Should smoking be banned in public restaurants?

Great Debates
41

Wait, a minute: just to clarify, we’re NOT talking about the rights of smokers. We’re talking about bussiness owners here. And it’s simply beside the point to talk about rights. Obviously, we don’t agree on what people should or shouldn’t have the right to do. But I at least am interested in your justification as to why it’s okay to do this to people.

Tell me plain: why shouldn’t someone be able to run a resturant, or bar, that allows smoking? You don’t have to come in. No one who doesn’t want to has to come in. No one is forcing YOU to do so. Why do you think it’s just to force your paternalism into law, when I’d never dream of doing the same to you? Or is every law made de facto just?

I don’t see why it matters to people that bussinesses do fine without smoking. They can make a decision on their own what to offer to attract people.

And I guarantee that if the law allowed bussiness owners to open bussinesses that clearly said “we allow smoking here” in San Fransico, then a few places would do so, and they’d make a killing from smokers willing to pay a premium for the convienience. Why shouldn’t they be able to? Who are bussiness owners harming by opening such places?

42

I think it’s the single greatest law passed in California in the last 20 years. I LOVE it. It is so wonderful to be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy dinner without choking on that vile shit. It’s already getting hard for me to remember exactly how much it sucked having to breathe everyone’s smoke day in and day out, but any time I visit another state without such a law, I am instantly reminded how awful it was before the law was passed. And no, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to leave it up to individual businesses, because the majority of them would simply allow smoking for fear of losing ANY potential customers. I remember how it used to be - you pretty much had to go to a place that allowed smoking, because non-smoking places didn’t exist, and if, God-fobid, you wanted to go out for a drink, you pretty much had to resign yourself to choking. Don’t believe me? Look for a non-smoking casino or restaurant in Las Vegas. The closest you’ll find there is a tiny “non-smoking” section that you have to walk down a hallway full of smoke to get to. And please, having a “non-smoking” section is a joke anyway. As if the smoke knows it’s supposed to stay in one part of the restaurant. So I’m sorry about anyone’s precious right to make me asphyxiate, but I’m loving my clean air.

43

Okay Apos, this is where it gets simple. Repeat after me. This is not about the partrons. This is about the employees. This is about people who spend forty hours a week breathing in hundreds of other people’s smoke.

Bussiness owners do not have a right to expose their workers to unregulated dangerous conditions.

They just don’t. If you own a nuclear power plant, you are responsible for making sure your wokers have protection from the radiation. If you own a construction site, you are responsible for making sure your workers are well trained on the equiptment they are using. The governement regulates potentially hazardous workplaces to a pretty high degree. As a civilized society we recognize that employers have a certain amount of responsiblity in making sure their employees don’t die because of their job. It is not legal, nor is it ethical, to expect people working under you to be exposed to chemicles known to cause cancer and a host of other health problems without provideing as much protection as is reasonable or eliminating the threat if possible.

It is especially not cool to ask that of someone being paid $2.15 an hour plus tips. It actually crosses the line into despicable when you ask that of someone and don’t even offer them health insurance.

Let me try that one more time:

Bussiness owners do not have a right to expose their workers to unregulated dangerous conditions.

Does it make sense yet?

44

—And no, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to leave it up to individual businesses, because the majority of them would simply allow smoking for fear of losing ANY potential customers.—

Just like Indian resturants offer Italian cuisine, so they can avoid losing ANY potential customers?

—Okay Apos, this is where it gets simple. Repeat after me. This is not about the partrons.—

Ah, so it’s not about one particular class of people whom the law affects, it’s only about the class of people YOU decide are worth caring about.

—It is especially not cool to ask that of someone being paid $2.15 an hour plus tips. It actually crosses the line into despicable when you ask that of someone and don’t even offer them health insurance.—

Does that make you despicable? I mean, you aren’t offering me a job that pays even a cent, let alone health insurance, let alone taking any precautions to protect my health.

