Smoking ban

[Geuel]

Btw, Austin just passed such a ban on smoking yesterday. It will be in affect, starting in September.

 

.D

[burdizzos]

A big +1 to TheGZeus,OnFire and T. Alan Smith.

 

Some good friends of mine own a catering company and they recently leased a large building to serve as a prep area and a banquet hall for their customers. Both of them are smokers, but there is no smoking in their establishment. They both used to bitch about having to go outside to smoke, so I asked them why they banned smoking in their place of business. Their response? "We'd lose money if we allowed people to smoke in there."

 

They aren't alone, there is a trend underway that is pushing smoking out of bars and restaurants that has nothing to do with gov't intervention.

[Thrash Jazz]

 

Originally posted by King Kashue Smoker's rights? Unless I've missed some part of the Canadian law code (and that's possible) I didn't realize that smokers were a protected minority... It's an activity of choice, there's no right to protection... Although...Drivers Rights! I shouldn't have to pay taxes on my gasoline! I'm being discriminated against!

 

 

Well, ok, I was being a bit melodramatic. My point was, though, that smokers DO get singled out.

 

Getting harassed at bus stops by busybodies, for one, when I take extreme care to not blow smoke at or near anyone, and I don't smoke around children.

 

Also, if the province of Ontario needs more money, what's the first thing they do? They raise cig taxes! They don't do the same with alcohol, country club memberships, etc, or other "activities of choice". I highly doubt that they are jacking up the prices to try and improve our chances of quitting...

[beam]

The government can regulate it the same way they can regulate other laws.

 

Second hand smoke is damaging to human beings, period. The same as the government can regulate the way you dispose of certain chemicals, or health regulations for restaurants. In this case, it's more of an application of the laws that say you cannot cause harm to other people. The law is there to prevent injury. You do not have the right to cause damage to another person like that. It isn't a matter of extra regulation, but added enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.

 

You want to hurt yourself? Cool. I'm all for that, just don't do it to other people too.

[MillenniumBlues]

 

Originally posted by TheGZeus,OnFire Move away. If you don't like a restaraunt with a crappy smoking section division leave. Tell them why, and eventually they will change. Losing money makes them change things pretty quick.

 

 

I disagree- "moving away" or making the decision not to support the restaurant is not enough - this is not just a simple exercise in economic theory, it's an issue of health and safety. A business open to the public that purports itself as being safe for non smokers and is not is unacceptable. At the very least, that business should be slapped with heavy fines. I should NEVER have to enter a public business and smell cigarette smoke even ONCE. I look at it this way - cigarette smoke contains arsenic, ammonia, carbon monoxide, and many, many other harmful substances. In what other universe would an enclosed public establishment be allowed to stay in business with these substances permeating the air? Wouldn't you want to be warned before you entered a place that had poison in the air BEFORE you entered it, and not left to discover this fact on your own.

 

I don't care how ridiculous I sound, but the fact is cigarettes are only BEGINNING to get the treatment they deserve. And the reality is, it is young people who are the victims here - and "personal responsibility" is NOT a viable argument in this case. In our hypocritical society, we have no problem with advertising bans/restrictions on tobacco companies - we don't want young people exposed to that kind of advertising when they are watching TV or reading magazines. (Heck, in some places it's soon going to be forbidden to even have cigarettes visible to customers in stores). However, what message are young people getting when they enter a local restaurant and see a row of people smoking - what better advertising is there than that?

 

The reality is that cigarettes are the only product that, when used for what they are intended, lead to death.

 

The more restrictions, the better.

[J.]

I guess I'm for it, but for a selfish reason. I like to play in a band, and the main venues for bands are bars and clubs. I don't smoke and hate coming home reeking of stale cigarettes, so playing in smoke-free places will be nice.

[ImaSmrtBaby]

they banned it in lawrence KS.

 

the bar owners were quite unhappy. it hurt business.

 

and it also hurt the business of the non smoking bars.

 

i think its going to be repealed though.

[beam]

Originally posted by ImaSmrtBaby they banned it in lawrence KS. the bar owners were quite unhappy. it hurt business. and it also hurt the business of the non smoking bars. i think its going to be repealed though.

 

 

I'm sure DUI laws hurt business at bars too. Change happens. We still have bars

[Thrash Jazz]

 

Originally posted by MillenniumBlues The reality is that cigarettes are the only product that, when used for what they are intended, lead to death. The more restrictions, the better.

 

 

Guns?

[beam]

Originally posted by Thrash Jazz Guns?

 

[King Kashue]

 

Originally posted by Thrash Jazz Guns?

