Well, you see, it’s because that involves smokers inflicting their smoke on other people.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I happen to be opposed to that.
Would you mind if those areas were called “Addiction Friendly”? We could have NICOTINE ADDICT AREA signs put up for you, too.
OK - I do see it now. It’s no longer “its not fair I don’t have any privately owned business that cater to my tastes.” It’s now “its not fair unless every privately owned business caters to my tastes.”
My apologies for misunderstanding.
Not in the slightest. Why on earth would you think that would bother me?
Oh - you are assuming everyone is as unreasonable on this issue as you are.
It’s reasonable on the surface. But then you get into the problem of employees working in these locations. Even if they “agree” to put their health at risk in taking such jobs, there’s an air of coercion (we do not have full employment and alternate jobs for anyone who wants them).
If the clientele of cigar bars/smoke shops/airport smoking lounges want to run them themselves, doing all the labor, then that’d be fine (I believe Ohio’s law against smoking indoors in public venues allows for clubs of this sort). Once paid employees enter the equation, you should not (and cannot under various laws) place their health at risk, any more than you can run unsafe mines, mills or other businesses/industries.
I realize it’s very very hard for pro-smoking advocates to accept this, at least the ones promoting the nonsensical idea that those who support public smoking bans “want to inflict their culture/lifestyle on us”. It is overwhelmingly a health issue. Want to try proving all those studies wrong? Be my guest.
*noting once again that I believe laws like New York’s banning smoking at beaches and parks are excessive and foolish.
Being “privately owned” doesn’t mean that a business gets to set any policy that the business owner’s little heart desires. Privately owned businesses that serve the public are obligated to comply with legal regulations about how they may serve the public.
That includes complying with regulations about fire safety, accessibility for the disabled, non-discrimination, and a host of other issues. Regulations about not permitting smokers to inflict their smoke on others are just part of that legitimate regulatory burden on private business owners.
I can see how you personally find it inconvenient that such regulations are able to override a private business owner’s preferences in this way, but there’s nothing unfair or illegitimate about it.
Like I keep saying: you figure out a way that you can keep your smoke to yourself while smoking, and I will cheerfully and enthusiastically join you in lobbying to allow you to smoke any damn place you like (subject to fire safety considerations, natch).
In the meantime, I don’t consider you’re at all unfairly burdened by being legally required to “cater to my tastes” to the extent of refraining from inflicting your smoke on me in public places.
Well, that’s a point. How about if the owners of the businesses do the labor in the smoke-filled rooms rather than paid employees? Are they exempt from such regulations? (I know business owners working in their own businesses are exempted from labor laws about working hours and overtime, for instance; would this situation also fall in that category?) For example, smoking customers in a tobacconist’s shop might be served exclusively by the owners, with paid employees confined to the smoke-free back premises or to cleaning and restocking duties after closing time when the smoke is gone.
Or how about if employees in smoking-focused businesses were protected from the less-safe conditions in a way that customers are not? For instance, off the top of my head it seems feasible that we might have a tobacco bar with the bartenders behind a glass partition or something, with a little cat-flap type opening where bartenders could deliver the drinks and customers could deliver the money and empty glasses.
For a more flexible approach with a certain apocalypse-chic factor, we might have bartenders and waiters wearing those gas masks that were facetiously suggested upthread, or something like that. Wouldn’t such measures satisfy the requirements about protecting employees from risk?
First, no need to shout, I’m right here. Second, I was referring to public outdoor places, which is what this thread is about. I am sorry if my work reference made you think I was referring to inside.
Oh, I see. Yes, I did get that impression; thanks for the clarification.
I am more than aware of this. I never said the opposite.
I am more than aware of this. I never said the opposite.
There is nothing illegal about it, true. But you are making a jump you haven’t justified as to whether it is unfair or illegitimate. That might be the case, but you haven’t made it.
Just because a regulation can be made, doesn’t mean it is good, fair, right, or legitimate that it be made.
All I am asking for is that people meet in the middle. 75% of bars smoke free. 25% where people can smoke. But it isn’t good enough for you - which tells me the old arguements about not having any place to go out without being exposed to smoke were just bullshit.
The government has the legal right to do this. It doesn’t mean refusing to compromise isn’t both petty and childish, though. Almost all of the non-snoking laws make exceptions for cigar bars. Why not broaden that slightly, and accept there are large groups of the population that enjoys smoking while drinking, while also acknowledging that significant parts of the population wants a place to go to drink without being exposed to smoke.
If we are going to impose regulations on the private business owners, wouldn’t you agree that they should be as non-invasive as possible? And serve the interests of as many of the public as possible?
