Florida isn’t really a good example to compare smoking bans. As was said upthread, a bar that does less than 10% of it’s business through food is exempt and also many businesses already have outdoor seating due the fact that the weather stays nice for a majority of the year.
People don’t mind stepping outside for a smoke nearly as much when its 80 degrees vs. 20 degrees and snowing.
I agree, but it seems Michigan’s ban includes outdoor patio areas…
As far as casinos go, I remember when Windsor went non-smoking, including their casinos. Wasn’t long after, they had to lay off 300 employees.
Seriously, why is this a false equivalency?
Ontario has actually banned smoking in cars with children under the age of 16. No bans in houses, yet, but frankly, I think second-hand smoke in the home is probably more harmful than second-hand smoke in a car, but banning in a home would cross a line that no one really wants to go over, I think. I don’t live in Ontario, and I’m an asthmatic non-smoker, so I tend to agree with the spirit of the no smoking in cars with kids law, if not the actual law itself.
I’m happy with the no smoking in public places ban, for the reasons above. I understand the argument of bars and restaurants being private property and owners should have a choice, but I don’t think that’s enough of a reason to not have a ban.
No one is forcing non-smokers to go to bars, true. But no one is forcing smokers to go either. Smokers don’t have the “right” to go eat in restaurants or go to bars any more than non-smokers do.
So either one group or the other stays home, or one group (the minority) steps outside for a few minutes once in a while, or both groups breathe smoke in throughout their time at that bar, regardless of the fact that the majority group don’t want to breathe the smoke in.
Really, in a rational world, which is the best choice? I think catering to both groups is the best one, but the only way to do that is to take the smoking outside, unless someone can find a way to smoke without the person next to them breathing it in. It’s unfortunate that we seem to need laws to make this happen, but it’s also unfortunate that we need laws saying “don’t kill people.”
Regarding workplace health issues:
Assuming the owner were allowed to choose to to allow smoking then he or she is also making that choice for each employee who is already working there. The alternative is for the employee to leave, but essentially the employees are being told to accept this hazardous situation or leave.
I’ve worked in a hazardous work environment (chemicals), and my options were never to “work or leave”. The company was legally required to address the hazards in order to make the situation as safe as possible. In a smoking establishment, even with awesome ventilation, a waiter would still have to stand next to someone holding a cigarette (while taking orders, serving, clearing, etc), and would therefore be significantly exposed. Letting the owner of any establishment make that choice for an employee isn’t acceptable to me. And there aren’t always other employment options - small towns might only have one or two bars/restaurants, or the employee can’t afford a car/transit if it exists to get to another place, etc. For many people, there aren’t other employment options.
The way I see it, smokers still have the right to smoke - they just don’t have the right to do it next to me when we *both *choose to go to an enclosed public place. And I’m ok with that, and so are enough people that these laws are being passed. Sorry it pisses off the smokers, but it is what it is and it’s not going away any time soon.
Doubtful. Unless you can show me a scientific study that shows that nicotine addicts spend more freely.:dubious:
Again, not true in either CA or NY. Now, that doesn’t mean it is true elsewhere, just that I have not seen the studies. In CA, bars, niteclubs and restaurants over all had a increase in business. Do the math- there are 3-4 times as many non-smokers.
They are not bad, they are just addicts that smell bad and their addiction can hurt me indirectly. If you’re a smoker, you can’t realize how badly a smoker reeks. I don’t hang out with people that drench themselves in perfume, either.
I have no friends that are smokers- with the exception of a couple of “one cigar a month dudes”. Due to the smell and the SHS, non-smokers simply do not hang out with smokers, by and large.
That just sez that smokers gamble more, not that they are cheapskates. Note the lack of smoking in shopping malls,where people spend. Now, sure, I believe that smokers gamble more, as both smoking and heavy gambling are linked to addictive personalities. I have little doubt that a much larger of heroin addicts are also smokers.
This actually hurts your argument.
They have already convinced themselves that it is OK to gamble with their health. I suppose wagering a few bucks would be easy.
This is logic I can understand, even if I disagree.
