Prohibition Returns!

Cheesefood said:

I love how smoker's cite their "right to smoke" and don't consider my "right to be in a non-smoking facility". If you had a child in a wheel chair and took him to a restaurant that didn't have a wheel chair ramp, wouldn't you be upset? How about if your child has asthma? Now you're not upset because his right to breathe clean air isn't as important as someone's right to pollute?

How do you feel about this:

Click to expand...

Awww, man...really? I'm a staunch non-smoker, I hate smoke, but I will explain this:

When it comes to someone else's property (i.e. a bar), smokers should not have a "right" to smoke any more than you should have a "right" to be smoke-free...

The one who should be free to make the decisions should be the property owner. This is the only "right" that matters: the property owner's right to decide whether or not people are allowed to smoke on his property. If he says no smoking, hey, cool...go to another bar if you wanna smoke. If he says smoking is allowed, then, hey, cool...go to another bar that prohibits smoking if the smoke bothers you.

But the problem is, the government is telling property & business owners what they can and can't do. I've got no more sympathy for smokers than I do non-smokers - they don't deserve anything except equal treatment under the law. And unless someone is forcing you to visit that bar or restaurant, you're making a conscious choice as a lucid adult to expose yourself to the smoke.

And comparing it to a smokestack is not apt. To escape the cigarette smoke, all you have to do is walk out the door...while industrial pollution affects the environment as a whole---something you can't just walk away from. There are certain externalities like environmental pollution which affect us all...but smoking in a bar is a far cry from that.

But the problem is, the government is telling property & business owners what they can and can't do. I've got no more sympathy for smokers than I do non-smokers - they don't deserve anything except equal treatment under the law. And unless someone is forcing you to visit that bar or restaurant, you're making a conscious choice as a lucid adult to expose yourself to the smoke.

Click to expand...

Sure, they can make the decision when they decide to not renew their license and to rezone as a private place. Let his friends smoke in his house. In fact, make his house the "smoking bar" and let everyone pack in there. Fact is that he decided to open a public house (a "pub" if you will) and obtained a license from the state promising to follow by the rules.

There's no law against puking on people. Would you like the bar to have a "Pro-Puking On You" policy?

And comparing it to a smokestack is not apt. To escape the cigarette smoke, all you have to do is walk out the door...while industrial pollution affects the environment as a whole---something you can't just walk away from. There are certain externalities like environmental pollution which affect us all...but smoking in a bar is a far cry from that.

Click to expand...

You think that smoke disappears upon touching outdoor air? Really? You really think that there's something magic in the air that makes tobacco smoke go away?

Besides, if you don't like industrial pollution, then move to a more expensive neighborhood. The only people who live near industrial areas are people who love the smell of pollution.

Cheesefood said:

I love how smoker's cite their "right to smoke" and don't consider my "right to be in a non-smoking facility". If you had a child in a wheel chair and took him to a restaurant that didn't have a wheel chair ramp, wouldn't you be upset? How about if your child has asthma? Now you're not upset because his right to breathe clean air isn't as important as someone's right to pollute?

How do you feel about this:

Click to expand...

Dude, we both have the SAME rights as human beings. You don't get MORE rights than I do. If you want to go to a non-smoking facility, go to McDonald's, or convince your local pub operator to go non-smoking.

The propery owner has a right to declare it a non-smoking facility as he wants, but does NOT do so on his own right. The government should not force that kind of decision for him. If he wants to cater to a smoking crowd, who the heck are you to go storming in there demanding it be a non-smoking facility.

Just how you want him to 'close up shop' so people can go smoke at his house, you also have the right to start your own non-smoking pub for you and your non-smoker friends.

It's a two way street and you should be playing fair here. I've never met a smoker who gets pissed off because someone has a non-smoking section and it should be a full-smoking place of business. It's always the anti-smokers that demand FULL non-smoking facilities to meet their needs.

I see it as a put up or shut up argument.

Fair warning, this ended up long.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the PI problems are less from the Officers in question being power hungry, then it is some "concerned" citizen calling the Police because they saw some random guy staggering around in the street. If a call goes out Officers have to respond. I'm not going to touch the PI in bars, that's just not right.

On a side note my opinion on this was reinforced just last night at the local pub, I was enjoying a Half and Half with a nice plate of fish and chips when I saw a older gentleman doing the wall to wall stagger on his way out the door. He had just cleared the door when the a-typical "concerned" citizen immediately called 911 and asked for an Officer to come to the area because she thought he was going to drive drunk. Now as she was making the call, I was watching the guy go to his car get out his cell phone and make a call. I went outside and asked the guy if he needed a ride or for someone to call a cab, he told me "no, but thanks" as his wife was picking him up, and "he had locked his keys in the car to make sure". A few minutes later someone showed up and picked the guy up. The interesting thing was that when the Officers showed up and asked who made the call so they can get a description of the "drunk driver", the "concerned" citizen suddenly had a case of amnesia and sudden blindness, because they never even looked at the Officers. I'm the one who told the Officers that he had gotten a ride, and that his keys were locked in the car. Now what would have happened if the Officers would have shown up before the guy's ride had shown up? Would he have been picked up for PI? Possibly, all because this "concerned" citizen called 911 instead of seeing if the guy needed a ride or a cab.

