thread that attacks with logic what they perceive to be ignorance or ignorant behavior wherever it occurs. Conversely if you feel that the OP is ignorant in itself you have the right to level rational arguments against it.
If an individual does not, as you state, have the right to criticize anything that occurs outside of the borders of their residence or in some other way affect them, then no country in the history of the world, all of which were comprised of individuals, would have had the right to level economic sanctions or other measures against countries for human rights violations, aggressive warfare, or any other reason. That means in our history the US did not have the right to level economic sanctions or public reprimands against a large number of countries. List of sanctions. The bottom line is that when a person sees an action that they feel is unjust they have every right to, at the very least, voice opposition to said action. I am not trying to equate my comments with US foreign policy, just making a point that you don’t have to live in specific place to voice disagreement with anything that is going on there.
Scampering gremlin if you have a disagreement with what I say and can provide counter arguments against my position then I beg you to do so. I honestly feel that the LA City Council is being unfair and I have the right to express this. Your not liking my criticizing certain statues of your home state does not alter my rights. I would also like to remind you that I loved the small part of your home state that I visited. However if you feel the need to start a pit rant against me go right ahead. I just hope that if you do so you can provide a better argument than “Quit bitching about things that occur outside of your immediate area.”
Asylum, from what I understand, you want to move to LA. I have no problem with this. You also think our anti-smoking laws suck. I have no problem with you voicing your opinion, since it is perfectly right to do so. You also don’t like the proposition to ban outdoor smoking. I agree with you on this one. None of this I have a problem with.
Now allow me to share my thoughts, in the spirit of fighting ignorance.
From my standpoint (living in LA) you are criticizing issues which you have yet to deal with on a regular basis. I personally think this is incorrect, but that is how I feel.
I would personally invite you to come and live in LA. The weather is great and we need more Dopers living down here anyway. You have every right to put a proposition on the ballot, and speak out against this for as long as you like.
But understand that my mind will not be changed on this issue, and my opinion will be heard as well.
You’re equating food (a necessity) with smoking (a health hazard)? And I hope you can see the difference between an airplane and a restaurant.
I daresay there are more smokers than people with peanut allergies, so someone smoking would vastly more often affect a non-smoker than someone eating peanuts would affect a person with a peanut allergy. Cancer-related illnesses and deaths far outnumber peanut-related illnesses and deaths. Which health hazard should be addressed more directly? I think your analogy is flawed, although I do get your point.
You can - outside. That way, you’re not harming people.
People go to a dance club to dance, and, sometimes, if they want to dance badly enough but don’t care for the exact volume of the music, they’ll wear unobtrusive earplugs. If somebody wanted to go to a dance club that allowed smoking to dance, the only way they could avoid the smoke would be by carrying around an oxygen tank - hardly unobtrusive.
My bad. Of course, I’m now baffled as to why you’re making the pro-smoking argument, but so be it.
Because smoking is a public health hazard to its patrons and its employees.
Because the market was low, AFAIK - they opened as smoking clubs, and then closed, so obviously they’d already gone through whatever process was necessary to become one in the first place, but they still closed. (Again, I’m no expert, and really ought to do a little more research.)
Bah, who cares about smokers? Remember, you can still smoke at clubs and bars and restaurants in California - you just have to do it outside (hijacking this away from the OP, which, as I’ve already said, is flat-out stupid). They’re protecting the non-smokers around them who don’t want to inhale their second-hand smoke and its detrious health affects.
Actually, you could - if it were a private club. IIRC, that’s an entirely different story (and might be how those smoking clubs operate, I don’t know).
I think the majority of people in this thread think it’s going too far, but I didn’t take a head count.
If your civil liberties (the right to smoke) infringe on my civil liberties (the right not to smoke), then what’s the solution? A compromise (again, keeping in mind I think the OP is ridiculous), and I think the “smoking outside only” as it stands now is reasonable.
Esprix
No, I am equating smoking with peanuts. Peanuts are not a necessity, and neither is Thai food.
Yes, if protecting people from easily avoidable health risks is something government should do, then government should deal with smoking before peanut allergies.
I’m contesting whether government should be protecting us on this issue at all.
Or, you can simply not go to a club that allows smoking. That way the smokers are only harming those willing to be harmed.
**
I’ve been to dance clubs many times without dancing; I’m glad they didn’t throw me out for being their for the wrong reasons.
What do you think of the bingo parlor exception? I’m guessing that these people go there to play bingo, not to smoke, but yet they are allowed to smoke while playing bingo.
I also don’t have sex with men, but I support letting you do so.
Smoking is a hazard to these people only if they choose to accept the risk. If they don’t want to be exposed to the risk, they can avoid the business or job.
Regulation equals expense. By adding regulations, they have increased the performance necessary to turn a profit. Bars and restaurants are already have incredibly low margins. Saying that there is insufficient demand to support a business at expenses equal to Base Cost + Regulatory Cost is not the same as saying that demand is insufficient to support a business at Base Cost.
You seem to feel that in the current envioronment that smoking establishments would fail regardless (because smokers are such a minority). If that is the case, why not remove regulatory barriers to such businesses and let them fail on their own?
Again, why do these people need the government to protect them? They are perfectly capable of avoiding the hazard on their own. It is not a hidden hazard; you will not be exposed to cigarette smoke without your knowledge. If you go to a bar and find people smoking, and this bothers you to an extreme, then leave. Go to a business that provides the environment you want. If enough of you do this, you’ll quickly find that the majority of businesses are to your liking. This is why my home town had a no-smoking bowling alley decades before anybody imagined the stupidity of city ordinances banning smoking in bowling alleys.
First, I don’t necessarily consider the smoking issue to be a civil liberties issue. I don’t think we have a constitutional right to cigarettes; that does not mean, though, that I necessarily support banning or unfairly restricting their use (similarly, I don’t think the criminalization of narcotics is unconstitutional but I don’t support it). My civil liberties comment was directed towards JustPlainBryan’s comment that he would be fine with Utah banning tattoos since he doesn’t live there.
However, my smoking in a restaurant does not impede with your right not to smoke. You have every right not to go to the restaurant. Then it is up to the owner to decide if he would prefer my business or yours.
And round and round we go. Nice debate, but neither of us is budging, nor will we convince the other. Let’s leave it at that.
Esprix