# Smoking ban, public places, private clubs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405 "2003-01-03T13:18:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/61 "2003-01-04T21:24:41Z")
> [@](#): > > As far as the “my way you way thing” I must have misunderstood that the owners choice was to always provide ventilation. taptaptap, this thing on? I have said several times during the course of the thread > [@](#): > > "The expense of a good ventilation system is probably on a par with making handicapped acessible toilets, yet requiring such a venitlation system is an option never even considered . " > > “How about letting the owners choose? they can choose to install venitilation systems, or go non smoking?” > > "Will Anyone answer the question, “why is banning better than allowing the proprietors to choose to make their business nonsmoking or install adequate ventilation” Anyone? Anywhere? " > [@](#): > > _originally posted by iwire_ > What is this ventilator you speak of? It’s made for a laboratory. I am sure that is not expensive Got one on my desk. It’s a small one, and it’s used to remove lead fumes during soldering. Lead, remember, which you said was so bad? It also happens to work great as a smokeless ashtray- some of my friends smoke and whe they’re here they know to use the fume extractor. It cost new about eighty bucks and the filters cost about two dollars. I’m sure the same thing would work well in a bar, or in a restaurant. But you wouldn’t use that, you’d use an edge-of-table ventilator just like is used in Japanese steakhouses to control the fumes from the teppans. Then it’s just a question of ducting it to a central area where it can be filtered. As for ammonia gas, well, I’ve only seen a few people snort that shit- and they usualy don’t show up in restaurants because they don’t have the scratch. And they die pretty quickly anyway. But if a _significant portion_ of the population (say, like smokers) decided they wanted to snort ammonia gas, and the restaurant chose to provide adequate ventilation so the other patrons would be prevented from getting even a whiff, yeah, that’s fine by me. Of course, ammonia gas carries other risks as well, but those would have to be absorbed by the users (bad chemistry pun) By the way, contrary to your little hazardous waste :theme: most smokers are NOT trying to “Spread their smoke around” Smokers are often as annoyed by secondhand smoke as non smokers. b. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/62 "2003-01-04T21:33:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\*taptaptap, this thing on? > > I have said several times during the course of the thread > Got one on my desk. It’s a small one, and it’s used to remove lead fumes during soldering. Lead, remember, which you said was so bad? It also happens to work great as a smokeless ashtray- some of my friends smoke and whe they’re here they know to use the fume extractor. It cost new about eighty bucks and the filters cost about two dollars. I’m sure the same thing would work well in a bar, or in a restaurant. But you wouldn’t use that, you’d use an edge-of-table ventilator just like is used in Japanese steakhouses to control the fumes from the teppans. Then it’s just a question of ducting it to a central area where it can be filtered. > > As for ammonia gas, well, I’ve only seen a few people snort that shit- and they usualy don’t show up in restaurants because they don’t have the scratch. And they die pretty quickly anyway. But if a _significant portion_ of the population (say, like smokers) decided they wanted to snort ammonia gas, and the restaurant chose to provide adequate ventilation so the other patrons would be prevented from getting even a whiff, yeah, that’s fine by me. Of course, ammonia gas carries other risks as well, but those would have to be absorbed by the users (bad chemistry pun) By the way, contrary to your little hazardous waste :theme: most smokers are NOT trying to “Spread their smoke around” Smokers are often as annoyed by secondhand smoke as non smokers. > > b. \*\* Well if you can not tare it down, make fun of it. I doubt very much any smoker tries to spread the smoke around any more then they can stop it from spreading. So I guess all smoking patrons will get the ventilator and be as courteous as your friends as to use it. After a few beers that will work. ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/63 "2003-01-04T21:43:43Z")
As for compliance, by the way, restaurants are already subject to health inspections. The health inspectors (Who will already be there anyway) only need to place a monitor on random tables during an inspection. A toll-free number could be provided to report violations. and as you’ve seen in this thread, you better believe people would call. Besides, when it only involves changing a filter or cleaning it (and electrostatic filters are very efficient, can be cleaned in a dishwasher) it’s not a big expense, and it is an asset to the business. By the way, the point is that the smoking section is completely ventilated, and that no smoke can escape. if this can be done in induistrial laboratories to control fatal fumes, it can be done (and probably at a much lesser cost) in a restaurant to eliminate smoke. And > [@](#): > > I did not say I could prove it. I said I would want to go on the side of caution because we do not know. if you’re not willing to or able to prove something, you should not state it as fact. You stated it as fact. You did not say “I think it will make people live longer”, you said “it will make people live longer” Just a nitpick, I’m not jumping on you, but realize that you need to make some distinction between fact and opinion here or people will jump on you. Okay? 