Inner Stickler: I wasn’t addressing the State of Michigan, I was addressing you. But at this point I’m falling under the spell of not giving a shit about the whole thing either. At least in this thread.
But a message to smokers: my pub allows it, so if you’re of a mind to come down, play some tunes, and kick back a cold pint (you don’t have to step out back for a smoke mind you), feel free.
I’ve got some frequent flier miles ------ PM me a location some day and I just may take you up on it!
UHC is another great debate; we may just meet there now and then. Until then I’ll just enjoy the sandwich I had for lunch. 
“1) stop being in denial about the dangers of secondhand smoke and the reasoning behind laws to limit this hazardous exposure”
Two separate things. No one on the “smokers” side of the debate has said second hand smoke poses no danger, so your claims of denial are not as true as you would wish. Some of us do however, in light of the exceptions built into the various laws, question exactly how extreme those dangers are.
Second - as towards the reasoning behind these laws; denial? Again, I allow the “anti-smokers” to make the case for me. They are much more articulate at voicing their reasoning.
“2) accept laws against smoking in enclosed public spaces, without trying to evade them or overturn them through doomed-to-fail court challenges”
How can I avoid evading them when the exceptions are so broad and fundamental to the very existence of the laws? And “doomed to fail” being a reason not to proceed with whatever action I chose? Not to challenge in court or overturn parts of the laws at the ballot? Had we, as a society followed that example and logic, these laws wouldn’t exist.
Your question is irrelevant. If the state the hypothetical bar is in allows smoking in bars, great. If not, suck it up. My opinion or your opinion doesn’t matter except at the ballot box.
A state of denial is evident both in this thread, the other SDMB debates on this subject and among smokers in general.
Not at all. The laws I’ve seen (including the recently enacted Ohio statute) have limited, well-defined exceptions. It should be no problem to realize one’s obligations under the law and act accordingly.
Anti-public smoking laws have been written to withstand challenges, and have been consistently upheld by courts across the United States. When smokers and/or their allies in the tobacco and liquor industries repeatedly try the patience of the public with deceptive referendums (as in Ohio) and fruitless court challenges that waste taxpayer money, you’re bound to see voter resentment as a result. Whether that ill-feeling will translate into further restrictions on smokers in the future remains to be seen.
I would say the same thing ---- about the anti-whatever people in general. 
<<Not at all. The laws I’ve seen (including the recently enacted Ohio statute) have limited, well-defined exceptions. It should be no problem to realize one’s obligations under the law and act accordingly.>>
The Ohio law is, I would say, a little better than average in its definitions and exceptions - and a lot more limited. More the norm is the PA law. (I tried to find that in PDF as well but a fast search didn’t turn it up). About - what? Say 26-28 of the 38 state bans reflect what PA did? (At least that is what I recall the proponents saying to the press. Something to the effect that PA was matching the vast majority of the laws then in force.)
I would be a little stricter than Ohio concerning motels and medical facilities (such as nursing homes) and, of course, I would add actual public spaces. But I have to say I love the family business thing the way they have it worded and the patio as well. It will keep out the riffraff who are simply against smoking.
I will suggest to my friend Joe, though, two courses of action for his bar as being “optimal”. One would be to locate near the Ohio border but still within Pennsylvania. He could make a fortune that way. The other would be to organize as an Ohio club. I have a great deal of experience in 501(c)3s and I could make that work for him quite well.
I think I’ll go look over the full text version. It could be quite profitable.
<<Anti-public smoking laws have been written to withstand challenges, and have been consistently upheld by courts across the United States. When smokers and/or their allies in the tobacco and liquor industries repeatedly try the patience of the public with deceptive referendums (as in Ohio) and fruitless court challenges that waste taxpayer money, you’re bound to see voter resentment as a result. Whether that ill-feeling will translate into further restrictions on smokers in the future remains to be seen.>>
Hmmmm - I hadn’t been aware of any uproar over the Ohio law either for or against. Which is very strange crossing the border as much as I do. From what I recall being around there this summer the two big propositions were over farming and (IIRC) transportation. What was the one that had all those hand-made signs out along the roadside? Prop 2? I may just have to read more about just how the taxpayers money was spent on this smoking law and these deceptive referendums you refer to. I have a feeling my biggest “huh?” from Michigan may have played out there as well.
But since the laws are bullet-proof, you have nothing to fear. It will be fun to see just how ill the wind of the vote blows; or at least the direction.
Ohio will need some time to adapt, I am sure. But ------- I’ll extend my “California bet” to include Ohio. And don’t try to assert that I am suggesting “outlaw” bars. Everything will be to the letter of the law. We’ll just delay it until say September; give folks some times to work things out for their own. How does that sound?
All they have to do is to stop being inconsiderate assholes. If they stop smoking around non-smokers, there will be no need for more laws. Not that I’m holding my breath (so to speak); they don’t give a shit about others (in general, I know a few considerate smokers).
