Smoking Rights

[SunDancer]

A recent quote in the good charity thread got me interested to hear what your thoughts over smoking rights are.

[mckerney]

Before I start, I should say that I am someone who does not smoke, and does not use any sort of drugs. I don't really like cigarette smoke and think the habit is kind of disgusting. That being said, if someone wants to smoke, let them smoke.

I believe any smoking ban laws are total bullshit. Why prevent a bar/restraunt/bowling alley that wants to let their customers smoke from doing so? If you don't like it, too bad, you can take your business somewhere that doesn't allow it. Just more goverment getting into places where they do not belong. Hell, people pay enough taxes on cigarettes, why prevent them from doing it in a business that wishes to allow them.

Also, I believe that 'smoking rights' are too restrictive as to what you can and cannot smoke.

Edit: Also, I don't know how many of you have to put up with this as well, though can we get rid of these annoying Target Market and TRUTH kids? What a waste of money by the goverment.

[SunDancer]

Originally posted by mckerney
Before I start, I should say that I am someone who does not smoke, and does not use any sort of drugs. That being said, if someone wants to smoke, let them smoke.

I believe any smoking ban laws are total bullshit. Why prevent a bar/restraunt/bowling alley that wants to let their customers smoke from doing so? If you don't like it, too bad, you can take your business somewhere that doesn't allow it. Just more goverment getting into places where they do not belong. Hell, people pay enough taxes on cigarettes, why prevent them from doing it in a business that wishes to allow them.

Also, I believe that 'smoking rights' are too restrictive as to what you can and cannot smoke.

I agree. I do believe that the system of a non-smoking and smoking sections should be the norm, and accomdates everyone's needs.

[EagleFan]

I disagree. Smoking should be banned inside of public buildings. For one, it's a fire hazard. In my time working in the casinos I can't count the number of times some idiot threw his butt into the trash can instead of the ash tray causing a fire.

Another reason is that you are subjecting the employees to an unhealthy work environment. That whole 'they can go work elsewhere' arguement is BS, expecially in a tough job market.

Ban it in every public building and you level the playing field.
It's not a well thought out arguement to say go someplace that doesn't allow smoking. If a choice has to be made, it would be crazy to be the one company that bans smoking since you are eliminating many potential customers right off the top and not just smokers. Therefore not allowing that choice of going someplace that doesn't allow smoking.

Smoking is a habit that affects everyone around you. So it's all about common courtesy. Smoking and non smoking, that is a joke most places. Just how does that smoke know not to drift two tables over.

In fact, I think it's time to raise that tobacco tax a little more. Keep the taxing until you wipe out the debt or finish off the tobacco companies. No other company sells a product who's only affect on people is to ruin their health.

[bbor]

i'm an ex-smoker...I don't really care if anyone else smokes or not...it is a personal choice.If it bothers me i can leave or suck it up.

[sabotai]

"It's not a well thought out arguement to say go someplace that doesn't allow smoking. If a choice has to be made, it would be crazy to be the one company that bans smoking since you are eliminating many potential customers right off the top and not just smokers. Therefore not allowing that choice of going someplace that doesn't allow smoking."

Not true. There are plenty of resturant and other eatery type businesses that do perfectly fine not allowing smoking. Bertucci's, at least the ones I have been at, only allow smoking in the bar area. The dining area is all non smoking. And the place is always busy.

(And the bar is more than "two tables" away).

"Smoking is a habit that affects everyone around you."

There is absolutly no evidence to show that causal exposure to cigarette smoke effects your health in any way.

"Smoking and non smoking, that is a joke most places. Just how does that smoke know not to drift two tables over."

In every single resturant or diner I have been in, the smoking and non smoking sections have been well divided. I have never been to a place where the smoking and non smoking sections were close enough for the smoke to "drift" over.

(And yes, I have sat in the nonsmoking section plenty of times and never have I ever smelled someone's smoke from it.)

"No other company sells a product who's only affect on people is to ruin their health."

*cough*bullshit*cough ... someone must be smoking in here.

[daedalus]

I always thought it should've been you have a choice of either making it smoke or non-smoking since that allows the place to choose how they want their establishment to be.