It's easy to blame the Police, but they are just doing their jobs, they are not making laws up as they go and are only allowed to go with what is in the black and white of the law. Blame the lawyers, city counsel members the mayor and the "concerned" citizens they are the ones who get the laws in the books, they are the ones who sue Police Department's and Officers because they let that drunk walk home and he was hit by a car or broke a store window or passed out and asphyxiated, they are also the ones who fight against bars going up in their neighborhoods because of the "problems" (i.e. PI's and DUI's).

Seeing I'm ranting anyways, my opinion on the "police state" is this...

/rant on

We have no one to blame but ourselves for the current tightening of the laws and the corrosion of so called "liberties". It those of us who voted for the folks in office, from local to Federal, it those of who did not vote at all, it is those of us who find ways to circumvent laws already in place.
It is those of who ***** and moan about the way things are but never lift a finger to do anything about it. It is those of who allowed the presidential race become a money game, instead of who really has the best ideas for the future of this country. It is those of us who allow the left and right biased media to rule our opinions, instead of demanding the facts in an unbiased manner.
It is those of us who continue to allow ourselves to get a deeper wedge between left and right, liberal and conservative, the Founding Fathers are probably rolling their graves knowing that we really only have two parties to vote on, we might as well be a monarchy again. It is those of us who vote either side just because "I am <insert random party here>" instead of voting for the candidate who really does have the best platform. It is those of us who allowed our Congress become a cesspool of lobbyist bribes and blocking the "other side" bills, not because its a bad bill, but because the other side wants it to go through. And the one I most believe in, it is our fault for allowing ourselves to become a "victims society", where it's "not my fault" it must be the Government's, or the big bad corporations, or my neighbor, oh no it's not my fault. It is all of our faults.

When we can get people to stop worrying about lining their pockets, from being blatant scumbags, from hating the guy next to you just because his views are different, and start worrying about your fellow man, and start helping out the guy next to you, and start getting folks in power for their ideas instead of what party they happen to be getting "donations" from, maybe we wouldn't be need to be going down the "police state" road.

I believe we have no-one to blame but ourselves, so instead of bitching about a law, write your congressman, mayor or governor. Instead of bitching about how messed up your local community is, attend town hall meetings and make your voice heard, start a petition, start a neighbor hood watch and actually follow through with attending the meetings and being proactive. I know, I know god forbid we actually get off our sofa's and do something, but the longer we sit and ***** the more "liberties" we will loose. The talk of "revolution" is kind of funny also, seeing the majority is willing to sit on their butts and get spoon fed rhetoric and a free ride, never having lifted a finger to do something about it, while bitching that things should change.

I've sacrificed for my County, and my locality, I've attended town hall meetings and made my voice heard, I've written my congressman a dozen times, I've stared and ran a neighborhood watch, I've volunteered my personal time and money to help those in need.

I'm not blowing my own horn, I just want you to ask your self, what have you done to change things?


/rant off

Cheesefood said:

Sure, they can make the decision when they decide to not renew their license and to rezone as a private place. Let his friends smoke in his house. In fact, make his house the "smoking bar" and let everyone pack in there. Fact is that he decided to open a public house (a "pub" if you will) and obtained a license from the state promising to follow by the rules.

Click to expand...

And you don't see the tyranny in that policy? "In order to open a business, you have to do exactly what the majority says, or screw you". It's not really a decision, because you can't legally open a business without a state license. In effect, you're saying "you have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it's what I say". Not exactly "freedom". Now, I'm not saying that people should be free to allow whatever they want on their property. A "rape allowed on premises" policy would be absurd...all I'm saying is that, just because you open your doors and allow people to give you money in exchange for goods or services shouldn't mean that the government should be able to prohibit you from allowing otherwise legal activities (such as smoking, drinking, etc.) on your property. It's the tyranny of 50.1% of the people.

There's no law against puking on people. Would you like the bar to have a "Pro-Puking On You" policy?

Click to expand...

Would I like it? No. Would I support the bar owners right to have such a policy? Yes. Remember the old saying, "I don't agree with your statement, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Well, there are a great many things that I disagree with (such as smoking), but would still defend other people's right to do it or allow it on their property (or, conversely, I would defend a bar owner's right to prohibit smoking just the same).

So if I saw a bar that had a "pro-puking on you" policy, I'd just not frequent that bar. Simple as that. No government laws. No fines. No bullsh*t. Just don't go there. And the scant few people among us who like puking on others and being puked on, they could go and have a grand time. It's not hurting me either way, because I have chosen not to enter the establishment, and nobody is forcing me to do so.

You think that smoke disappears upon touching outdoor air? Really? You really think that there's something magic in the air that makes tobacco smoke go away?

Click to expand...

It doesn't disappear. It dissipates, into the air, and is diluted by the surrounding air to such a point where it is indistinguishable in terms of human and environmental health. Of course, if you can show me studies that show that cigarette smoke is a statistically significant contributor to outdoor air pollution, I'm all ears.

Besides, if you don't like industrial pollution, then move to a more expensive neighborhood. The only people who live near industrial areas are people who love the smell of pollution.