While you think that things are okay to be banned, unless there’s a reason not to ban them, I think otherwise.
I believe that the right to own a place of business that puts your health at risk, and the willing risk of the employee, is acceptable. The key being willing. There certainly are towns where there are few places of employment, places where there aren’t options.
And I’m perfectly understanding in that situation – I pose an entirely reasonable, at least in my opinion, solution. Allow localities to issue “Smoking Licenses,” much like alcohol licenses. Shops, businesses, bars and restaurants would be allowed to have as many smoking establishments as they saw fit. Whether it was 100% of the total or 0% of the total, as long as they conformed to certain guidelines.
This way, towns who believed their restaurant/bar would benefit, or believed that it should be left up to the business owner, could still have smoking. On the other hand, towns who were adamant about nannying and interfering in my private life would have the ability to ban it enti-- wait, towns and localities already have the ability to ban it entirely, but there’s no current recourse. At least this way, towns who didn’t agree with the current total ban would have some form of recourse. That little, olde town pub on Broad could still light stogies, now and again.
Willing=has to have a job to feed family, so will suck 2nd hand smoke
There’s plenty of recourse. It’s called the ballot box.
And if the majority wanted to make a law where no shop owner could use blue paint, would that also be legal, just because the majority wanted it?
Or, shop owners couldn’t dissent? Where, exactly, does the individual freedom to own a shop and do with it as you please come into play?
Your milage may vary as the saying goes on your location, but here in Ontario, the smoking ban was couched in worker safety language and the like. In reality , the original ban, plus the subsequent amendments were designed with eliminating smoking all together, and some of the methods used were to ban smoking indoors, ban smoking on patios, remove smokers from 30 feet of any entrance.
Effectively in conjuction with Ride laws with Mothers against Drunk Driving , they want to completely excise the culture of smoking.
A policy like you suggest would be met with blank stares of increduality, its a religious thing now.
Declan
If it was just his band you might have a point, but its been that way ever since Ontario went the smoke ban route, better attendance in some locals , worse in others, and hap hazard turn outs generally.
This is not the smoking ban’s fault , but it does contribute in bars that catered to an older live music entertainment demographic.
Declan
Lighting up anywhere non-smokers are forced to breathe in your drug of choice is rude behavior. Forcing others to unwillingly partake in your drug of choice of inconsiderate. Regardless of of the smoking laws, the considerate smoker wouldn’t be lighting up anywhere indoors where there’s a mixed crowd. If smokers weren’t so rude, these laws wouldn’t even be necessary.
Banning one behavior would destroy the economy. Banning the other inconveniences some people.
Amen.
We have it banned here in Washington State. I didn’t vote either way. On one hand, I worked in a smoking establishment and hated going home sticky, every single day. On the other, I didn’t want to vote to approve it for reasons mentioned in this thread. Yes, it passed. Yes…it’s awesome. 
So, would banning all non-essential driving be both analogous and a reasonable demand?
Neither group has any sort of basic right to demand that a bar owner accommodate their preferences for smoking policy, though. A smoker has no right to demand a smoking section (or whatever he perceives as a compromise) either, if a bar owner decides not to permit smoking.
It’s not an issue of Solomon coming in and coming up with some balanced way to address everyone’s preferences. Why? Because it ain’t Solomon’s bar. No matter how reasonable you think your conclusions are, it’s not up to you (or me). It’s up to you and me whether or not we’ll go into the bar. There is a watertight way to avoid smoke in bars that permit it, without legislating away an owner’s rights. There really is.
Read the casino studies and reports that have grown out of that whole side of the debate --------- there are more non-smokers but when it comes to many activities, they are cheapskates. They may spend more on health clubs and bicycles but when it comes to eating out, going to bars, gambling and others they are an economic non-entity.
Again, if we’re talking the Meadows or out along the Mississippi or Windsor, do the math.
And note as well that those same malls have stacks of butts at the entrances. Smokers have a drag, run in and do their thing, as escape back to a sensible world. Maybe that’s why online shopping is growing and malls are dieing ------ I can shop from home AND smoke if I wish!