I never thought about it from the perspective of fire hazard before. I also have never looked at it from the un-level playing field argument you mentioned before either, EagleFan. Good points.

As for smoking/non-smoking section, that's an incredibly stupid concept. As EagleFan said, the smoke isn't going to sit there and say, "oops, I can't go over past this line".

Being in CS, I have a lot of classmates who are smokers. Between lectures and labs (our lectures and labs are scheduled back-to-back), these folks would go outside and try to get their puffs in to load up for the next damn suffering hour. Invariably, one of these folks would come sit next to me in the damn lab. And then I would get to try to program for the next hour with a tough time breathing. Joy.

Now I get to have neighbors at my apartment who smoke outside their rooms . . . in front of my apartment (or just about 10 feet over). So now, I get to not be able to breath when I go to my living room or go outside to get my laundry. Joy.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by sabotai
There is absolutly no evidence to show that causal exposure to cigarette smoke effects your health in any way.

A quick run at Google brings up a decent amount of hits.

In every single resturant or diner I have been in, the smoking and non smoking sections have been well divided. I have never been to a place where the smoking and non smoking sections were close enough for the smoke to "drift" over.

If someone doesn't care about or effected by cigarette smoke anyway, then, no, sitting in the non smoking section won't bother you any. For someone like myself who have a tough time breathing around cigarette smoke, then, yes, it does.

[sabotai]

daedalus, notice how I said CASUAL exposure to second hand smoke won't do anything to you. In all studies showing second hand effects, they were all done on people who have lived with smokers (iow, not just casual exposure).

Of course living with someone who smokes is probably going to cause some problems.

"If someone doesn't care about or effected by cigarette smoke anyway, then, no, sitting in the non smoking section won't bother you any. For someone like myself who have a tough time breathing around cigarette smoke, then, yes, it does."

Yep. I've been smoking my whole life. There has never been a time when second hand smoke has not bothered me...

(note: Second hand smoke still bothers me, even after years of smoking. I can't explain it, I just hate second hand smoke. So yes, it still does bother me.)

[pjstp20]

Originally posted by EagleFan
No other company sells a product who's only affect on people is to ruin their health.

It's funny to see how socially unacceptable smoking has become in the past few years, and how so many people overlook drinking alcohol. Sure, have a couple drinks at the resteraunt/bar and risk other peoples lives by driving home, but don't even think about making me have to smell or inhale your disgusting smoke.

I agree that smoking should be kept outdoors, but to tax it anymore is unfair, and anyone who supports that is just being vindictive. If it's banned in all indoor establishments I don't see the need to tax something out of existance because it's not affecting you. No more indoor smoking=good, villification of smokers=bad.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by sabotai
daedalus, notice how I said CASUAL exposure to second hand smoke won't do anything to you. In all studies showing second hand effects, they were all done on people who have lived with smokers (iow, not just casual exposure).

Slamming my toes with a hammer is painful. Only occasionally slamming my toes with a hammer will certainly be less harmful to my (toes') health than constantly. It will, however, still be harmful (not to mention incredibly painful, but that's another story).

Yep. I've been smoking my whole life. There has never been a time when second hand smoke has not bothered me...

shrug, I'm neither kin nor friend with you so I have no idea whether or not cigarette smoke bothers you. If you would have said that it doesn't bother you, I would believe it because I've known folks who are that way. Folks that I've known who *are* bothered by cigarette smoke have all been bothered by cigarette smokes in places with smoking/no smoking sections.

[Honolulu_Blue]

What is this nonsense?

Second Hand smoke is dangerous. Read the links.

The reason why smoking is banned in all restaraunts/bars/hotels, etc. in certain places like, California and New York, is based on the argument that everyone is entitled to a smoke free work environment. This includes waiters, bartenders, etc. Smoking/non-smoking sections don't address this problem.

Smoking directly harms those around you. The argument could be made that alochol does too, but it takes an additional step (i.e., getting so drunk you wanna fight, driving while drunk). Have a few steady ales at a pub wont hurt anyone sitting around. Same can't be said for cigarette smoke.

The sh*t is just plain nasty. Makes your clothes reek. Makes everyone around you clothes reek. It's bad for you. It's bad for anyone around. Why the hell should you have the right to sit inside a public building and poison the rest of us? It's bullsh*t.