Click to expand...

My point was that tobacco smoke is typically isolated to a particular property. By the time it leaves the building/property, it has dissipated to a point where it is insignificant. Thus, it is an internalized effect. But environmental pollution, such as the smokestacks you posted, or dumping chemicals into a stream, have externalized effects that cannot typically be contained within a particular piece of property. Thus, it behooves the government to step in and regulate it, because there are some people that, by no fault of their own, have their properties affected by the actions of a third party against their will. This is not the case when you choose to walk onto someone else's property and choose to breathe the smoke there. You are free to walk the other direction, and that cigarette smoke won't be following you.

Cheesefood said:

Sure, they can make the decision when they decide to not renew their license and to rezone as a private place. Let his friends smoke in his house. In fact, make his house the "smoking bar" and let everyone pack in there. Fact is that he decided to open a public house (a "pub" if you will) and obtained a license from the state promising to follow by the rules.

Click to expand...

I hear your argument there, Cheese... but it's a lot harder to get business when you own a "private" club type restaurant, bar instead of a "public" restaurant, bar. These terms don't decipher the way they sound. Public means anyone can come in at anytime, it doesn't mean you HAVE to go there. Now, a public park or government office, I understand, but a PRIVATELY owned PUBLIC business, that's a different story. I don't like smoky places, like many people, and I would suspect most restaurant owners would provide non-smoking restaurants if given the choice. But, taking the choice away is taking away freedom as a citizen, business-owner.

Ó Flannagáin said:

I hear your argument there, Cheese... but it's a lot harder to get business when you own a "private" club type restaurant, bar instead of a "public" restaurant, bar. These terms don't decipher the way they sound. Public means anyone can come in at anytime, it doesn't mean you HAVE to go there. Now, a public park or government office, I understand, but a PRIVATELY owned PUBLIC business, that's a different story. I don't like smoky places, like many people, and I would suspect most restaurant owners would provide non-smoking restaurants if given the choice. But, taking the choice away is taking away freedom as a citizen, business-owner.

Click to expand...

You have a choice to be a non-smoking restaurant. McD's and BK have been non smoking since I was a kid, without any local laws prohibiting smoking in those establishments.

The problem is people who don't want to allow a choice. IMHO, anyone who is as anti-smoking as the rant Cheese went on a few posts back is just as wild and crazy as all the MADD loonies we're talking about. The only difference is CHeese drinks, therefore he staunchly defends his right to drink. I smoke and choose my right to smoke.

Guess what, drinking easily has a better chance of hurting people than smoking around them. Drunk people shoot guns drunk, drive drunk, get into accidents drunk, start fights drunk, and about a million other things. Smoking causes almost NONE of those activities outside of the possible accident you can get into if your smoke falls down between your legs and you have to go searching for it before it burns your bits off, but that's a much less likely cause of even a remote percentage of auto accidents.

I'm very glad to be a part of a message board that not only is all about beer, but actually has a majority of rational thinkers. I think anything i would be willing to add has already been stated and possibly overstated. Good read. BTW write, email, fax, call your reps. Let them know someone is watching them and you don't have to wait until they do something you are opposed to. Feel free to actually involve yourself in the political process and stand with your reps when they make a politically "tough" decision that you agree with. With all this rhetoric floating around its easy to trample science and reason.

What Skeeter said. My wife jokes around with me because we're always getting letters back from our representatives, but she admits that it's a good thing. Not enough people yell at their reps, and so special interests rule the place. That needs to change.

lol i wish my rep had the balls to send me letters... Good Ole Shuster would rather keep his mouth shut than be made a fool of by a 21 year old kid. After i sent him a reply letter for his reply i haven't heard anything.

The problem with the smoking issue is that the government identified the problem and then forced a single solution when in fact they should have simply set a standard just as is done with all other workplace pollutants. Then the bar owners could have the option of meeting those standards. Let's face it, the technology is there to allow someone to have a cigarette five feet away from you and not only would you not experience second hand smoke, you wouldn't even smell it.

There are evacuation systems that can pull all the air down through piping and then through Hepa filters. You could have a smoking room that is at a slightly lower pressure than the adjacent room and all those in the smoking room have to fetch their own drinks from the bar so that employees don't get exposed. You could even have a heated and sheltered environment next door for smokers to go periodically. They may not be able to bring their drinks, but at least they can smoke out of the elements.

If the government said to me as a bar owner that I could not exceed 0ppm of cigarette smoke within a radius of three feet around any individual smoker in my establishment I could accomodate that. I'm not talking hypothetically. I COULD accomodate that. It would be very expensive and I may decide to simply not allow smoking at all in order to comply, but I might also find that I can recover my costs by installing the evacuation system. My choice.

So by imposing a solution the government isn't really trying to address the problem of second hand smoke. They have something else in mind. That brings me to impaired driving. They aren't interested in eliminating impaired driving either. It they were, there would be no such thing as a license for life.