I know a few considerate ones as well; I will be so bold as to count myself among them. I’ve not only not come into conflict with radical non-smokers - I got one to marry me. I think but cannot prove that that is what is behind the “cigarette bar” (as we seem to have developed it here - the extension of the cigar bar concept to another form of smoking) concept we were talking about to help my friend Joe. Smokers will need to avoid most places and non-smokers a very few and very select places. Consider it a form of separate but equal.
We may just have the beginning of a PAC here! Considerate non-smokers and smokers together for the good of all of society. Interested in joining?
Most of smokers would join. They think they are being considerate. But, they are not. How often do you encounter a smoker who says, fuck them I blow smoke in their faces,let them suffer. But most non smokers see smokers as doing that. Smoke diffuses all around a building. It soaks into hair , clothes, furniture and accumulates in computers. You can not smoke inside without poisoning the air.
I don’t like “nanny state” laws and regulations; if I want to blow all my money on ding dongs and sugared beverages, that’s my choice. For similar reasons, I don’t like HOAs; if I want to put up a reasonably sized American flag (a real issue in some HOAs!), I should be able to do so without the possibility of losing my house or facing fines.
However…
I am quite in favor of the smoking bans. I grew up in a smoking home. Going out to eat? Smoking. TV? Smoking. Complaints about the smell of (visibly thick) smoke would be met with offense or outright hostility. Money that would’ve been better spent elsewhere ended up diverted to replace burnt clothes. All in all, it was rather nasty.
I’m not going to advocate to ban smoking all together; that’d be just plain stupid. You want to kill yourself? Alright, just don’t make me a part of it. I don’t want to smell your smoke. I don’t want to wash smoke out of my hair and clothes.
Just like we have laws against harming others when you drink, what’s wrong with laws that ban harming other people with your smoke? Smoking is ambiguous, true, and it’s pretty obvious that some behaviors (driving) should not be done after a few drinks… But then there’s that pesky ‘no public intoxication’ law that most municipalities have. It can be enforced pretty ambiguously; you don’t even have to drive, it’s essentially a “don’t bother people when drunk” law. To keep us non-drinkers from having to put up with drunken slobs all over. And, I believe, you can still be (rarely) charged with it if you’re at a bar.
As for the issue that people can avoid smoke by simply not visiting or not working in a place, as others have pointed out that’s utterly impossible at times. When you’re looking for work, many times any job will do. Smoke bothers me, but I know that even I would rather go suck down smoke rather than deal with being homeless.
Some people have been positing the hypothetical, even if real, small town situation. I can tell you, especially with this economy, it is possible to live in a large urban area and have no choices as far as employment goes.
I do not own a car, so I have to rely on walking, biking or public transit. Although I live in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area where bus stops are (generally) posted every 1/4 mile and SUPPOSEDLY scheduled for every 30 minutes, I can tell you that it’s not completely uncommon to get stuck 2-3 hours just to go 4 miles. Also, you can’t count on Sunday service - several cities don’t have it, or it runs once an hour. There is a reason that I’ve seen job ads with “must have reliable transportation” posted; and not just something like newspaper delivery where you bring your own vehicle, either.
Taking into account the climate (110F+ temps not uncommon in summer), I can walk approximately 1 mile or I can bike about 4 miles. Living in the midst of an “urban redevelopment” area, there are a lot of houses and apartment complexes, but not very many businesses.
All this boils down to if I’m looking for work, I have a scant handful of choices. I don’t have the “30 mile radius” that someone suggested.
Move? I don’t even have the money for a car, so where am I going to get money to move?
Your right (I will concede this) to put harmful toxins in your body whenever and wherever you please does NOT trump my right to avoid those same toxins. Whether they literally cause plague, sickness and death to those people who are reasonably healthy and who don’t have asthma or allergies is all beside the point, IMO. If I go work at a bar (smoking or not), I can be reasonably certain that nobody’s going to force a shot of vodka down my throat. If I go work at a smoking restaurant, I can’t say the same about cigarette smoke.
So thank goodness for smoking bans!
Here’s a hypothetical: Suppose I purchase a currently vacant piece of land. It’s zoned properly, and I would like to build a bar where currently exists only an empty lot, a spot that has been utterly vacant for decades. And I submit my application to the local board and let them know that I want to build a smoker’s bar, one that caters to clientele who view smoking and drinking as essential parts of their enjoyment, and who would love a place that accommodates that preference.
I will go “above code” in the ventilation I install, and I decide that (although the law doesn’t require this) I will pay a “smoking premium” to my employees, an extra wage for the trouble of working in a smoking establishment.
Under the neon-flashing sign, “Stratocaster’s Smoker’s Lounge,” I will hang an even brighter “Please note! Smoking permitted” one, in case anyone missed the first warning. I’ll post a “bouncer” at the door who explains to all who enter that this is a smoker’s lounge, in case they missed the signs, so they can turn around if that is unacceptable to them. And this is the only establishment I’m interested in building. If the board turns this down, I’ll walk and look elsewhere, no hard feelings.