—Bussiness owners do not have a right to expose their workers to unregulated dangerous conditions.—

I guess we come from two different worlds: because workers aren’t being forced by the owners to work in environs that aren’t agreeable to them. However much you demand that they are akin to toxic waste dumps, smokey environs ARE acceptable to some people for inhabitation and exposure: so why shouldn’t bussiness owners have the ability to run establishments which have the environs that some people enjoy, and offer jobs to those that will take them, knowing the conditions? They can post signs saying “you’ll be working in an area where lots of people smoke, smoking can cause cancer, and you’re welcome to wear a gas mask if you need to, and I’ll even pay for it.” And if smokey places are supposedly so unpopular, then they’ll have to pay their workers more to attract them.

45

restaurants, yes

bars, no
and as far as exposing workers to unregulated conditions, there are plenty of bartenders who smoke on the job, and others who don’t mind. Thats not what it’s about. I can understand when you’re eating, but cigarettes and drinking have gone together damn near forever. HVAC systems should be adequate, but to ban anything in a private business is ridiculous.

46

Oh please, there is only one point to make here.
The restaurant is a private business, the owner pays his taxes, pays his employees, the Governement does not help the owner in any way, it should have nothing to do with regulating it, unless it does something illegal.
And for all the people that get sick from the smoke, I am terribly sorry for you and I understand it is a health issue, but it is the same as this lady once who wanted to ban peanuts from commercial planes because she was allergic pretty bad, even to the “floating particules”. I am sorry, but it can’t work like that or everybody will come up with something to ban.
I believe non smokers and smokers, have a choice of the establishment they go to.
Also, for those saying the smoke will make the non smoker sick too (second hand), geez, I don’t know how many time a week you eat out and how much people smoke where you choose to go, I think you are pushing it here!

47

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I do have a question for all the folks who’ve chimed in about being asthmatic/allergic to smoke and having their health and well-being endangered by public smoking. Once the smokers are out of the way, are we going to ban perfume in public places? After all, sitting near someone who’s wearing perfume or cologne tends to make my throat swell shut. Shouldn’t my health be protected as much as yours?

48

Private businesses are heavily regulated in many areas that concern the safety and well being of both the employees and the patrons. They do not have the right to run the business however they want. There are rules for sanitation, for food storage, for worker’s hygiene, hell, they ever regulate what temperature the hot water has to reach. Banning smoking is no different. It’s to protect the health of both the employees and the patrons from the health risks of inhaling cigarette smoke.

Separate smoking sections are a joke. That is like having an area in a public pool dedicated to urination where one out of four people (smoking population) are allowed to urinate in the pool. Even if the peeing section was located near the pool filter, urine would still contaminate the pool.

You want to piss in the pool, do it in your own private pool. You want to be stupid enough to smoke, do it in your own private home and spare those intelligent enough not to smoke from the smell, the stains and most importantly, the diseases that your lack of intellect create.

49

Because you’re making the rest of us use your drug of choice.
CrazyCatLady:

If it was objectively demonstrated that perfume causes cancer and other lung diseases, I’d be all for banning perfume in public places. I sincerely doubt, however, that perfume will ever be shown to do such things, and the consensus of the scientific community is that allegedly perfume-related diseases like “multiple chemical sensitivity disorder” are psychosomatic malarkey.

Asthma’s a different story, but you could never ban everything that can cause it. You’d have to ban lawns.

50

“Well, they’ve banned smoking in bars in California, next thing they’ll ban drinking and then talking, no talking in bars…” Eddie Izzard.
I’m all for the ban. I grew up with a father who smoked and got sinus infections that were attributed to his smoking. but I think the point that’s really been overlooked is that you really can’t enjoy the food if you can’t smell it over the tar and menthol. I would’ve thought restaurants would have done this by themselves a while ago.
I’d sign the bill to ban smoking in restaurants in a second if it would mean an end to those TRUTHtm advertisements.

51

We are discussing the rights of private owners to operate a public place, which necessarily impacts upon the workers and patrons of that establishment. The safety and well-being of the public within that establishment must take precedence over the right of the owner to allow smoking, just as surely as they are prohibited from selling rotten food or installing asbestos fireproofing in the interests of public safety.