I guarantee you that I can pound back a sixer of my HB and still have better reaction time and judgement than a great many senior citizens, timid drivers, and the stupid. When you give someone a license and then say that they can have it until they are proven to be a hazard you are agreeing to let people impaired by age, mobility and disease drive while in an impaired state. The only way around this is to demand mandatory testing on a regular basis. You should be able to pass a driving test at any time. I'm not saying you should immediately revoke a license because someone can't parallel park, but if after repeated attempts someone can't meet the requirements they should have their license revoked.

It may be expensive at first to conduct these tests, but I think we'd save more in the long run by forcing people to brush up on their skills say every five years or so. Also test reaction time. If you're 90 years old and can barely move you are more of a risk to reaction time accidents than I am with my six pack. So the issue here is avoidable impairment and cost. Not impairment alone.

Both these issues have the same root. They are punishment for what is perceived to be immoral behavior. We could also lump marijuana use in there too. I'm surprised they haven't found some way of crimilizing pre-marital sex.

Now just to clarify, I'm not in favor of drunk driving, I'm just opposed to the 0.08. If you're loaded, you shouldn't be on the road. That's agreed. But after one or two beers I'm no more impaired than the 16 year old with her first car.

Why does everyone think that some superbeing named "Government" decided upon this? It was voted on be people who were elected to represent the opinions of the people in their area.

We voted. We wanted smoking out. Now the smokers lost and they're crying about libertarianism and their rights.

There were two options. The smokers didn't put together a convincing enough argument and they lost. Sorry, but you lost. You had equal opportunity to win this battle but you gave us nothing other than your feeling of entitlement.

But gracious losers. Look into quitting! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Learn to drink without smoking. It is possible you know. I smoked for 14 years and have learned that it's SOOO much better without smoke.

Or try again. Put the fight back on the ballet. See if you can't organize and flip the law. No laws are written in stone, so why don't you work on making a better solution that everyone agrees upon?

Right now, those who vote voted for no smoking.

Move On.

In an ideal world, free market pressures would have created some bars where smoking is OK and others where it is smoke free. Anyone who ever went to a bar prior to the smoking bans knows that never happened. If you wanted to go out and have a drink you just had to accept the fact that you were going to come home smelling like a stale cigarette.

Also in an ideal world, you could just run your business however you wanted, but I think anyone trying to get a bar up an running will agree that it would not be economically feasible to turn away smokers without the universal ban.

Non-smoking sections are a joke. "...like sitting in a hot tub with several coffee drinking 4 year olds and saying you're in the non-pissing section." On the same account, I think it is overly dismissive to say that if you don't like working in smoke, get a job somewhere else.

What non-smokers need is a weapon that puts them on equal footing. I've long fantasized about inventing a Binaca like product that
1. contained an antioxidant that protected you from absorbing free radicals via airborne pollution
2. contained a highly addictive substance, to make sure people kept coming back for more
3. contained a substance that combined with cigarette tar to create a powerful burning sensation.

Now, visualize someone walking into a bar in the late 80's and puffing up an unending cloud with that. Sure, all the smokers would say "bravo chap, carry on with your personal habit there" Unfortunately, the FDA would shut down my R&D in about a millisecond (Damn nanny-state)

Finally, I think my most controversial stance is that I support government efforts to reduce smoking in the world. I do value personal freedom, I think a bar owner should be able to run his business how he pleases, but I also think that smoking is causing a lot of side affects other than the health of the one smoking. There is a huge additional healthcare burden as a result of it. There is the second hand smoke aspect of it. There's also the rarely mentioned fire aspect...and all the propaganda based techniques in the world just can't possibly compete with the one-two punch of Cigarette advertising and the heroine like addictive qualities of nicotine. I think that, without the regrettable ban, smoking would continue to hurt our society. I am far from righteous about it and am aware that there are sacrifices either way, but am nonetheless slightly on the government intervention side of the fence.

The thing is, the battle is not over. It's still happening.

Regardless of the battle, what you are asking for is preferrential treatment for YOU, and to hell with everyone else and equality and fairness for all. All we ask for is fairness and the ability to choose.

Thank you, for adding in to our loss of freedom in this country. I'm sure you support wiretapping of 'suspected smokers' as well. Thank you and your anti-smoking gestapo for jack booting my country and telling me how to live.

Germey said:

On the same account, I think it is overly dismissive to say that if you don't like working in smoke, get a job somewhere else.

Click to expand...

I don't like working in 180 degree heat, so I'm not a carpenter in Arizona. I don't like blood, so I don't work in a hospital.

If you don't like smoke, don't work in a bar that allows smoking. It's called your freedom of choice, not freedom to enact rules so that you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

There are plenty of non-smoking facilities for a bartender, waitress, or bus boy to work at. It's your choice to work in a smoking environment or a non smoking environment. If you choose to work there, you don't get the right to complain about your choice.

Dude said:

One sip of alcohol and I can go to jail and get a fine? Sorry, I just don't see that standing up in court. I'd demand a blood test, and I'd take that evidence in front of a judge in a second.

Click to expand...

Sure lots of these things can be fought in court, but the thing that really scares me is officer discretion. That cop has complete control over whether or not I spend a night in a jailcell and months for court dates regardless of whether a sensible person would think I was doing anything illegal or dangerous to the public.

