Smoking banned INSIDE pubs and clubs.

[oilyriser]

Quote:

---

Well. making cigarettes illegal is the next logical step. Anyone want to venture a guess as to where that will lead?

My guess is that a whole new brand of "drug" trafficker will emerge. One who pays little to no tax and becomes extremely wealthy while draining millions of tax dollars in society's attempt to rein him/her into the justice system.

---

I suspect the existing drug traffickers will simply add tobacco to their list of available products. When shopping for cigarettes, you'll be able to choose between regular cigarettes or a long list of other smokeable/injectable drugs.

I'd prefer that smoking, meaning the emission of smoke, be banned. If you can invent a way to smoke a cigarette without letting any smoke escape, then go for it.

 

[hillclimber]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Tempest, in my world view, someone smoking at the next table in a resteraunt is violating MY rights to enjoy my meal, and he shouldn't be allowed to do so. (Unless the smoke can be contained purely to his table, of course).

Quote:

---

All of those My's and Me's. Let's go over this one more time:

1. You don't own the resteraunt.
2. You are a guest there.
3. Since you are a guest at SOMEONE ELSE'S establishment,
you play by THEIR rules.
4. If they say "No Smoking" (which I prefer) that is their
decision to make.
5. The owner is the king of his castle. He chooses what
happens under his roof.
6. If you don't like what is going on under the roof,
choose to visit another "castle".

It never ceases to amaze me how some people thing they have a ***-given right to dictate what happens on other people's property.

---

You are not a guest in a restaurant, you are a customer. Big difference. Some servers, alas, cannot tell the difference.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Tempest, in my world view, someone smoking at the next table in a resteraunt is violating MY rights to enjoy my meal, and he shouldn't be allowed to do so. (Unless the smoke can be contained purely to his table, of course).

Quote:

---

All of those My's and Me's. Let's go over this one more time:

1. You don't own the resteraunt.
2. You are a guest there.
3. Since you are a guest at SOMEONE ELSE'S establishment,
you play by THEIR rules.
4. If they say "No Smoking" (which I prefer) that is their
decision to make.
5. The owner is the king of his castle. He chooses what
happens under his roof.
6. If you don't like what is going on under the roof,
choose to visit another "castle".

It never ceases to amaze me how some people thing they have a ***-given right to dictate what happens on other people's property.

---

You are not a guest in a restaurant, you are a customer. Big difference. Some servers, alas, cannot tell the difference.

---

What if the issue was topless servers? I don't think that the term "customer" negates your sense of sensible patronage just because you're paying to be served. Suppose the place was "unclean" ..had sticky floors and sticky tables ..the guy mopped up with heavy chemicals while you were eating? Still interested in going there?

There are all kinds of unhealthy environments out there that you won't take your family to ..even if they're smoke free. Mental and emotional hygiene is also on your list of appropriate establishments to enter with your wife and kids ..or just yourself. You're selective in those circumstances ..why do you single out smoking as your "sin eater"?


You have a choice to not use places that allow smoking. Let the market dictate the need or lack of need for smoke free environments. If smoking establishments lose enough business due to the allowance ..then the market will set the rules. Employees have this same choice. If there are enough smoke free environments for customers, there should be ample smoke free environments for servers/workers. If smoking establishments can't find enough willing workers ..then they will have to pay more to get them to serve/work in the environment. If no one will work in a smoking allowed environment ..they'll go out of business. I don't know of too many steel mills or chemical plants that went out of business due to lack of available employees. I would think that everyone here would agree that those employees made a choice to work in those environments (there are many others where the occupational risk is fairly high). If only scummy, dirty, raunchy environments allow smoking ..then those who smoke, but don't want to be a customer there, will have to endure being in the company of those who don't smoke at smoke free establishments. Sounds simple enough to me

Now although I respect the property owners rights to regulate activity I find it somewhat comical where smoking bans are in open air. One could cite the cigarette butts and whatnot ..but it basically comes down to making someone do something "for their own good" when there's no impact on others ..and to no ultimate productive purpose. Again, I respect the owners right to engage in such zero gain and "induced behavior" imposing attitude. As was said, their house, their rules.

Why does this appear to be a one way street to some??

Again, I think smoking is an unhealthy habit.

 

[MarkC]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There's also nothing quite like oral cancer.

---

People do more harm to their bodys with the junk they eat and how much of it they eat than I do by putting Skoal in my mouth.