Ignore what the law permits for a moment. Should I be permitted to build? Or are your “rights” and those of potential, willing employees so sacrosanct that it would be better to leave it an empty lot, rather than build a place that you might want to drop in someday, a place that–gasp!–permits smoking despite the fact that, well, you don’t like it? Would it be better to have zero additional jobs than some that would require a proximity to second-hand smoke, for willing employees paid a premium?
No one needs to point out how typical or not this situation is–I’m just curious what the reaction is to this specific circumstance. Just trying to find where the line is, and if it exists for anyone somewhere short of “no smoking, no where, no how, in any bar or restaurant, not for any reason, not if Jesus Christ himself comes down and decrees it.”
If it’s been vacant for decades, there’s a good chance that the area is economically poor. Thus building a bar there, you’d be creating jobs, yes… But how “willing” would the workers be? Are they working for you because they’re in a poor(er) area and need the money or because they honestly like smoking?
Is this much different than shipping our electronics waste overseas (which we do/have done) to places without many restrictions… so that they can use hazardous chemicals to “recycle” the precious metal? They’re quite willing to expose themselves to severe danger (death by explosions, cancer, etc.), because they’re poor and they have little recourse. They’re happy for the money. But they’d probably be more than happy to do something else if they could.
So, is that a “no, I wouldn’t let you build your way-cool bar, Stratocaster”?
BTW, change the hypothetical if you’'d like. In hypothetical B, suppose I only hire smokers–is that okay?
Well, they may be willing, but they may also be ignorant. Look at xtisme, who appears to be a fairly smart dude- he thought that SHS was more or less harmless. And of course, that is partially due to the tobacco industry that wants to keep dudes in ignorance. Next- when the economy is this bad- how "willing’ are the employees, in reality? They may also be in denial, as you clearly are. “I am not a smoker, I only smoke cigars!”
Finally, besides customers and employees, there are also tradesmen, etc. Are your deliverydudes, repairdudes, mail carriers and code enforcement people all also “willing”? No, they will have to breath the tainted air, like it or no, willing or no.
Forget hypotheticals. We live in reality and smoking establishments will have non smokers and employees having to deal with the second hand smoke of the nicotine addicted. Trying to create a fantasy scenario in which it would appear to be more acceptable is a poor game at best. It is dishonest. Simply face the fact that allowing smoking will harm others. That is why we have made laws curbing it.
When we established work as a non smoking venue, many employees were very happy. It did not stop the addicted from smoking. It just made them do it away from other workers. The company I worked for offered acupuncture, hypnotism and any other quit smoking therapy you wanted to take. To be honest, an employee who has to smoke a lot is less productive and a drain on health care costs.
I still haven’t seen one reasonable argument for banning smoking on property I purchased.
If we deny private property owners to decide on the use of their property then you might as well turn all property over to the state. If someone said here’s a free car, its yours, most of us would be thrilled. But would we still be thrilled if along with the title of ownership came the mandate that we can only use it to drive the giver to and from places at their whim and we couldn’t use it for what we wanted? I think most of us would pass.
That is exactly what this smoking ban really is; it is a disguised attempt to take away our freedom. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS HOW TO USE THEIR PROPERTY! If you don’t want to go into a restaurant/bar that allows smoking…don’t. You don’t have any particular right to eat there, the owner is allowing you to purchase your meal in his/her restaurant, but they don’t have to.
If we continue down this path soon you will have no right to decide what your children study in school, where you go, who you work for, or any basic freedoms that we now take for granted. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” We are born with our rights, they are NOT granted by the state. This is our birth-right, and it is our only hope.
Taking away the rights of the annoying may seem harmless enough to you, but trust me, some day you will be part of some group that is deemed annoying or dangerous by the majority but there wont be any help left you. And all because you thought you had a right to not be offended.
Stratocaster, my pub allows smoking. You’re welcome to come down and enjoy a free pint or two. The non-smokers? You have many more options. You don’t have to come in.
Ok, you want hypothetical examples, try this.Suppose I purchase a currently vacant piece of land. It’s zoned properly, and I would like to build a bar where currently exists only an empty lot, a spot that has been utterly vacant for decades. However, I am a sociopathic killer, I am addicted to killing people. Under the neon-flashing sign, “DrDeth’s Death Lounge,” I will hang an even brighter “Please note! Killing permitted” one, in case anyone missed the first warning. I’ll post a “bouncer” at the door who explains to all who enter that this is a killers lounge, in case they missed the signs, so they can turn around if that is unacceptable to them.
Once every so often- hardly ever mind you :rolleyes:- I get to fire my trusty.38 Police revolver into someones lungs*. Customer, employee, whatever. It’s random, and infrequent.
Is that OK?
- (Peter Lorre voice) “I love the sound of a sucking chest wound, it sounds so …final…”
We have been doing that ever since zoning and code enforcement. :rolleyes: You do not have the right to open a nuclear waste pit next to a kindergarten. :dubious:
Well, Dr. Deth, I again say if you don’t want to be killed DON’T COME IN.