I narrowly avoided a night in jail over "disobeying a police officer" back in my college days. Keep in mind we were allowed to drink on campus.

After she decided I wasn't worth ticketing or arresting over PI, she told me to go back to my dormroom. Well I went the other direction to a friend's and was suddenly surrounded by four cop cars blasting sirens and lights. After a prolonged discussion about how much I'd had to drink and a flashlight test that I was "under the influence of marijuana" (good try, but no), they finally let me go.

That night scared me. I could have spent a night in jail for essentially nothing. Sure any judge would have thrown it out without looking at it, but there goes my night, my time for court dates, anything I had planned for early the next morning. And a blip on my record for any employer I was interviewing with at the time that cared to look.

Sure, in retrospect, I should have just gone back to my room. But it's scary to think of what that officer could have told me to do that I could have been carted off to Harris County for refusing to do.

On top of that, I was essentially at home. A few beers with friends in a dorm room. And I'm outside my own room, a hundred yards from my bed, just hanging out and talking with friends. ie sitting in my front yard. And I almost got myself a PI.

It scares me that it's a crapshoot whether or not I run into a cop in a bad mood and spend a night in jail for nothing.

Neomich said:

I'm talking about a zero tolerance policy. Permanent suspension of driving priveliges.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a rational or appropirate 'zero tolerance policy'.

Germey said:

In an ideal world, free market pressures would have created some bars where smoking is OK and others where it is smoke free.

Click to expand...

False.

Madison Wi and surrounding areas started to breed non smoking 'resturants' including at least one that was a glorified sports bar that served food. Then the City of Madison passed a law that restrict smoking in resturants unless they made more than 50% of their money from booze. By the next week all the non-smoking resturants that were 'on the bubble' allowed smoking to take up the slack from those resturants that were no longer allowed. At least 2 failing resturants just outside city limits saw a resurgence (and it could ONLY be because of smoking-- bad food, bad service but they had smoking...)


I'd rather see them encourage behavior, rather than require it. Ir instance: pass laws that more heavily taxed smoking resturants and bars. They CAN have smoking--- but they get taxed more heavily than non-smoking places. This seems more reasonable to me as it simply is acceleration of market forces that are already occurring.

I guess I am just one of the wierd smokers that is glad for the ban also. I like to taste my food, smell my beers and not smell like an ashtray at the end of the night. I also do NOT smoke in my house. If it is freezing or raining, I will go into the garage and open the door. Do I wish that I had the option to smoke in the bar/establishment...sure, am I happier having to walk outside than reek of stale smoke, absolutely. I hate to admit it but Cheese is correct here. We voted these people into office, if they voted based on the majority in favor of banning smoking, that is their duty. If we want smoking back....vote in smoker friendly legislators. That is over simplified, but true. But as it stands, it is rarely more than a slight inconvienence to step outside to smoke. Most all bars here in Dallas have an outdoor section for smokers. It is still "illegal" to smoke there, but they give you the choice of dealing with the fire marshall if you so choose.

jezter6 said:

I don't like working in 180 degree heat, so I'm not a carpenter in Arizona. I don't like blood, so I don't work in a hospital.

If you don't like smoke, don't work in a bar that allows smoking. It's called your freedom of choice, not freedom to enact rules so that you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

There are plenty of non-smoking facilities for a bartender, waitress, or bus boy to work at. It's your choice to work in a smoking environment or a non smoking environment. If you choose to work there, you don't get the right to complain about your choice.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between saying "I don't like such and such aspect of this job" vs. "this job chronically exposes me to something that is bad for my health." As I also said, without the ban, there is no non-smoking bar to work at. So it's put up or shut up.
Equally important, if you you are working in the sun, you create shade and wear sunscreen. Doctors wear gloves and have teams of people keeping things clean.
I actually really liked Fingers' talk of adequate air handling. That would seem a rational response.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I am willing to bet that if something were to become known about some aspect of it that was giving you cancer, you wouldn't callously say "oh well, I'll go do something else". We end up in the jobs we do for a variety of reasons, but it is not usually very easy to pick up and do something else.

jezter6 said:

Thank you, for adding in to our loss of freedom in this country. I'm sure you support wiretapping of 'suspected smokers' as well. Thank you and your anti-smoking gestapo for jack booting my country and telling me how to live.

Click to expand...

tell you what - next time the FDA determines that a medication is harmful, toxic, and hazardous, you go ahead and keep taking it. In fact, make your children take it as well.

If your poison wasn't disbursed into the air, no one would care. But why not chew tobacco?

Why do you NEED to smoke?

Germey said:

We end up in the jobs we do for a variety of reasons, but it is not usually very easy to pick up and do something else.

Click to expand...

It's also not that hard to quit smoking.

kornkob said:

False.

Madison Wi and surrounding areas started to breed non smoking 'resturants' including at least one that was a glorified sports bar that served food. Then the City of Madison passed a law that restrict smoking in resturants unless they made more than 50% of their money from booze. By the next week all the non-smoking resturants that were 'on the bubble' allowed smoking to take up the slack from those resturants that were no longer allowed. At least 2 failing resturants just outside city limits saw a resurgence (and it could ONLY be because of smoking-- bad food, bad service but they had smoking...)