The taxes should be higher. I am not sure where the taxes are going, but they should. Smoking is a drain in society. Not only does it increase fire hazards, it increases health risks and therefore health costs. So it does effect all of us.

You should be able to smoke outside (smoke dissapates faster), smoke in your car, smoke in your home. But inside public venues (even if privately owned), nah. I am all for these smoking ban laws. Just a crying shame I am stuck in Europe at the moment where everyone smokes everywhere all of the time. Smoke free sections, if they exist, are usually the four tables stuck way in the back corner of a smoke-filled room.

[pjstp20]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
The taxes should be higher. I am not sure where the taxes are going, but they should. Smoking is a drain in society. Not only does it increase fire hazards, it increases health risks and therefore health costs. So it does effect all of us.

Okay since you opened this Pandora's Box, why stop at cigarettes? Increase taxes on alcohol, junk food, and cars. All these things are jacking up health costs as much as cigarettes.

[Abe Sargent]

The sheer lack of logic that some people are using on this thread to support a smoking ban on all indoor non-residence buildings boggles my mind.

Take, for example, a Cigar bar. A place where a person can relax, smoke and buy fine cigars, have fine alcohol, and unwind. Why should this establishment be illegal when the activites of both smoking and drinking are legal?

If its my bar, why can't I allow my customers to take a legal act? It's my property.

So, we have one argument that says that second hand smoke hurts people, some people cant breathe well in smoke, and so forth. Then go to another bar. I hate Thai food. So you'll never find me in a Thai restaurant then. Doesn't mean we shoudl ban Thai food from public restaurants.

Nor does it mean that we should tax the hell out of it either.

A variety of researchers have found that a public state-funded lottery causes more financial strain on our public welfare system than does smoking. Maybe we should tax lottery tickets into non-existance. Or Crisco. Or alcohol. I guarantee you that more rapes are committed each year because of alcohol then of all the rapes committed by tobacco in the entire history of humanity.

So we have another argument that workers can't and shouldn't be expected to work in a hazardous environment like a Cigar bar.

First of all, some people might want to work there, but you've apparently discounted that. Secondly, if you don't want to work in a Ciagr bar, then don't apply to work there. I think we would all find it stupid if I applied to work at a porn store and then claimed that they should stop selling porn after I am hired because I could prove psychological damge due to exposure to porn and adult materials.

If I have a problem selling porn, then I don't apply to work at a porn store. Same with smoking. There is no ethicial difference. No one forces people to have a particular job in our country, They can find gainful employment elsewhere.

So you refute me by saying that this is a tough job market, and why should a worker have to choose between working with tobacco smoke and not having any job?

To which I respond that lots of people have jobs that they don't like. Coal miners, janitors, fast food workers, and so forth. I am probably exposed to more hazardous chemicals working as a janitor with all of those industrial strength cleaners that require me to wear plastic gloves then I would be working the till at a bar that allows smoking.

I don't know why some people in our society have such a hard-on for getting rid of smoking. I fear that we are headed to a second prohibition, however, and that we'll have many of the same issues that the alcoholic prohibition caused 80 years ago.

And since it seems to matter, no I am not a smoker. Therefore my opinions are not influenced by my own desire to light up a stick of Tobacco on a regular basis.

-Anxiety

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Anxiety
Take, for example, a Cigar bar. A place where a person can relax, smoke and buy fine cigars, have fine alcohol, and unwind. Why should this establishment be illegal when the activites of both smoking and drinking are legal?

It shouldn't be. It's a CIGAR bar, a place you go to buy and/or smoke cigar. The previous discussions were about restaurant - the place where people go to eat - or about a casino - the place where people go to gamble.

So, we have one argument that says that second hand smoke hurts people, some people cant breathe well in smoke, and so forth. Then go to another bar. I hate Thai food. So you'll never find me in a Thai restaurant then. Doesn't mean we shoudl ban Thai food from public restaurants.

No disrespect meant to you but I've heard this argument before and it's one of the most incredibly asstastic, assinine and idiotic argument I've ever heard. You eating Thai food doesn't effect me one bit. You smoking near me causes me to have difficulty breathing and gives me a nice possibility for cancer. Please, get a real argument that doesn't sound stupid.