---

Really? I don't.
And nothing I put into my body has a warning label that says anything like:
* WARNING: This product may cause mouth cancer.
* WARNING: This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss.
* WARNING: This product is not a safe alternative to smoking.

But, by dipping you don't force anybody else to breathe smoke, and it's your body. Just don't spit at me, please.

 

[wileyE]

Smokings been banned in WA state diners and pubs for quite a few years now. Being a non-smoker that was never bothered by smoke I never really gave it much thought. Smokers are a big minority around here so there wasn't much impact. And I figure humans are basically self destructive and if it's not smoke inhalation they shorten there lives some other way. Wouldn't have bothered me if the law never passed.

BUT, I took a vacation to Myrtle Beach SC last year right in the heart of tobacco country. Everyone smoked everywhere, every restaurant stunk, and our clothes stunk every night. I'm no wimp with my nose up in the air, but let me tell ya, if you haven't been around it for years you sure notice it in a bad way. Now I'm glad the law is in place here in WA.

 

[K-Man]

I'm all for a ban on smoking inside restaurants and bars for much the same reason as I'm in favor of enforcing health and sanitation regulations. The people who have posted here saying that restaurant employees should simply have to deal with the smoke or quit would not be so quick to say that customers or employees should be willing to risk, say, hepatitis exposure from another employee. The free market is wonderful to a point, but problems arise when a business owner is permitted the opportunity to injure or kill for a few bucks' profit: too many will. Like it or not, smoke and fume exposure is broadly regulated by occupational rules, and any firefighter will tell you that smoke inhalation kills far more people following building fires than do burn injuries. Low-grade smoke inhalation can't be healthy.

And we know it's not. Studies and medical findings linking smoking tobacco to cancer and death go back 90 years to the World War I era. A major study by Johns Hopkins on the issue dates back 70 years, well before World War II. In short, not only is there no reason to continue to put up with cigarette smoke, there really is no reason to continue to keep tobacco legal.

I speak as someone who grew up in a household with three smokers: both parents plus my grandmother. I had constant colds and ear and sinus infections through high school. I should note that I had an abusive father who deliberately burned me with those wonderful cigs more than once. When I was finally out of that environment, the symptoms went away and did not recur until I started work in corrections and had to work in inmate dorms that allowed smoking. (Because of my chronic childhood exposure, it was only as an adult that I realized just how badly the smoke makes clothing, cars, and buildings reek.) When the prison prohibited indoor smoking, once again the illnesses eased. Tell me that secondhand smoke isn't a problem. Oh, by the way, I have chronic low-grade respiratory problems from the childhood exposure. What would a restaurant worker exposed to 20 or more burning cigarettes at once go through?

Smoking is wonderful. NOT. That's why as I take care of my mother, who has mild dementia from multiple ministrokes, I worry every day that she'll burn down the house with this great habit. But she's addicted and it's hard to stop her smoking. Another woman with dementia burned up a hospital room in Petersburg some years ago, killing herself and some others, by lighting up in an oxygen tent. That's the unexpected bonus from tobacco: not only might you kill yourself and sicken others, you might also burn down a building. And the feds estimate that one out of seven forest and brush fires are started by discarded cigarette butts. Tell us again how much you enjoy nicotine. As another bonus, smokers typically leave matches and lighters around for children to play with. Nonsmokers typically don't have such around, so their kids don't typically start fires. Smokers start their share of fires in commercial operations as well.

Look, tobacco use should have been prohibited decades ago. Any other product that caused as much death and misery to users and nonusers alike would have been. The only reason it has not is that the lobby kept the US Food and Drug Administration from being able to regulate it. Now the writing is on the wall for some regulation and it's about time. In the meantime, I'm tired of addicts fussing about not being able to freebase nicotine whenever and wherever they want it. I have no more sympathy for them than I would a crack or meth head. It's the same thing, only legal—for now. This will change.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Any other product that caused as much death and misery to users and nonusers alike would have been.

---

Well, let's not stop there. Alcohol surely has cause death and misery to users and their families alike. It's destroyed far more lives than tobacco in secondary effects to others besides the user.

I think red wine should be the only thing allowed for the medicinal effects ..and should be only dispensed by prescription ..sound all right? My alcoholic uncle made me drink when I was 4 years old. I have no desire to prevent people from drinking the stuff. I've drank in the past and enjoyed it. I just don't "need" to do it.