 

 

 

Ah, but there are utilitarian arguments that can apply to guns...Defending many against the aggression of the few...Not to mention firearms that are created solely for target and sport shooting...

 

One is hard pressed to determine the beneficial purpose of cigarettes...

[davematthewsfan]

Sorry about the pun but smokers have gotten away with murder for a long time. No offence to all the americans but you guys are a bit obsessed with freedom of choice etc. While I'm all for civil liberties I think they need to be in the right places. Smokers have the right to choose to smoke. Those around them aren't given the choice necessarily especially in an inclosed area. I've done sound work in a pub and come out reeking of smoke, not pleasant at all.

 

People have the right to do anything that is legal as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. You can drink at a bar as long as you don't drive home and crash into an innocent person. Not to sound hypocritical but I'd say it's peoples right to smoke pot, and I'd be up for legalisation in australia but the conservatives would never go for it. At least there aren't giant corporations pushing marijuana on kids (as if they'd need to).

 

Cigarettes are a study in corporate greed. A lot of the deadly chemicals in cigarettes are to make them burn faster so you smoke more and sadly kill yourself faster.

 

The government should perhaps think of giving bars an incentive to ban smoking inside by giving them a tax break or something to compensate.

 

Australia has strict gun laws and it shows. Compare the number of gun related deaths per capita to the US. People here still use them on farms and to hunt but the average person has no need for a gun whatsoever. I guess it's an idea of everyone or no-one has them. I'd prefer no-one (excluding police etc.).

 

[ImaSmrtBaby]

Originally posted by beam I'm sure DUI laws hurt business at bars too. Change happens. We still have bars

 

Drinking and driving is not the same as smoking.

 

 

 

[beam]

Originally posted by ImaSmrtBaby Drinking and driving is not the same as smoking.

 

I was simply saying that I'm sure DUI laws cut into the pockets of bar owners, but they are still around. It will be an adjustment, that is all.

[der oxenrig]

I'm tired of going to concerts where you can barely see the stage even fairly close up, because there is so much cigarette smoke. I'd go home around 2AM and I wouldn't be able to goto bed because i'd have to take a shower to get the stink off. I end up losing more sleep than i'd have to if I went to a smoke free concert.

[phunkyhick]

 

Originally posted by Paul Buerk However, I think that economics should determine which places are going to allow smoking and which other ones are not, not government regulation.

 

 

That's my point. I understand the whole restaurant and smoking section thing because people can take their families there.

 

An establishment can ban smoking. These establishments that sell alcohol and ban smoking are popping up more often, without gov't interference. If you don't like smoke, you can drink at these places.

[Rachel Sampson]

Ban smoking in all enclosed buildings!

 

Subjecting other people to harmful second hand smoke inside a building is just wrong.

[beam]

For those of you who don't support the ban, what's your argument against the point that second hand smoke is harmful to people?

 

I see a lot of arguing about personal choice, and all...but nothing about the fact that if second-hand smoke is damaging to bystanders, why should the smoker be allowed to hurt these people? Why should non-smokers have to choose where they want to eat based on the fact that it will be harmful to be there. We have laws regulating the food quality that restaurants are allowed to serve to their patrons, would you eat at a restaurant where you knew the food might make you sick? Probably not. Why should non-smokers have to make that same decision because there are people that will be there who insist on hurthing themselves and those around them? The law clearly states that you do not have the right to inflict bodily harm on another individual(though if anyone can illustrate for me how you can use second-hand smoking as self-defense, I'd be interested in reading it )

 

 

Where is the argument against the fact that second hand smoke is harmful to your health, and that is why people shouldn't have the "right" to smoke in public buildings? Other people should have to put themselves at risk because you need your fix? I think not.

[phunkyhick]

 

Originally posted by King Kashue Smokers can choose to smoke...However, they cannot choose to subject non-smokers to smoke...Which is what they're doing in an enclosed place...

 

 

If an establishment allows smoking, then it seems to me that if you enter that establishment, you are making a choice to endanger your own health. Smoking in the supermarket or smoking on the subway, well you don't have so much of a choice, you need to go there.

 

As far as bartenders and wait staff go, this is why I am for the smoking ban in RESTAURANTS, but not bars. Working in a bar is an occupational hazard. But let's be honest here, you are in more danger working in construction or in a factory. Working in a bar which allows smoking basically means that you work in an establishment whose clientele is smokers. You always have the option of working someplace where there is no smoke.

 

Let me put it this way: If you want to go out for a drink and are offended by strippers, you don't go to a strip club for a drink. If you want to get a drink and don't want to be around smoke, go someplace that does not allow smoking.

