That is the basis of the California ban. Bars run by the owner (solely) can allow smoking. Or at least that’s how it was when last I was there.
That makes sense. But what if the bar owner hires one employee who also happens to smoke?
I could well be wrong, but I get the feeling that the ban in bars is not so much because the general public is so deeply concerned about the cardiovascular health of bartenders, but rather is using that as an excuse to impose their morality on those whom they think are terrible sinners. That’s just an opinion, though, and probably can’t be proven either way.
I think you then run into the problem of did the owner hire the person who happened to smoke or because they smoked. Or coercing someone to smoke just to get the job. The law, I believe, was to prevent people from having to work in smoke filled conditions just to get a job.
Prior to that law, though, the town I went to college in, Davis, you can’t smoke within…100 feet, I think…of a public building nor inside them. This leads to certain parts of the ‘downtown’ area allowing legal smoking only in the middle of the streets. :eek:
That’s the thing, these bans can have some awfully bizarre consequences. There’s a street here where you can smoke in the street, but not on either sidewalk. And in some places, first the ban is on one side then the other. To legally smoke and walk simultaneously, you have to do a strange combination of crossing left and right and walking down the middle.
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” – G.K Chesterton
Such vitriol. I guess when you suggest that limits be placed on a drug, the addicts go a little nuts. (Shoot, look at the snide response I got on an issue on which I agreed with the smokers.)
Let’s see:
Wanting clean air to breathe = “arrogant sense of entitlement”
Wanting to pollute the air where people eat = perfectly acceptable
It’s not me dong the regulating; it’s the government. The government regulates businesses all the time. Especially when it comes to workplace safety. This is one of the good things the government does. This particular regulation has pretty much no cost to the business owner and big upside to everyone else.
Think about the logic here. We have a painless way to make the workplace safer for everyone, but there are people insisting that we should allow this hazard since some workers are willing to deal with it.
Let’s say we have a way to make the fireman’s job a bit safer, do we pass on it just because they’re willing to take the extra risk?
It doesn’t really take a genius to figure out that cigarette smoke is bad for you. There have been a lot of studies about this. You may wanna look into it.
I bitch about laws that affect personal choice all the time. I’m all for the legalization of drugs. The difference here is that someone popping a pill or shooting up isn’t forcing everyone else in the immediate vicinity to also partake. It’s not really a difficult concept.
Guess again - I’m not a smoker.
No, jackass. Wanting every cubic foot of air that’s accessible to the public to be clean, just because you might want to go there someday, is an arrogant sense of entitlement. Those of us who lack such a sense of entitlement are happy to let smokers smoke in their bars and restaurants, while we sit or work comfortably in our own nonsmoking bars and restaurants (or–gasp!–perhaps even visit a smoking restaurant once in a while).
bolding mine
So it’s the gummint. Not you. Though you vehemently defend the laws by saying it’s what you decree as right. And then you flaunt your economics degree by telling us how the laws affect business owners. Do you know any bar owners? I have a family member that is one. I’ll trust his opinion on what a ban will do to his business over yours.
Look, you’re letting your blind devotion to “correcting” us smokers get in the way of even seeing that THIS thread is about housing.
I have another thread here in the Pit that you’ve conveniently avoided answering questions in. Stay on topic and answer to the calls of bullshit before trying to hijack yet another thread with your high and mighty superiority over us mass-murderers.
At this rate the “threat” of having a heater in your honor will get us banned. Of course, based on your stance, even the mere electronic mention of smoke seems to be enough to make you wheeze in pain. I know people that sit all day and whine about what they find bothersome in the actions of others without ever realizing they have it pretty good overall. You make them seem reasonable.
Head over to Calcutta for a couple weeks and let us know how that works out for your lungs.
Now we get to your superiority. Link one post where I said smoke was harmless. Even smoke from a fire. Go ahead. I triple-dog dare you.
Here we go. Try to lessen the density of your skull before reading this by whapping it repeatedly with a ball peen hammer.
IT’S ABOUT ADULTS MAKING PERSONAL CHOICES.
Fuck it, you’re too young or too selfish to understand. Maybe you’re just too smart for the rest of us. I’m voting for one of the first 2 options.
:non-winking Wally:
You got that backwards pal; it is the task of the smoker to avoid bothering non-smokers. Non-smoking is the default state.
Everywhere, pal, or only those places you feel entitled to visit as of right? If I open a bar and I want to cater specifically to smokers, is it then their responsibility to avoid bothering you, even if I opened the bar for them? Should I even be allowed to open such a bar?
Do I take it you’re abandoning the asinine urine analogy, then, and are taking the much more productive tack of complaining about the nasty man and his rude words? How many more daft analogies are you going to come up with that handily prove the point that consumer choice is perfectly sufficient to provide for smoker and non-smoker alike?
Does this include the non-smokers who never set foot inside my apartment?