Now if you've got personal issues with smoking ...fine. By all means avoid such environments and feel free to experience a visceral response to the notion of entering such place. I think if we all managed to get all our personal pet peeves addressed into law ..it would be a very VERY authoritarian environment with very few liberties.

I'm a former smoker and I'm glad I quit. I will not, however, jump on any band wagon to restrict anyone's liberty. As I said, the risks of smoking are well known ...just like the steel mill or the chemical plant. Occupational standards are way more liberal than you allow the general public to endure ..or would you be willing for you and your family to be exposed to 5 rads a year as long as the dosage didn't exceed 400 mrms/month? That's an occupational standard too. How about the TWA exposure rates to toxins and other would be nasties?

"Somebody should do something about that!!"

Where do you draw the line on personal crusades?

Like I said ...

Snake Plissken: Got a smoke?
Malloy: The United States is a non-smoking nation! No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!
Snake Plissken: Land of the free.

 

[oilyriser]

Universal smoking could have cured the pension funding problem.

 

[K-Man]

Gary, to compare tobacco to alcohol is to some extent apples and oranges. The hard figures that have appeared for years give (various estimates) 400,000-450,000 US deaths per year from tobacco and 100,000-150,000 deaths per year from alcohol. Tobacco wins the disease and carnage contest hands down—three times as many.

But there's another huge difference. The problem with alcohol stems from its misuse and abuse: underage consumption, excessive drinking, long-term overconsumption, driving or operating hazardous equipment while intoxicated. Anyone who has had dealings with true alcoholics—those who are actually chemically dependent on the stuff—will tell you that it takes work to become one.

The problem with tobacco stems from simply its use. Simple use causes addiction and long-term health issues, and unlike moderate alcohol consumption, there are absolutely no health benefits to smoking cigs. Quite the contrary, as most rational people well know—but most addicts are pretty irrational about justifying the monkey on their backs. A number of inmates told me that they had used cocaine and heroin on the street, but by far the hardest drug for them to kick was tobacco—and most were still smoking cigarettes in prison. Others who quit years before told me they still had strong nicotine cravings.

The person who has an occasional drink or two in moderation is the majority of alcohol users. There is no equivalent for cigarette smokers, because as little as five cigarettes a day crosses the addiction theshold. Also, the casual imbiber isn't generally affecting those around him. If the guy at the next table has a beer with his meal, I probably don't even know it. Cigarette smoke does affect others, hence the reason for restaurant and pub smoking bans.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, I'll have to point out the secondary and other effects. The 500,000 are direct loses while I really think if you're honest you'll admit that the extended effects of alcohol, even if not measured in "deaths" is substantially higher than that half million mark.

...and I'd also point out that you're painting the one redeeming value to alcohol and only its innocuous use as justification for its existence.

There are all kinds of self destructive behaviors that are legal/lawful. Many of them have cascading effects ..but are ignored. Yet smoking is the poster child of the crusader as a frustration sink of the society.

(my supposition) I imagine that you would oppose the allowance of separate rooms with airlock doors for smokers. I imagine that you would oppose the signing of wavers by employees who accepted the risk to serve those in the sealed/airlocked rooms. Let's go so far to say that you would oppose it even if they proved that no emissions left these rooms and that the servers didn't have to be exposed to the second hand smoke due to the use of serving "airlocks" just configured for such instances.

Am I correct? If so, then you're someone who desires to save people from themselves against their will ..when they are doing no harm to those who don't wish to engage in the activity. Suppose I say that racing is too dangerous ..or sky diving. That I've determined that there is no redeeming value to the thrills that you get from it ..when weighed by the risks involved? Me, and people who share my views, being the judge of what is appropriate behavior for YOU.

500k people will die (probably) die of starvation on this planet in a years time (I didn't bother to google) ..doesn't a whale need your attention more than willful smokers?

..but, if you're willing, we can just agree to disagree

..again, I'm a former smoker....they're typically the worst crusaders. I just respect one's right to make that decision for themselves ..for better or worse.

 

[Shannow]

Quote:

---

(my supposition) I imagine that you would oppose the allowance of separate rooms with airlock doors for smokers. I imagine that you would oppose the signing of wavers by employees who accepted the risk to serve those in the sealed/airlocked rooms. Let's go so far to say that you would oppose it even if they proved that no emissions left these rooms and that the servers didn't have to be exposed to the second hand smoke due to the use of serving "airlocks" just configured for such instances.

---

Gary,
that was my preferred option altogether, but the clubs wouldn't ante up for the infrastructure.