Click to expand...

That's a very interesting case study. I'd like to read more about it. All I know is my own experience of going to bars then and now.

Jeremy

Cheesefood said:

Why does everyone think that some superbeing named "Government" decided upon this? It was voted on be people who were elected to represent the opinions of the people in their area.

We voted. We wanted smoking out. Now the smokers lost and they're crying about libertarianism and their rights.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm no smoker. I hate smoke, hate it with a passion...my mom used to smoke, and it disgusts me. But just because the majority voted on something doesn't make it right, Cheese. If the majority voted that you couldn't brew beer anymore, would you just shrug your shoulders, burn your brewing equipment, and say, "hey, they voted, they wanted homebrewing out, so who am I to question the will of the majority?" I certainly wouldn't.

The point I was trying to make is not that smoking is somehow special. I was trying, instead, to make the point that the public shouldn't be able to vote on what goes on on someone else's property in the first place unless its effects are externalized. I don't agree that just because you open your doors to the public, your property should suddenly be under the control of 50.1% of the people.

The rest of your post, well, I'm not gonna touch it, because I've got no innate love for smokers or smoking. All I'll say is, this country is supposed to be a constitutional republic; in other words, we should have safeguards in place so that the will of 50.1% of the people isn't forced upon everyone. That's why this whole "majority vote referendum" trend disturbs me. Where do we draw the line on what the public gets to vote on? If 50.1% of the public voted that we all had to wear bonnets on our heads every tuesday, would you just comply? In my opinion, not everything is or should be under the purview of the public referendum. There are rights, such as property rights, that should never be voted away by 50.1%, or even 99.9%, of the citizenry. We have this newfangled idea that anything is justified as long as enough people agree to it, and it's scary. This is precisely why we're supposed to be a constitutional republic and not a "democracy". A pure democracy is terrifying. It's the will of the people, absolutely. Can I jerk off tonight? Better put it to a vote!

There's a very good analogy: a democracy is like 2 wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. A constitutional republic is like 2 hungry wolves and a sheep...but the sheep is armed and nobody gets to vote on dinner.

The question here is not whether the smokers "won" or "lost"...it's whether it is morally and ethically acceptable to put it to a vote in the first place. And, as I've explained so many times, putting the internalized, isolated actions of people on private property into the hands of the voting public is not morally justifiable.

Cheesefood said:

Why does everyone think that some superbeing named "Government" decided upon this? It was voted on be people who were elected to represent the opinions of the people in their area.

Click to expand...

Our (your) elected representative should be protecting people's rights, not revoking them. If things were governed by majority vote, women would still be property and blacks would have no rights. Did you vote to allowed wiretaps without warrants in your country? Would you?

By the way, I don't smoke. Well, the occasional cigar but not regularly. I just don't feel the need to lord it over those that do by forcing them to stand outside like second class citizens. Yes, I obviously lean towards libertarianism because I feel very strongly that a person has a right to their own body. No, you don't have a right to smoke in my presence if it affects me negatively, but you have every right to do so if it doesn't affect me at all. The law should reflect that.

Is there a superbeing named Government overseeing us all? Damned right there is. They make the law and they are influenced not only by popular vote but by corporate money and powerful self interest groups. This superbeing does NOT always follow the will of the people. There are numerous examples in both our countries both past and present. I won't get into any of it because I believe you know that as well as I and we can't be turning this into a political discussion.

I'll reiterate my position. If you remove the harm that an activity causes to others, and the only harm that remains is to the informed individual engaging in that activity, no intervention is required or should be initiated. I don't give a damn whether someone likes it if I smoke cigarettes, pot, or floor sweepings. I'm an adult and I should be able to do as I please without someone else restricting me in the interest of 'protecting' me from myself or from some unidentified threat.

Germey said:

There is a big difference between saying "I don't like such and such aspect of this job" vs. "this job chronically exposes me to something that is bad for my health." As I also said, without the ban, there is no non-smoking bar to work at. So it's put up or shut up.
Equally important, if you you are working in the sun, you create shade and wear sunscreen. Doctors wear gloves and have teams of people keeping things clean.
I actually really liked Fingers' talk of adequate air handling. That would seem a rational response.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I am willing to bet that if something were to become known about some aspect of it that was giving you cancer, you wouldn't callously say "oh well, I'll go do something else". We end up in the jobs we do for a variety of reasons, but it is not usually very easy to pick up and do something else.

Click to expand...

I'm in IT. If radiation from monitors causes brain tumors, I would like to think that I would get out of my cube and go do something else. I can't say for sure, because it's not something I have to rationally deal with. However, if I were just starting a career, and it was well known that monitors could kill you, I would have taken up woodworking or something.

The thing is, bartending and waitressing is not that great of a career that it demands the necessity we're putting on it. There will be enough people who don't care about the smoke who will waitress or bartend.

I don't understand why such a career demands that we make special treatment for a minority group of disgruntled wait staff. If you are not willing to work in that environment, find a new job. You are not ENTITLED to a job or a career in this country. You are free to waitress at a number of non-smoking restaurants. I've seen them...they are out there.