Nor does it mean that we should tax the hell out of it either.

I agree with this one. I don't know what the current tax is but I've heard it's pretty high. Seems like the wrong way to handle things.

First of all, some people might want to work there, but you've apparently discounted that. Secondly, if you don't want to work in a Ciagr bar, then don't apply to work there. I think we would all find it stupid if I applied to work at a porn store and then claimed that they should stop selling porn after I am hired because I could prove psychological damge due to exposure to porn and adult materials.

Actually, YOU brought up Cigar Bar. The previous arguments were made with regards to restaurants and casinos. Those people did not apply to sell cigars nor inhale smoke. They either applied to serve food or dealt cards. There's a significant difference. If I was hired on to have my toes slammed by a hammer everyday, then it's my business. If I was hired on to sharpen No 2 pencils and you decide to slam my toes with a hammer everyday, then it's a different issue. And I'd be rather pissed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Anxiety
The sheer lack of logic that some people are using on this thread to support a smoking ban on all indoor non-residence buildings boggles my mind.

Take, for example, a Cigar bar. A place where a person can relax, smoke and buy fine cigars, have fine alcohol, and unwind. Why should this establishment be illegal when the activites of both smoking and drinking are legal?

If its my bar, why can't I allow my customers to take a legal act? It's my property.

So, we have one argument that says that second hand smoke hurts people, some people cant breathe well in smoke, and so forth. Then go to another bar. I hate Thai food. So you'll never find me in a Thai restaurant then. Doesn't mean we shoudl ban Thai food from public restaurants.

Nor does it mean that we should tax the hell out of it either.

A variety of researchers have found that a public state-funded lottery causes more financial strain on our public welfare system than does smoking. Maybe we should tax lottery tickets into non-existance. Or Crisco. Or alcohol. I guarantee you that more rapes are committed each year because of alcohol then of all the rapes committed by tobacco in the entire history of humanity.

So we have another argument that workers can't and shouldn't be expected to work in a hazardous environment like a Cigar bar.

First of all, some people might want to work there, but you've apparently discounted that. Secondly, if you don't want to work in a Ciagr bar, then don't apply to work there. I think we would all find it stupid if I applied to work at a porn store and then claimed that they should stop selling porn after I am hired because I could prove psychological damge due to exposure to porn and adult materials.

If I have a problem selling porn, then I don't apply to work at a porn store. Same with smoking. There is no ethicial difference. No one forces people to have a particular job in our country, They can find gainful employment elsewhere.

So you refute me by saying that this is a tough job market, and why should a worker have to choose between working with tobacco smoke and not having any job?

To which I respond that lots of people have jobs that they don't like. Coal miners, janitors, fast food workers, and so forth. I am probably exposed to more hazardous chemicals working as a janitor with all of those industrial strength cleaners that require me to wear plastic gloves then I would be working the till at a bar that allows smoking.

I don't know why some people in our society have such a hard-on for getting rid of smoking. I fear that we are headed to a second prohibition, however, and that we'll have many of the same issues that the alcoholic prohibition caused 80 years ago.

And since it seems to matter, no I am not a smoker. Therefore my opinions are not influenced by my own desire to light up a stick of Tobacco on a regular basis.

-Anxiety

I don't think there's anything wrong with a specially designated "Cigar Bar." I think these places still exist in New York. No problem with them. If you want to open an establishment specifically for smoking cigars, so be it.

I don't think it's a leap in logic to say that if publicly elected officals vote to ban smoking in all indoor non-residence buildings because it harms everyone else around the smoker, than it's ok. Where is the leap in logic there?

Want to smoke inside a bar? Vote in elected officials who will support you or move.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Anxiety
The sheer lack of logic that some people are using on this thread to support a smoking ban on all indoor non-residence buildings boggles my mind.

Take, for example, a Cigar bar. A place where a person can relax, smoke and buy fine cigars, have fine alcohol, and unwind. Why should this establishment be illegal when the activites of both smoking and drinking are legal?

If its my bar, why can't I allow my customers to take a legal act? It's my property.

So, we have one argument that says that second hand smoke hurts people, some people cant breathe well in smoke, and so forth. Then go to another bar. I hate Thai food. So you'll never find me in a Thai restaurant then. Doesn't mean we shoudl ban Thai food from public restaurants.