 

[Gary Allan]

It's not even an option for establishments when a ban is written into law.

 

[Tempest]

The law here allows for food and smoking as long as the two are physically separated. So you can smoke in the bar as long as the food area is walled off. No need for air locks or space suites

though, a simple door is enough.

As far as a noisy/disruptive neighbor goes, that is different from a restaurant. A customer is on the restaurant owner's property as someone has said prior. A disruptive neighbor is compromising your living standard on your property.

 

[K-Man]

Gary said: "(my supposition) I imagine that you would oppose the allowance of separate rooms with airlock doors for smokers. I imagine that you would oppose the signing of wavers by employees who accepted the risk to serve those in the sealed/airlocked rooms. Let's go so far to say that you would oppose it even if they proved that no emissions left these rooms and that the servers didn't have to be exposed to the second hand smoke due to the use of serving "airlocks" just configured for such instances."

Actually, I wouldn't object to those, or to smokers-only clubs. That assumes the owners would be responsible enough to live up to the separation and not coerce employees into signing the waivers. With what I've seen for a lot of business owners, those are two big assumptions. As Shannow said, "[T]he clubs wouldn't ante up for the infrastructure." The owners don't even want to pay their servers a living wage, as they have a specific exemption from the minimum wage laws, yet we're going to rely on them to have their employees' best interests in mind when it comes to secondhand smoke exposure? Ever heard the saying, "Ford [or GM, etc.] will kill you for a quarter" (to save 25 cents per car)? Ditto many times over for a lot of business owners.

Alcohol is in the same category as motor vehicles, broadly speaking: minimum ages, strict laws against misuse, etc. We already have stringent laws against public drinking and intoxication, driving under the influence, etc., and DWI just became a lot more expensive in Virginia. Drunk drivers who cause injury cannot escape court judgements through filing bankruptcy any more. Ask David Hasselhoff what happens when your teen daughter videotapes you falling-down drunk at home (answer: child protective services, loss of visitation, etc.). And that's all generally appropriate and good. Cars can be recklessly misused to kill and maim too, but by definition they aren't designed or intended to do so, nor does their wise use typically lead to problems. Misuse of motor vehicles has huge costs for society, but most of us accept the tradeoffs. Few outside of the nuttier greenies want to ban personal motor vehicles. The analysis is the same for responsible users of alcohol, which is most of them.

However, the cost-benefit analysis falls completely flat for tobacco use, especially smoking cigarettes. There it's all cost and no discernible benefit. Since the tobacco companies and the public have long known that the product by definition causes harm, there is no such thing as a "responsible" smoker. Remember the company memo that surfaced saying to think of a cigarette as a unit dose of nicotine? Yet unlike the Hasselhoff situation, CPS is notably absent from tobacco smoke-filled homes with children. I would also note that, at least around here, the people most likely to smoke are those who can afford it the least and those who are least likely to have health insurance to cover smoking-related illnesses. Guess who foots their medical bills when the problems hit. Answer: the rest of us.

Some posts here mention smoking bans in dwellings. Courts around the US have ruled that there is no constitutional right to smoke, even in one's dwelling, and the habit is not covered under a fundamental right to privacy. Back in 1990 the New York state supreme court even went so far as to say, "There is no more a fundamental right to smoke cigarettes than there is to shoot up or snort heroin or cocaine or run a red light." A California website advises landlords there not to allow smoking in rental units because of the potential for health-related suits from nonsmoking renters over smoke from other units (a specific example cited is SIDS or crib death, which has been linked to secondhand smoke). Where would that leave businesses that allow smoking? The writing is on the wall.

In the larger picture, I must equate smoking bans in bars and restaurants to following food and occupational safety laws, as my original post here said. The business owner has no choice but to follow the latter, and you would not care to patronize knowingly a restaurant that did not. If given a choice, many owners would gladly serve old or tainted food, allow an employee with hepatitis or open sores to handle food, etc., to save a few bucks. Smoking prohibitions are simply an extension of the health and safety principle.

 

[rpn453]

They banned smoking in restaurants and bars here a few years ago. I didn't agree with the government controlling private property that way, but I really, really liked being able to go out to without feeling like I needed to shower and wash my clothes the moment I stepped out of a bar/restaurant.

If I could vote on the issue, I would vote to allow owners to run their business however they choose to. I would also avoid places that allowed indoor smoking and would never even consider working at one.