Gas vapors can have long term health issues, but nobody is screaming for gas-free mechanic shops. Germs are bad, but nobody is screaming for a disease free doctor's office. I can come up with a dozen jobs where there are long term hazards...but you can't join up for that career if you can't handle it.

Drunkensatyr said:

I guess I am just one of the wierd smokers that is glad for the ban also. I like to taste my food, smell my beers and not smell like an ashtray at the end of the night.

Click to expand...

???

There are tons of things out there that I don't like...but I don't think we should just ban 'em.

Evan! said:

There's a very good analogy: a democracy is like 2 wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. A constitutional republic is like 2 hungry wolves and a sheep...but the sheep is armed and nobody gets to vote on dinner.

The question here is not whether the smokers "won" or "lost"...it's whether it is morally and ethically acceptable to put it to a vote in the first place. And, as I've explained so many times, putting the internalized, isolated actions of people on private property into the hands of the voting public is not morally justifiable.

Click to expand...

While I support your right to not like my smoking, you make lots of sense wise one. It's a rational argument put forth on the message board again. I love it.

The other thing is - I don't get to vote in all elections. I get to vote in MY elections. I voted my 2 senators in who support smoking, but you guys voted in 98 who don't.

Let those 98 make laws in your part of the country and let my 2 make laws in mine.

Cheesefood said:

Right now, those who vote voted for no smoking.

Click to expand...

Not in Virginia, or at least not yet. It's going to hard to pass a smoking ban here.

There are quite a few places that I love to go to, and would do so smoking or no smoking. They are just great places to go. I find that I enjoy them even more now that they are smoke free. Plain and simple.

jezter6 said:

While I support your right to not like my smoking, you make lots of sense wise one. It's a rational argument put forth on the message board again. I love it.

The other thing is - I don't get to vote in all elections. I get to vote in MY elections. I voted my 2 senators in who support smoking, but you guys voted in 98 who don't.

Let those 98 make laws in your part of the country and let my 2 make laws in mine.

Click to expand...

This is one reason I like the concept of states doing their own thing and the feds not being able to do much of anything except provide for the common defense and prevent trade barriers between states. Don't like where you're at because the legislature is opposed to your viewpoint? There are 49 other places to go. If the feds decree something you are opposed to, you're simply SOL unless you want to leave the country.

Cheesefood said:

tell you what - next time the FDA determines that a medication is harmful, toxic, and hazardous, you go ahead and keep taking it. In fact, make your children take it as well.

If your poison wasn't disbursed into the air, no one would care. But why not chew tobacco?

Why do you NEED to smoke?

Click to expand...

In the end, this has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with equality. I could care less if I smoked or not, I do not like the government telling me I cannot engage in a perfectly legal activity based on bull*.

If smoking is SOOOOOOOOO bad, outlaw it right out. Make it illegal and stop production. Until then, it is my right to do it, as much as it is your right NOT to want me to do it near you.

Again, I'm looking for equality. I'm saying that you can have your way too, just don't try and force your way onto ME. It's against the founding fathers of this country and why we bailed out of jolly England in the first place.

jezter6 said:

I can come up with a dozen jobs where there are long term hazards...but you can't join up for that career if you can't handle it.

Click to expand...

And in every single one of those cases, you will find measures being taken to mitigate that risk. Hell, even at the whiff of "monitor radiation" we saw an explosion of those hocus pocus filter thingies. Companies were paying $50 bucks or more for each of those things, and that was without a law.
Without a doubt, some waiters/waitresses do treat their job as something they are doing till they find something better. But that is not nearly all of them, and boy does it make a difference in the service you get.
Make sure you inform your next server of their disgruntled, whiner, underclass status.

jezter6 said:

I can come up with a dozen jobs where there are long term hazards...but you can't join up for that career if you can't handle it.

Click to expand...

I'm a correctional officer. I am exposed on a daily basis to AIDS, MRSA, Hepatitis C, and a host of other diseases- not to mention the ever present danger associated with being alone in a room with 100 convicted rapists, murderers, and child molesters.

If I ever decide that I am no longer willing to accept the risks I take with my safety and health due to my career choice, I will quit. I always have that option.

What I do NOT expect to happen, however, is for the government to pass a "no inmates in prisons" law to protect my or my co-workers health.

The simple fact is, every job has is drawbacks. You know them when you put in the application, and have the opportunity to decide at that time if the job s worth the drawbacks.

Anybody that tries to claim that they "didn't know" that they would be continually exposed to cigarette smoke as a bartender is either a liar or too stupid for me to care about.

Whiskey® said:

I'm not blowing my own horn, I just want you to ask your self, what have you done to change things?

Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I spend at least one full day a session at the VA General Assembly and email my Delegate on his stance on various bills, who tends to respond to me personally. Granted, I ran against him in 2005

Now I just have to wait and see what the election results are on Tuesday for this three-way local county race I'm in...

Drunkensatyr said:

There are quite a few places that I love to go to, and would do so smoking or no smoking. They are just great places to go. I find that I enjoy them even more now that they are smoke free. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Oh, same here. There are plenty of places that I go where I wish they wouldn't allow smoking. But here's the rub: did you ever, at any point, do anything about it prior to the ban? Did you talk to the owner? Did you petition the establishment? Did you gather a group of regular customers to peaceably boycott the place until they restricted or prohibited smoking?