Nor does it mean that we should tax the hell out of it either.

A variety of researchers have found that a public state-funded lottery causes more financial strain on our public welfare system than does smoking. Maybe we should tax lottery tickets into non-existance. Or Crisco. Or alcohol. I guarantee you that more rapes are committed each year because of alcohol then of all the rapes committed by tobacco in the entire history of humanity.

So we have another argument that workers can't and shouldn't be expected to work in a hazardous environment like a Cigar bar.

First of all, some people might want to work there, but you've apparently discounted that. Secondly, if you don't want to work in a Ciagr bar, then don't apply to work there. I think we would all find it stupid if I applied to work at a porn store and then claimed that they should stop selling porn after I am hired because I could prove psychological damge due to exposure to porn and adult materials.

If I have a problem selling porn, then I don't apply to work at a porn store. Same with smoking. There is no ethicial difference. No one forces people to have a particular job in our country, They can find gainful employment elsewhere.

So you refute me by saying that this is a tough job market, and why should a worker have to choose between working with tobacco smoke and not having any job?

To which I respond that lots of people have jobs that they don't like. Coal miners, janitors, fast food workers, and so forth. I am probably exposed to more hazardous chemicals working as a janitor with all of those industrial strength cleaners that require me to wear plastic gloves then I would be working the till at a bar that allows smoking.

I don't know why some people in our society have such a hard-on for getting rid of smoking. I fear that we are headed to a second prohibition, however, and that we'll have many of the same issues that the alcoholic prohibition caused 80 years ago.

And since it seems to matter, no I am not a smoker. Therefore my opinions are not influenced by my own desire to light up a stick of Tobacco on a regular basis.

-Anxiety

Sorry. Still early yet. Another good thing about the tax is that it discorages kids from smoking. If ciagarettes cost $7.50 a pack then the likelihood that some 14-17 year old will really start smoking is much, much less than if they are $3.00 a pack. This is a good thing. Most people I know who smoke started smoking in their teens. You start then, when you're young, stupid, high on your own sense of immortality, then you get addicted, it becomes a habit, etc. I know very few people who start smoking in their 20's. They just know better by then.

[Chief Rum]

Sorry to pick on you, Anxiety, but you speak of a lack of logic, and then completely abandon it in the rest of your post.

Before I get into this, I want to note that I am a former "social" smoker (I smoked when I drank, and I smoked A LOT when I drank ), but I one day decided to quit. Fortunately, I hadn't smoked long enough (about two or three years) to make it such a habit that I couldn't quit.

I generally don't mind cigarette smoke in non-repeated areas. I don't mind if someone lights up in their or even my car (as long as a window is open), and I don't care if someone smokes on their patio, or in open areas, or even in smoking sections of restaurants and bars (in those areas that allow that split).

But in areas where its presence can effect people over a long period of time, I think it should be banned. Now I'll get into Anxiety's post.

Originally posted by Anxiety
The sheer lack of logic that some people are using on this thread to support a smoking ban on all indoor non-residence buildings boggles my mind.

Take, for example, a Cigar bar. A place where a person can relax, smoke and buy fine cigars, have fine alcohol, and unwind. Why should this establishment be illegal when the activites of both smoking and drinking are legal?

Smoking and drinking alcohol are quasi-legal activities--they are only legal so long as done within certain limitations. You can drink in a bar. You can't drink while driving. You can smoke outside. You can't smoke in a crowded restaurant.

A Cigar bar is obviously an establishment primarily for cigar smokers, and thus would probably have its own regulations under the law. You can't compare a Cigar bar to a regular bar or a restaurant, because it is pretty clear that a Cigar bar is going to be a place one encounters smoke (duh...). Entering such an establishment clearly puts a person in the area of smoke, and basically anyone who chooses to do so should have the right to do so--and anyone who chooses to bitch about it should have known before they came in.

Cigar bars do exist here in California, and to my knowledge there has been no outcry over them from smoking ban supporters because it is obviously not a place the general public goes unless they smoke.

If its my bar, why can't I allow my customers to take a legal act? It's my property.