 

[oilyriser]

The slaves must be kept healthy, or they will not be profitable. People were joking when they said the next ban will be hamburgers and red meat. Now we have... New York bans trans fats in food

 

[Gary Allan]

How can we not consider that we're viewed as pets ..or "the herd"? Our leadership surely views themselves as benevolent shepherds. This is just the smiley face side of the Romanian secret police kicking down your door every couple of weeks to make sure that you're not doing anything wrong.

Don't you feel the love?

 

[Texas Aggie]

Quote:

---

Alcohol is in the same category as motor vehicles, broadly speaking: minimum ages, strict laws against misuse, etc. We already have stringent laws against public drinking and intoxication, driving under the influence, etc., and DWI just became a lot more expensive in Virginia. Drunk drivers who cause injury cannot escape court judgements through filing bankruptcy any more. Ask David Hasselhoff what happens when your teen daughter videotapes you falling-down drunk at home (answer: child protective services, loss of visitation, etc.). And that's all generally appropriate and good. Cars can be recklessly misused to kill and maim too, but by definition they aren't designed or intended to do so, nor does their wise use typically lead to problems. Misuse of motor vehicles has huge costs for society, but most of us accept the tradeoffs. Few outside of the nuttier greenies want to ban personal motor vehicles. The analysis is the same for responsible users of alcohol, which is most of them.

However, the cost-benefit analysis falls completely flat for tobacco use, especially smoking cigarettes. There it's all cost and no discernible benefit. Since the tobacco companies and the public have long known that the product by definition causes harm, there is no such thing as a "responsible" smoker. Remember the company memo that surfaced saying to think of a cigarette as a unit dose of nicotine? Yet unlike the Hasselhoff situation, CPS is notably absent from tobacco smoke-filled homes with children. I would also note that, at least around here, the people most likely to smoke are those who can afford it the least and those who are least likely to have health insurance to cover smoking-related illnesses. Guess who foots their medical bills when the problems hit. Answer: the rest of us.

---

There is no health benefit to alcohol, just as there is no benefit to smoking. Yes, the death rate due to smoking may be higher, but alcohol has a huge social impact as well. There is also a difference between the dangers of second-hand smoke that a person is exposed to in a bar or restaurant, and the dangers of someone who constantly smoke. The risks are far lower for the waiter or patron in that establishment, the studies bear it out.

Also, the death statistics due to alcohol are hugely weighted towards innocent individuals, or young people who made very bad decisions. Those same people that pay for the consequences of smoking pay for the consequences of drunk drivers and overuse in general.

Quote:

---

Some posts here mention smoking bans in dwellings. Courts around the US have ruled that there is no constitutional right to smoke, even in one's dwelling, and the habit is not covered under a fundamental right to privacy. Back in 1990 the New York state supreme court even went so far as to say, "There is no more a fundamental right to smoke cigarettes than there is to shoot up or snort heroin or cocaine or run a red light." A California website advises landlords there not to allow smoking in rental units because of the potential for health-related suits from nonsmoking renters over smoke from other units (a specific example cited is SIDS or crib death, which has been linked to secondhand smoke). Where would that leave businesses that allow smoking? The writing is on the wall.

---

I find it strange that a court would find that there is a constitutional right to privacy when it comes to abortions, yet you've got no right to smoke in your own home. The two just aren't congruent.

Quote:

---

In the larger picture, I must equate smoking bans in bars and restaurants to following food and occupational safety laws, as my original post here said. The business owner has no choice but to follow the latter, and you would not care to patronize knowingly a restaurant that did not. If given a choice, many owners would gladly serve old or tainted food, allow an employee with hepatitis or open sores to handle food, etc., to save a few bucks. Smoking prohibitions are simply an extension of the health and safety principle.

---

You make some good arguments, but if we're to have a free society, we're going to have to deal with some things we don't like. I don't like smoking, but I believe in the freedom to smoke. I don't like some people's viewpoints, but believe in their right to hold them and share them. As someone mentioned earlier, trans fats are now being banned. We've got to fight for our rights, or we'll lose them all. We're becoming a nanny state, I don't even want to think about we'll turn into next.

 

[sprintman]

You want to fight for trans fats?

 

[hillclimber]

At the risk of heading down another path, I would think that a trans-fat ban will only result in changing the oils used to cook foods, not a ban on any actual foods (or what passes for food nowadays). Basically, if I'm not mistaken, it means goodbye to partially hydrogenated oil. And good riddance. It won't be missed.