 

If smoking in restaurants is allowed, then anyone can have a normal life without being subjected to smoke, as it should be. Banning it in adult-only establishments seems like the govt. is putting its hands where they should not be.

[beam]

 

Originally posted by phunkyhick If an establishment allows smoking, then it seems to me that if you enter that establishment, you are making a choice to endanger your own health. Smoking in the supermarket or smoking on the subway, well you don't have so much of a choice, you need to go there. As far as bartenders and wait staff go, this is why I am for the smoking ban in RESTAURANTS, but not bars. Working in a bar is an occupational hazard. But let's be honest here, you are in more danger working in construction or in a factory. Working in a bar which allows smoking basically means that you work in an establishment whose clientele is smokers. You always have the option of working someplace where there is no smoke. Let me put it this way: If you want to go out for a drink and are offended by strippers, you don't go to a strip club for a drink. If you want to get a drink and don't want to be around smoke, go someplace that does not allow smoking. If smoking in restaurants is allowed, then anyone can have a normal life without being subjected to smoke, as it should be. Banning it in adult-only establishments seems like the govt. is putting its hands where they should not be.

 

 

 

It is simply an extension of the same public health and safety laws that are already on the books concerning toxic chemicals and emissions. The point is, people shouldn't have to choose between places because one place might cause them physical harm.

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

 

Originally posted by beam The government can regulate it the same way they can regulate other laws. Second hand smoke is damaging to human beings, period. The same as the government can regulate the way you dispose of certain chemicals, or health regulations for restaurants. In this case, it's more of an application of the laws that say you cannot cause harm to other people. The law is there to prevent injury. You do not have the right to cause damage to another person like that. It isn't a matter of extra regulation, but added enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. You want to hurt yourself? Cool. I'm all for that, just don't do it to other people too.

There's no definitive proof that second hand smoke is significantly harmful, particularly in as small amounts as one would encounter in these situations.

 

If I'm practicing my baseball swing in a park, you SEE me doing it, and walk up behind me silently and get hit, I don't see how I could be blamed.

 

It is NOT difficult to avoid second hand smoke.

[Jazz Ad]

Originally posted by beam For those of you who don't support the ban, what's your argument against the point that second hand smoke is harmful to people? I see a lot of arguing about personal choice, and all...but nothing about the fact that if second-hand smoke is damaging to bystanders, why should the smoker be allowed to hurt these people? Why should non-smokers have to choose where they want to eat based on the fact that it will be harmful to be there. We have laws regulating the food quality that restaurants are allowed to serve to their patrons, would you eat at a restaurant where you knew the food might make you sick? Probably not. Why should non-smokers have to make that same decision because there are people that will be there who insist on hurthing themselves and those around them? The law clearly states that you do not have the right to inflict bodily harm on another individual(though if anyone can illustrate for me how you can use second-hand smoking as self-defense, I'd be interested in reading it ) Where is the argument against the fact that second hand smoke is harmful to your health, and that is why people shouldn't have the "right" to smoke in public buildings? Other people should have to put themselves at risk because you need your fix? I think not.

The answer is quite easy.

2nd hand smoking harm probably exists, although there isn't much medical evidence.

Just, it's way way exagerated due to the current smoker parano

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

Originally posted by beam It is simply an extension of the same public health and safety laws that are already on the books concerning toxic chemicals and emissions. The point is, people shouldn't have to choose between places because one place might cause them physical harm.

Good point. I'm gonna go play in the street.

[TheGZeus,OnFire]

Originally posted by phunkyhick That's my point. I understand the whole restaurant and smoking section thing because people can take their families there. An establishment can ban smoking. These establishments that sell alcohol and ban smoking are popping up more often, without gov't interference. If you don't like smoke, you can drink at these places.

I like how IHOP handles it: wall in the smoking section.

[beam]

 

Originally posted by TheGZeus,OnFire There's no definitive proof that second hand smoke is significantly harmful, particularly in as small amounts as one would encounter in these situations. If I'm practicing my baseball swing in a park, you SEE me doing it, and walk up behind me silently and get hit, I don't see how I could be blamed. It is NOT difficult to avoid second hand smoke.

 

 

In small amounts, no, there is no proof that it causes significant damage. But why should people be allowed to inflict that upon you at all is what I'm saying. Why should anyone be allowed to pump toxic fumes into the air that can only but harm other people, even to the smallest degree.

 

 

Your analogy doesn't fit the model I'm afraid. Unless your baseball bat has the ability to float around the area and lightly smack anyone that is within 20 feet of you..