Yes, you can also clean with bleach. And you can clean with ammonia products. Both are legal products to own and use. But, oops, you mix them and this funny yellow-green gas comes out and kills all your customers with burning searing pain. And you get arrested (for at least criminal negligence). But, wait, those products are legal! No one forced those customers to come into here on my property! What do you mean state law doesn't end at my door?

It's a general tenet of law-making that that which can cause harm to others who don't choose to be so harmed should be limited or eliminated, no matter where it happens. And "harm" is along a scale from real, serious harm right down to simple difficulties and extreme annoyance.

So, we have one argument that says that second hand smoke hurts people, some people cant breathe well in smoke, and so forth. Then go to another bar. I hate Thai food. So you'll never find me in a Thai restaurant then. Doesn't mean we shoudl ban Thai food from public restaurants.

This is the same situation as the Cigar bar. Remove the Cigar; it's just a bar. Remove the Thai food, and it's just a restaurant (or if it doesn't switch to any other cuisine at all, it's an empty building). Smoking is not a service that is inherent and central to the operation of a restaurant or a bar. So your example makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Nor does it mean that we should tax the hell out of it either.

Actually I agree with you here. I understand why the government taxes it so much, as they are seeking another revenue source and seeking to squash an ugly public behavior and long term health hazard as well. But what I don't like about it is that most smokers get to the point where they don't just want a cigarette--they need it. And it seems unfair that they have to pay these exorbitant taxes for something that they essenitally need.

A variety of researchers have found that a public state-funded lottery causes more financial strain on our public welfare system than does smoking. Maybe we should tax lottery tickets into non-existance.

Interesting, I would like to see the causal links for this. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm trying to see how this analogy even works. To my mind, I'm not sure it does. They impact different areas of the welfare system, for instance, and I'm not even sure about the effect buying lotto tickets would have on the welfare system at all. But then, the lottery is a form of gambling, which is another quasi-legal behavior, so it wouldn't surprise me that there are deliterious effects attached to it. In any case, who are these researchers? I would be interesting checking out their work if you would provide the links. Thanks in advance.

Or Crisco. Or alcohol. I guarantee you that more rapes are committed each year because of alcohol then of all the rapes committed by tobacco in the entire history of humanity.

I think part of the problem is that smoking is a more direct hazard to those around the smoker. Obesity, like what comes from the fat in Crisco, is almost completely self-contained (health costs down the road being the only thing I could think of where that would affect other people). Alcohol does cause harm with drunk driving and bad judgement decisions, but my guess is its long term aggregate health care costs are a good deal less than those arising from both obesity and smoking, and once again, outside of the drunk driving, it is mostly a personally-affecting behavior alone.

So I don't know that smoking is analagous to either of these others, at least beyond the point of them all being vices that are pushed too far in our society.

As for your example, that is completely and totally irrelevant. I'm guessing that smoking has killed millions and millions of people more through lung cancer than alcohol has. What does that tell me? Absolutely nothing. Each vice has its own effects and problems that arise from them. Comparing one vice's direct consequences to another vice which has no connection whatsoever to that consequence is so logically inconsistent it can't even be stated more baldly than that.

So we have another argument that workers can't and shouldn't be expected to work in a hazardous environment like a Cigar bar.

Actually the argument is that they shouldn't be expected to work in an environment where they must be subjected to smoke all the time, despite the fact that smoking is not an inherent and central part of the service that employment provides. Fro a Cigar bar, smoking is central to its business, so people have no right to complain about smoke if they work in one. They do, however, have every right to complain about encountering a lot of smoke when they are serving food, which, last I checked, only smokes if you burn it.

First of all, some people might want to work there, but you've apparently discounted that.

Actually, in California, they have not discounted that. They give employers free reign to allow smoking in their establishments, so long as they are indeed the owners and all of the employees agree to allow it. These are called owner-operated establishments, or something like that, and you see a lot of smaller bars with small staffs use this legal loophole to have smoking bars and restaurants. So, the uptake is, at least here in California, if you want to work in a smokey environment, you can. Thus invalidating your whole point there.

Secondly, if you don't want to work in a Ciagr bar, then don't apply to work there. I think we would all find it stupid if I applied to work at a porn store and then claimed that they should stop selling porn after I am hired because I could prove psychological damge due to exposure to porn and adult materials.