Your smoke never leaves your apartment? :dubious:
And off to hijack land:
What’s up with smoking in resturaunts? I get that cigarettes counterbalance the depressive effects of alcohol in bars, but why while eating?
I keep my door closed while I smoke, so yeah, it never leaves.
If you’re talking about tiny amounts of residual smoke that may escape when I enter or exit the apartment, then yeah, I suppose that can’t be helped. Call me crazy, but on occasion I enjoy going to work.
Or are you talking about magic wall that breathe again?
I leave a window open, to make sure the whole world can share my smoky goodness.
Kid, he is inside his residence. If a molecule or two crawls into the wall and through the fibers to getcha, what’s the horror in it?
Not if I was standing there first, minding my own business it isn’t. Then it is your job to do the avoiding. In fact, except for a certain level of courtesy, I have no responsibility to avoid anyone or anything.
Didn’t say there was any horror or even necessarrily anything wrong with it, I just don’t like the delusion that because the smoke is no longer noticable that all of it’s components have magically ‘disappeared’ before leaving his domicile.
Or that drywall is gas impermiable. :rolleyes:
My arguement is that the owner of the residence should be able to decide if they want to allow smoking in their property.
And you vehemently oppose the laws by saying it’s what you decree as right. :rolleyes:
You may want your family member to do a bit of research.
I’ve given my view on this.
[QUOTE=duffer]
I have another thread here in the Pit that you’ve conveniently avoided answering questions in. Stay on topic and answer to the calls of bullshit before trying to hijack yet another thread with your high and mighty superiority over us mass-murderers.
Mass murderers? What are you babbling on about now?
Calcutta? Is that the clean air standard now? Is this like say that torturing prisoners in Gitmo is OK since they do worse in North Korea?
Well you did seem to be pretty outraged by the suggestion that smoking is unhealthy for “troglodytes”.
Or do you think that I like the smoking bans because it’s going to make you give up smoking or something (cutting through your hysteria isn’t easy)? Let me assure you, this is not the case. If you wanna take this risk, go to it. Unnecessarily exposing others to this risk does strike me as a tad selfish though.
You still have the option so smoke. There happen to be limits on where you can do it. I really don’t see how this is such a horrible demand to make on smokers. We regulate alcohol in the same manner; are you equally outraged that the government controls where you can have a beer? There are far more places where you are allowed to smoke than there are places where you can legally drink.
Should you be allowed to open a bar where the employees will be exposed to easily avoidable carcinogens? No.
I think the urine analogy perfectly describes the mindset of the typical smoker. Smokers don’t seem to realize that their habit affects everyone around them. Either that or they just don’t give a damn. How is that not cretinous behavior?
I’m not really complaining about the name calling; go to it. Not sure it’s helping your argument. I figure a spelling/grammar flame is next.
My bad.
Ummmm…I don’t want every every cubic foot of air that’s accessible to the public to be clean. I’ve made that clear. Now, indoor areas where it’s trivial to keep the air clean…
Before they started regulating this, there were practically no bars and few restaurants that did ban smoking. There was no PERSONAL CHOICE for someone wanting to avoid pollution.
But the bigger issue is workplace health. Exposing workers to easily avoidable carcinogens seems like a pretty awful thing to do (whether or not they are willing to put up with it or not).
All this crying about PERSONAL CHOICE. Do you guys believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want wherever they want? There are always limits on personal choice. Smoking bans are pretty benign.
There have to be limits? We don’t have any now? How about the city ban being worked on here that calls for no smoking within 20 feet of a building? That would mean the only legal place to smoke would be the middle of the main thoroughfare downtown. In the middle of the street. Read that again. STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING STREET.
Do you really hate me so much that I must dodge cars and trucks? Do you want me to risk life and limb daily?
OK, try this one out. And don’t fucking weasel out. Answer with yeah or nay.
I’ll agree to sit in my car 10 feet from the door and smoke. (With my windows down just because I’m not happy unless I’m killing people) :rolleyes:
You agree to forego all taxes from tobacco sales since it shouldn’t be condoned by the government that says it’s so bad that it can’t be done…
Deal? Or are you going to worm in another scenario to obfuscate the basic argument of personal choice? I know you will, I’m now all a-twitter to see what entertainment you provide us.
And again the Holier-Than-Though smoker hater gets a victim in the “I’ll hijack anything involving EVIL DEATH”
Apologies to the OP. :smack:
Funny, that’s not how it works in my town. Restaurants and bars are free to set their own smoking policies, as long as the public is made aware of them, and many of them are smoke-free (about 1 smoke-free establishment per 1000 residents, which is comparable to the total number of restaurants in many areas). Are you the only person where you live who expresses a demand for smoke-free bars and restaurants, or is there something in your town’s water supply that makes business owners not want to meet the demands of their patrons?
There already is an easy way for workers and customers to avoid those carcinogens. I’m sure you know what it is.
When no one who hasn’t chosen to be part of it is affected by it, yes.