So far as I’m aware, we are not discussing the rights of home owners. What goes on the the privacy of your own home is still your own business, as far as I’m aware.

Also, your obesity argument is specious. Serving an obese person, while possibly immoral, does not impact the health of every other person in the restaurant. But we are not discussing morality, we are discussing legislation, personal rights, and personal safety.

BTW, as a former worker in the HVAC industry, I can tell you that the fan power required to keep smoke in the smoking section would practically suck the food off your plate, not to mention the noise and cost of operating the system. It is not a viable option, although a physical floor-to-ceiling wall might be.

52

—You want to piss in the pool, do it in your own private pool.—

But you won’t even allow anyone to own and operate a private pool. Even worse than that: they’re happy to operate a pool AND allow you to come in to eat or work there if you want. But, you don’t have to.

—Because you’re making the rest of us use your drug of choice.—

Please, tell me again how bussiness owners force your poor fragile body into their places of bussiness to be exposed to noxious gases?

—Private businesses are heavily regulated in many areas that concern the safety and well being of both the employees and the patrons.—

Ah, so, if there’s a bunch of laws you like, one more related law is just. Gotcha.

—I think the point that’s really been overlooked is that you really can’t enjoy the food if you can’t smell it over the tar and menthol. I would’ve thought restaurants would have done this by themselves a while ago.—

Maybe you should let others decide how best to juggle various concerns about taste and smoking, instead of telling them that you know best.

53

Good, so can we all at least agree that arguments against smoking based on asthma or allergies are stupid? My wife has extremely bad allergies. We have to base our decisions on where we live on what kind of plants are in the area. It’s a pain, but I’m not lobbying the government to ban plants that produce a lot of pollen.

Jeff

54

Why can’t they just outlaw smoking entirely and get it over with? This whole demonize-then-legislate-then-demonize-then-legislate approach is making me very uncomfortable. It’s where they want to go with this eventually isn’t it?

No thanks, we like to chip away the freedoms of others bit by bit; less chance of a major backlash that way.

Daddy state. I can’t wait.

55

Dammit, my post just got swallowed. Okay, here’s the 60-second recap, since I’m now in a rush.

Here’s a summary of the report the EPA conducted in 1993:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

In a nutshell, it’s full of crap. The study was criticized by the Congressional Research Service, and later vacated by Judge Osteen in 1998. Even if it wasn’t shoddily conducted, it only demonstrated a relative risk of 1.16 from SHS. RRs of less than 2.0 are generally considered statistically insignificant.

Here’s a summary of research (not just meta-analysis, like the EPA’s report) performed by the WHO:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

This study actually appears to be performed responsibly. Which is why, when it showed no correlation between SHS and cancer, it was buried. The Telegraph had to pester them incessantly to get them to release the results. See, claiming that SHS isn’t an awful threat just isn’t a propos.

The WHO study also produced a RR of about 1.16, with a Confidence Interval of between 0.93 and 1.44, meaning the real RR lies somewhere in that range. For the record, 1.0 means no correlation. So basically, there is somewhere between a small negative effect and a small positive effect. Ie, no statistically significant result.

Interestingly, the study also found a RR of 0.78 in children exposed to SHS, with a CI of 0.64-0.96. In other words, children exposed to SHS are less likely to get cancer than those not exposed.
Yes, everybody run, before SHS kills your dog and makes off with your kids! Aaaaah! It’s coming! Save yourselves!
Jeff

56

LOL Jeff, that was good!

57

Hey mods, as per Azael’s last post. Isn’t there a rule about changing the words in another poster’s quotes? Granted, he didn’t attribute the quote to me. But a simple glance above shows that I did, indeed, write the original paragraph.

58

Thank you, Carine. I try. :slight_smile:

Jeff

59

Apos, stop whining. You’re mad because you have a disgusting habit that is looked down upon by intelligent people. Most of your posts in this thread have been sarcastic, unproductive nonsense. If you want to debate the issue, then debate. If you’re just going to vent your obvious frustration, then either take this to the pit, or go have a smoke and calm down.

60

Hey the great dalmuti, smoking doesn’t make you less intelligent, thank you!