Honestly, do you not know the difference between establishments that are there to provide a specific purpose. We give them names to separate them. Restaurants serve food. Bars serve drinks. Cigar bars serve drinks and cigars. Porn stores serve porn, in its various forms. No one is claiming that someone who applies to a porn store or a Cigar bar has the right to complain about what they find there, when it is related tot he specific purpose of that business. It is assumed that if you have a problem with such, you won't work there, because it is clear that you will encounter that there. As far as I know, the law gives no protection to idiots who take on jobs they know will put them in an environment they can't abide by.

But restaurants or simple bars are a different matter. They serve food and drink. Nothing about smoking is central to their raison d'etre. Since these establishments can continue to operate just fine without allowing smoking, it is within employees' rights to complain about the presence of having to work in an unnecessarily harmful working environment.

If I have a problem selling porn, then I don't apply to work at a porn store. Same with smoking. There is no ethicial difference. No one forces people to have a particular job in our country, They can find gainful employment elsewhere.

I'm glad you have such choices in your life, but there are plenty of people in this country who have no such choice. They lack the skills to do anything else, and they lack the money and/or the intelligence to seek education which could train them for a different job. You might be able to be a porn store clerk. Or a bartender in a Cigar bar. Or a nuclear physicist. But these people are waiters and waitresses, busboys and bartenders, FOR LIFE. This is what they do.

So you refute me by saying that this is a tough job market, and why should a worker have to choose between working with tobacco smoke and not having any job?

The tough job market only exacerbates the situation, but the inherent point is that if serving is what you do, and that's what you need to do to make a living, you shouldn't be required to work in a harmful environemnt that is the result of something not central to purpose of the business you work for.

To which I respond that lots of people have jobs that they don't like. Coal miners, janitors, fast food workers, and so forth. I am probably exposed to more hazardous chemicals working as a janitor with all of those industrial strength cleaners that require me to wear plastic gloves then I would be working the till at a bar that allows smoking.

Once again, coal mining, out of necessity, has to be done in dark mines with the possibility of tunnel collapses and amidst heavy coal and soot dust. Janitors have to run into cleaning materials, even potentially harmful to them, because that is central to what they do--they clean. Smoking, I'll state again, is not a central purpose of restaurants or bars.

I don't know why some people in our society have such a hard-on for getting rid of smoking. I fear that we are headed to a second prohibition, however, and that we'll have many of the same issues that the alcoholic prohibition caused 80 years ago.

And since it seems to matter, no I am not a smoker. Therefore my opinions are not influenced by my own desire to light up a stick of Tobacco on a regular basis.

-Anxiety

I think you are getting way ahead of yourself. I don't see a prohibition coming at all. Too many reasons to keep people smoking. Smokers spit out money--to tobacco and related companies, which have loads of workers; to retail shops, which derive much of their business from it; to the government, in the form of taxes; to the health care system, caring for smokers. Smoking is a multi-multi-multi-billion dollar business, unfortuntaely. If you think it's going to be banned any time soon, all I have to say is your paranoid. Or trying to making a point with an illogical hyperbole. The facts of the situation just come nowhere near agreeing with your fear.

I can't wait to meet the Al Capone of cigarette smugglers, BTW. That should be fun.

Chief Rum

[Solecismic]

I'm mostly for allowing businesses to make their own decisions, but the question of workplace safety seems very important. There's little doubt that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke kills an awful lot of people.

I simply don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. Almost 80 percent of Americans don't smoke, and many of us don't view going out to dinner as terribly important because we associate restaurants with smoke.

Would banning smoking open up new markets for restaurant owners? Seems likely. At least there's evidence that's happening in California. But that shouldn't be justification for lawmaking. The sole determinant should be the effects of second-hand smoke - both on employees and patrons.

[sterlingice]

Didn't this start out with public buildings which work a lot differently than a privately owned business?

Not that my two cents at 6:30am after not sleeping mean much, but I'll throw them in anyways. I'm allergic to smoke and pretty bad (sometimes hard to breathe, mostly just excessive sneezing and coughing as my sinuses back up) but if I'm going to a bowling alley or pool hall or restaurant, I don't care. I'm more likely to frequent a non-smoking establishment or one that is well segregated but there's no way I'm in favor of banning smokes altogether. If a person wants to do that to themself, it's their business- just keep it away from me.