🙂 And if you don’t like people making fun of your analogies, don’t make ridiculous ones. As for "tare"ing down your analogy, that is as simple as this: (which I already did, by the way) Inhaling ammonia fumes is not in any way analagous to smoking because a significant portion of the population does not engage in said practice. Got it? Smile, dammit. I enjoy having a reasoned discussion, and you’ve been pretty reasonable so far. b. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/64 "2003-01-04T21:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\*taptaptap, this thing on? > > b. \*\* And I have said more then once I would support that ventilation is a possible answer if it was enforced. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/65 "2003-01-04T21:52:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\* > Smile, dammit. I enjoy having a reasoned discussion, and you’ve been pretty reasonable so far. > > b. \*\* I am:) I have enjoyed this exchange and was disappointed that you could not give a better response. My analogy was simple but the point remains that right now secondhand smoke is a considered a carcinogen and in that sense is the same as letting any poison out in a public place. And to say if the majority of people liked to release poison the rest of us have to deal with it I can not understand ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/66 "2003-01-04T21:54:48Z")
What better response would you like? You made a ridiculous analogy. If you said, marijuana smoke, maybe. the jury is still out on that. To compare an irritant which may or may not be harmful to a known deadly poison is not a practical analogy. Make one, I’ll respond. b. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/67 "2003-01-04T22:05:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\*What better response would you like? You made a ridiculous analogy. If you said, marijuana smoke, maybe. the jury is still out on that. To compare an irritant which may or may not be harmful to a known deadly poison is not a practical analogy. Make one, I’ll respond. > > b. \*\* Cite [http://www.co.oakland.mi.us/health/info\_pub/2nd/s-smoke.pdf](http://www.co.oakland.mi.us/health/info_pub/2nd/s-smoke.pdf) What’s in Secondhand Smoke? Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals. 43 of the chemicals cause cancer Some cancer causing chemicals and their common usage include: Arsenic… used as ant poison Hydroxide … used for rocket fuel Formaldehyde… ….used to preserve lab specimens Tar … used to make asphalt Cadmium… used in car batteries Secondhand smoke causes many health problems such as burning eyes, throat irritations, hoarseness, sneezing, headache and nausea. Secondhand smoke causes other respiratory problems in nonsmokers including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort and reduced lung function. Nonsmokers exposed to cigarette smoke have high levels of nicotine and carbon monoxide in their blood. Your right I do not see ammonia listed, the rest of that stuff sounds like candy. ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/68 "2003-01-04T22:05:51Z")
By the way, I clearly did NOT say "if the majority of people liked to release poison the rest of us have to deal with it " I very specifically don’t want _anyone_ to deal with it, and I have provided well thought out and reasoned solutions based on technology I know to exist and am personally familiar with, that will do the job. Without infringing on the personal freedoms of individuals. > [@](#): > > And I have said more then once I would support that ventilation is a possible answer if it was enforced. but you also, in a previous post, said > [@](#): > > I must have misunderstood that the owners choice was to always provide ventilation. so which is it, you understood or you didn’t? b. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/69 "2003-01-04T22:14:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\*By the way, I clearly did NOT say "if the majority of people liked to release poison the rest of us have to deal with it " I very specifically don’t want _anyone_ to deal with it, and I have provided well thought out and reasoned solutions based on technology I know to exist and am personally familiar with, that will do the job. > > Without infringing on the personal freedoms of individuals. > > but you also, in a previous post, said so which is it, you understood or you didn’t? > > b. \*\* Your quote: “But if a significant portion of the population (say, like smokers) decided they wanted to snort ammonia gas, and the restaurant chose to provide adequate ventilation so the other patrons would be prevented from getting even a whiff, yeah, that’s fine by me.” With or with out ventilation this is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/70 "2003-01-04T22:15:39Z")
Why is it less absurd than suggesting that ammonia gas is like secondhand smoke? b. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/71 "2003-01-04T22:16:56Z")