What gets me is when people complain and complain, but never do anything about it except say 'they should ban this'. Then they get the government thugs to do it for them. I just wish that more people would choose a different route than the brute force of the government and the restriction of other people's property rights as a means to affect change. Rather than a protector of your rights (what the government is supposed to be), people see it as a tool to force everyone else to make their lives better.

I'm not singling you out or even pointing in your direction, DS...you're a reasonably, nice dude...and I doubt that you even did anything to help make the ban happen...I'm just addressing the attitude that government is a way to force others to do what you want.

Germey said:

And in every single one of those cases, you will find measures being taken to mitigate that risk. Hell, even at the whiff of "monitor radiation" we saw an explosion of those hocus pocus filter thingies. Companies were paying $50 bucks or more for each of those things, and that was without a law.
Without a doubt, some waiters/waitresses do treat their job as something they are doing till they find something better. But that is not nearly all of them, and boy does it make a difference in the service you get.
Make sure you inform your next server of their disgruntled, whiner, underclass status.

Click to expand...

That's fine. Levy those measures upon bar owners. Make quality smoke eating devices mandatory. It mitigates the risk.

If my server cries because I'm smoking in a smoking allowed restaurant, I will GLADLY inform them of their status. However, not all wait staff are like that, and I am aware of it. I am calling out those who are unable to choose anything else but to fight the wrong battle.

Again, there are PLENTY of non-smoking places to work at. Employment is not a right in this country. You are not guaranteed employment, you volunteer for it.

I can't agree with the guys who say that you should just choose not to work in an environment that has smokey air. ALL work environments should be as safe as possible. It speaks to that not hurting others thing I was mentioning. In some cases the only jobs available to people might be ones like these. They shouldn't have to waive their right to clean air so they can eat.

Docapi, as a prison guard I'm sure your employer goes to extraordinary ends to try and keep you as safe as possible while you do your job. I agree that it's probably not possible or reasonable to protect you 100% from all hazards, but in a smokey bar the hazard is clearly present too so the employee can and should be protected. I believe it can be done 100%.

Buford said:

This is one reason I like the concept of states doing their own thing and the feds not being able to do much of anything except provide for the common defense and prevent trade barriers between states. Don't like where you're at because the legislature is opposed to your viewpoint? There are 49 other places to go. If the feds decree something you are opposed to, you're simply SOL unless you want to leave the country.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that even knows what Federalism is, much less works to support it. And you know how much of a chance he has of winning.

Evan! said:

"hey, they voted, they wanted homebrewing out, so who am I to question the will of the majority?" I certainly wouldn't.

Click to expand...

I smoke things that are illegal. I do them in my home. While many people are not opposed to them, I know that if I did it in a bar people would tell me to put it out. If I did it in a park, people would ask me not to.

Do you think your libertarian rights should protect mothers by allowing them to take thalidimide?

What about lead paint? Isn't it my decision whether or not I want my house painted with lead, or my kid's toys to have lead paint? I'm not even allowed to buy those any longer!

Also, I really miss companies having the right to bury PCB in neighborhoods. I know that I don't live in one of those neighborhoods where the children were getting sick and people were dying. Those were poor people, and they should move to a better house. Isn't it great that we live in a county where people have lousy, low paying jobs because they want them? And where people live in small houses in polluted areas because it's their choice?

I have a good job and live in a rich neighborhood, so why should I care whether or not a company is burying something toxic in your area?

Because I do care.

Yes, bars are losing business, but people are quitting smoking in record numbers. Bars will rebound soon. Tobacco companies are learning that people don't want a product that stinks and pollutes the air. I'm sure they're working on a more neighborly smoke.

My tax dollars have to pay your mother's medicare bills because she has cancer from smoking. It's your mom: you pay her damned bills. Cancer care costs can exceed one million per patient. You pay that and get her off Medicare.

But no, my taxes are paying for your mom and your poor cousin who can't afford insurance. They're paying for your poor nephew's asthma medication. Your grandpa's respirator.

All of you who think smoking doesn't cause health problems, come work where I do! Go to the oncology department of a hospital and see how many patients smell smoky. Believe it or not, their caregivers are standing outside smoking while the patient is getting an irrigation tube inserted in their stomach do they can eat a meal and allow it to go through the tube and into a bag instead of being thrown up.

Go see how many people there are your age and have their kids with them.

I'm telling you this from first hand experience. I hear, see, and experience cancer patients every day and a lot of them are smokers. These aren't 95 year olds, these are 30 year olds and 40 year olds.

Tobacco smoke kills people. It's a toxic poison cloud that causes a slow agonizing and expensive death. It's not like a heart attack where you're going to have 30 minutes of active death. It's a terrible disease that eats your organs, puts your family through hell and causes you to drain your savings in hopes of seeing one more of your kids birthday parties.

That's why I'm against it. I get paid by your type, but it amazes me to see how loyal people are to a product that's destroying them, causing their hair and teeth to fall out and forcing them to have surgery and radiation beams blasted into their chest.