Or would you rather stamp your foot and pretend it isn’t more than a little pigheaded to constantly whine “But I want EVERYTHING!”
Your definition of “middle”, as far as I can tell, amounts to saying “Even though I’m not legally entitled to inflict my smoke on you in public places, and even though it would be an annoying nuisance to you if I did, I think you should be willing to put up with it in a significant percentage of public places anyway, because I can’t keep my smoke to myself and my enjoyment of smoking is more important than the fact that I’m being a nuisance to others.”
While I can certainly see how you would consider that an acceptable compromise, I see no reason at all why I should consider it such. So, no thanks.
Well, I personally never made those arguments, so I don’t much care whether they were bullshit or not. My position is, and always has been, that I don’t see why smokers should be entitled to spew their smoke into the air and clothes and food etc. of non-smokers in any public places.
I certainly do accept that that’s true. (I happen to know it partly because I occasionally belong to that subset of the population myself, as a matter of fact.) Those groups of the population are perfectly free to smoke while drinking in private homes where there’s no objection to it, and/or in smoker-specific business establishments such as cigar bars.
Once again: the central point here is that it’s the responsibility of smokers to KEEP THEIR SMOKE TO THEMSELVES.
Just as it’s everybody’s responsibility to keep other annoying effluents and by-products (such as spittle, snot, urine, loud noise, wads of gum, reeking perfumes, etc.) to themselves and not go distributing them at will around other people’s environments.
This is a responsibility which nobody should expect anyone else to excuse them from in normal circumstances. Not even for only 25% of the time. Not even for only 25% of the time you spend in bars, for that matter.
I don’t think that expecting smokers not to inflict their smoke on other people in public places is equivalent to “wanting EVERYTHING”. It seems to me that it’s a perfectly reasonable expectation, and it appears that the legislatures and the courts think so too.
Nothing you or any other smoking-ban opponents have said in defense of inflicting one’s smoke on others in public places has impressed me as a reasonable or persuasive argument. If you like to characterize that as being “pigheaded”, feel free.
As for “whining”, though, I’m not whining about the situation, because I’m perfectly happy with it. You’re the one who’s whining about how the people who don’t want to be annoyed by the invasive nuisance of your smoke are somehow being unwilling to “share”.
Ohio law exempts businesses where all the employees are members of a family, the business is in a free-standing building, and the business is not open to the public.
To answer this seriously, the first proposal (and similar ones) follow the argument that filtration/separation systems are adequate to protect employees. As a practical matter, it appears that any system good enough to instantly and completely eliminate smoke would be too expensive for a business to afford. As for the gas mask idea, such things are bearable if you’re on the Western Front and the alternative to their use is immediate hideous death. If you’ve got to work all day wearing one of those hot sweaty things, you might actually prefer death.
There’s an article in the 2/17 USA Today on more hotels going smoke-free. It provides a reminder that cigarette smoke is offensive even to smokers:*
*"Some smokers readily agree something stinks about having a room that’s been smoked in.
Doug Gillikin of Lafayette, La., who works in the millwork industry and stayed at hotels more than 150 nights last year, says he smokes outside hotels and prefers they be smoke-free. He chooses non-smoking rooms over smoking ones in hotels that offer a choice.
Why? “The smell is terrible,” Gillikin says."*
*The obvious manifestation of this is smokers driving with their car windows open, tapping the ash onto the street and throwing out the butts later. I mean, you can’t have that nasty stuff stinking up your ashtray and the rest of the car. Let it be someone else’s problem.
So you would agree that a group which finds strippers offensive should be able to legislate a ban on any establishment anywhere having them?
Smokers need to smoke somewhere; non-smokers can always find someplace else to breathe.
I wish legislators would focus on banning things which pose a greater risk to the general public…such as Twisted Sister. :rolleyes:
I chuckled.
Are you as accommodating to other drug addictions?
Smoking tobacco is not illegal. False analogy.
Are you denying that it is a drug addiction?
Well yes, it IS illegal – in these locations. That’s what this law is doing, making it illegal. That’s what we are arguing about.
And there was a time when the other addictive drugs were not illegal either. Many of the old-time patent medicines had a fair percentage of codeine, opium, etc. in them (possibly the only effective part of those ‘medicines’). So it’s rather a circular argument to claim that illegal drugs are different, because we have made them illegal.
Smoke a cigarette in front of a cop in a no-smoking zone. Do the same with meth. Observed the varied reactions and responses.
It is a false analogy because previous legalities of drugs like cocaine and heroin are immaterial because that was so long ago, and they are now *highly *illegal. Smoking in certain places is illegal is the sense that you’ll be fined. Apples and oranges.