Regarding the ventilation system- I have been in a bowling alley with a separately ventilated smoking room. I assume that the reason for the separate room was because the law required it.How can it be enforced? The same way that a smoking ban will be enforced. By complaints.If I own a restaurant,bowling alley or pool hall in NYC (all of which will be covered by the no-smoking regulations,along with apparently all other workplaces with the exception of bars which have no employees other than the owner), and I allow my customers to smoke _and no one complains_ it won’t be enforced. Police or other government officails won’t be regularly checking businesses to see if I allow smoking .If someone complains, it will be checked out. BTW, separate ventilation doesn’t necessarily have to be outrageously expensive. It just means that the air from the smoking room doesn’t get recirculated to the non-smoking area. Think window air-conditioner instead of central, or the heating/airconditioing units used in hotels. And a business may want to spend that money, if the choice is separate ventilation or nonsmoking and they believe they’'ll lose business by going non-smoking. (which may not happen with restaurants, but might be a real concern in bowling alleys, pool halls and bars). ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/72 "2003-01-04T22:20:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\*Why is it less absurd than suggesting that ammonia gas is like secondhand smoke? > > b. \*\* I think that I have shown that ammonia gas is not that far off from second hand smoke, Arsenic. Hydroxide. Tar, Cadmium all sound like poison to me. ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/73 "2003-01-04T22:24:00Z")
Did your post say that you would only be emitting levels of ammonia gas equal to the levels of “toxins” released by cigarrettes? No. Under those circumstances, you will find that the levels of those 'toxins" found in smoke are below the federally mandated maximum safe level. If you’re talking about releasing ammonia gas at those levels, of course it’s OK, becuse you already get that in good restaurants- the cleaning people use it to disinfect among other things. By the way, a lot of those same types of chemicals are released by building blacktopped roads. Should we ban those? b. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/74 "2003-01-04T22:24:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by doreen \* > \*\*Regarding the ventilation system- I have been in a bowling alley with a separately ventilated smoking room. I assume that the reason for the separate room was because the law required it.How can it be enforced? The same way that a smoking ban will be enforced. By complaints.If I own a restaurant,bowling alley or pool hall in NYC (all of which will be covered by the no-smoking regulations,along with apparently all other workplaces with the exception of bars which have no employees other than the owner), and I allow my customers to smoke _and no one complains_ it won’t be enforced. Police or other government officails won’t be regularly checking businesses to see if I allow smoking .If someone complains, it will be checked out. > > BTW, separate ventilation doesn’t necessarily have to be outrageously expensive. It just means that the air from the smoking room doesn’t get recirculated to the non-smoking area. Think window air-conditioner instead of central, or the heating/airconditioing units used in hotels. And a business may want to spend that money, if the choice is separate ventilation or nonsmoking and they believe they’'ll lose business by going non-smoking. (which may not happen with restaurants, but might be a real concern in bowling alleys, pool halls and bars). \*\* The recirculating does not address the safety of the workers. If the room is truly ventilated I would be for it 100% ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/75 "2003-01-04T22:27:16Z")
And if you’re talking about releasing “full strength” ammonia gas, of course that is by it’s nature absurd and not only would nobody do it, but it would kill them to try. If it doesn’t kill them, then it’s not being released in fatal quantities, etc. You can’t have the argument both ways, sorry. Aside from which, you still miss the point, which is NOT TO ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE TO BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THE SMOKE. b. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/76 "2003-01-04T22:32:05Z")
**iwire,** your list of “dangerous and disgusting chemicals” would have more impact if you showed that the _quantity_ necessary to guarantee lung cancer from X amount of smoke was present in a public place for Y amount of time. Arsenic won’t kill a rat or even make one sick if given in minute quantities. Hydroxide won’t propel a rocket ship unless enough is used. Formaldehyde won’t preserve lab specimens in too-small quantities. I would be glad to drink a cocktail made of all these chemicals, as long as they are present in sufficiently small quantities, like most homeopathic dilutions usually are. Both are harmless. And saying “4000 chemicals” are in any particular substance isn’t so scary. Without chemicals, you wouldn’t be alive. It’s _which_ chemicals, and in what quantities that’s important. These are scare tactics, but not worthy of a scientific debate. And the reason the whole tobacco argument even exists is **smoking a single cigarette is pretty much guaranteed to NOT kill you.** Smoking a LOT of cigarettes is NOT guaranteed to kill you, either. But it may _increase the odds of your death_ by an amount that many people do not care to chance. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/77 "2003-01-04T22:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > \*\*Did your post say that you would only be emitting levels of ammonia gas equal to the levels of “toxins” released by cigarrettes? No. Under those circumstances, you will find that the levels of those 'toxins" found in smoke are below the federally mandated maximum safe level. If you’re talking about releasing ammonia gas at those levels, of course it’s OK, becuse you already get that in good restaurants- the cleaning people use it to disinfect among other things. By the way, a lot of those same types of chemicals are released by building blacktopped roads. Should we ban those? > > b. \*\* For me it’s cut and dry. 1. Right or wrong secondhand smoke is listed as a carcinogen. 2. No business I know of can ask you to be exposed to a “known” hazard. Even as a voluntary action on the employee’s part. 3. Why should wait staff not be given the same protection I have at my job. 4. Your personal freedom and mine stops when they affect others. ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Rubin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billy_rubin/32/3622_2.png) [@Billy\_Rubin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Rubin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/78 "2003-01-04T22:35:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iwire \* > \*\*The recirculating does not address the safety of the workers. > > If the room is truly ventilated I would be for it 100% \*\* The recirculating addresses the safety of the workers in exactly the same way that it addresses the safety of other patrons. I’m not talking about a big ceiling fan here, I’m talking about a table-by-table or booth-by booth system, which an asthmatic could stand next to and never receive a puff of secondhand smoke. Are you getting ANY of this? On my desk is a filtered smoke collector. I can stand right next to it, while someone smokes there, and never even know it. And it’s crude at best. b. ---
**Author:** ![iwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@iwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iwire)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/79 "2003-01-04T22:44:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Musicat \* > \*\ ***iwire,** your list of “dangerous and disgusting chemicals” would have more impact if you showed that the _quantity_ necessary to guarantee lung cancer from X amount of smoke was present in a public place for Y amount of time. > > Arsenic won’t kill a rat or even make one sick if given in minute quantities. > > Hydroxide won’t propel a rocket ship unless enough is used. > > Formaldehyde won’t preserve lab specimens in too-small quantities. > > I would be glad to drink a cocktail made of all these chemicals, as long as they are present in sufficiently small quantities, like most homeopathic dilutions usually are. Both are harmless. > > And saying “4000 chemicals” are in any particular substance isn’t so scary. Without chemicals, you wouldn’t be alive. It’s _which_ chemicals, and in what quantities that’s important. > > These are scare tactics, but not worthy of a scientific debate. > > And the reason the whole tobacco argument even exists is **smoking a single cigarette is pretty much guaranteed to NOT kill you.** Smoking a LOT of cigarettes is NOT guaranteed to kill you, either. But it may _increase the odds of your death_ by an amount that many people do not care to chance. \*\* I agree that there is much scare tactics involved. I do not care if anyone smokes, my whole point is that the wait staff at public places get the same workers protection we all get. I hardly think it’s as dangerous as it’s made out to be, but as long as it’s considered a risk employers can not subject the wait staff to it. I go to a lot of rock clubs and I would probable miss the smokey atmosphere but I can go somewhere else if I want, that is not how it is with employees, no other business could expose them like that BTW I do not smoke cigarettes ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405/80 "2003-01-04T22:46:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Billy Rubin \* > **Aside from which, you still miss the point, which is NOT TO ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE TO BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THE SMOKE.** **Billy Rubin** , you suggest a reasonable accommodation. But I think you’re permitting the terms of the debate to be decided. The real point is that we all already have the ability to make sure we aren’t subjected to second-hand smoke–don’t work or eat at an establishment that permits it. I won’t eat at a place that permits ammonia to be released from a tank, either, since **iwire** thinks this may be an emerging trend. Again, I would also support any proprietor’s right to forbid the use of cigarettes (or ammonia) in his place, or the right of a worker to seek employment elsewhere if he decides second-hand smoke is an unacceptable working condition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-ban-public-places-private-clubs/146405.md?page=5)