Am I within my legal right to take the cigarettes of dolts who stand right outside doors when they are supposed to be 15 feet away?

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Sorry to pick on you, Anxiety, but you speak of a lack of logic, and then completely abandon it in the rest of your post.

Before I get into this, I want to note that I am a former "social" smoker (I smoked when I drank, and I smoked A LOT when I drank ), but I one day decided to quit. Fortunately, I hadn't smoked long enough (about two or three years) to make it such a habit that I couldn't quit.

I generally don't mind cigarette smoke in non-repeated areas. I don't mind if someone lights up in their or even my car (as long as a window is open), and I don't care if someone smokes on their patio, or in open areas, or even in smoking sections of restaurants and bars (in those areas that allow that split).

But in areas where its presence can effect people over a long period of time, I think it should be banned. Now I'll get into Anxiety's post.



Smoking and drinking alcohol are quasi-legal activities--they are only legal so long as done within certain limitations. You can drink in a bar. You can't drink while driving. You can smoke outside. You can't smoke in a crowded restaurant.

A Cigar bar is obviously an establishment primarily for cigar smokers, and thus would probably have its own regulations under the law. You can't compare a Cigar bar to a regular bar or a restaurant, because it is pretty clear that a Cigar bar is going to be a place one encounters smoke (duh...). Entering such an establishment clearly puts a person in the area of smoke, and basically anyone who chooses to do so should have the right to do so--and anyone who chooses to bitch about it should have known before they came in.

Cigar bars do exist here in California, and to my knowledge there has been no outcry over them from smoking ban supporters because it is obviously not a place the general public goes unless they smoke.



Yes, you can also clean with bleach. And you can clean with ammonia products. Both are legal products to own and use. But, oops, you mix them and this funny yellow-green gas comes out and kills all your customers with burning searing pain. And you get arrested (for at least criminal negligence). But, wait, those products are legal! No one forced those customers to come into here on my property! What do you mean state law doesn't end at my door?

It's a general tenet of law-making that that which can cause harm to others who don't choose to be so harmed should be limited or eliminated, no matter where it happens. And "harm" is along a scale from real, serious harm right down to simple difficulties and extreme annoyance.



This is the same situation as the Cigar bar. Remove the Cigar; it's just a bar. Remove the Thai food, and it's just a restaurant (or if it doesn't switch to any other cuisine at all, it's an empty building). Smoking is not a service that is inherent and central to the operation of a restaurant or a bar. So your example makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.



Actually I agree with you here. I understand why the government taxes it so much, as they are seeking another revenue source and seeking to squash an ugly public behavior and long term health hazard as well. But what I don't like about it is that most smokers get to the point where they don't just want a cigarette--they need it. And it seems unfair that they have to pay these exorbitant taxes for something that they essenitally need.



Interesting, I would like to see the causal links for this. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm trying to see how this analogy even works. To my mind, I'm not sure it does. They impact different areas of the welfare system, for instance, and I'm not even sure about the effect buying lotto tickets would have on the welfare system at all. But then, the lottery is a form of gambling, which is another quasi-legal behavior, so it wouldn't surprise me that there are deliterious effects attached to it. In any case, who are these researchers? I would be interesting checking out their work if you would provide the links. Thanks in advance.



I think part of the problem is that smoking is a more direct hazard to those around the smoker. Obesity, like what comes from the fat in Crisco, is almost completely self-contained (health costs down the road being the only thing I could think of where that would affect other people). Alcohol does cause harm with drunk driving and bad judgement decisions, but my guess is its long term aggregate health care costs are a good deal less than those arising from both obesity and smoking, and once again, outside of the drunk driving, it is mostly a personally-affecting behavior alone.

So I don't know that smoking is analagous to either of these others, at least beyond the point of them all being vices that are pushed too far in our society.

As for your example, that is completely and totally irrelevant. I'm guessing that smoking has killed millions and millions of people more through lung cancer than alcohol has. What does that tell me? Absolutely nothing. Each vice has its own effects and problems that arise from them. Comparing one vice's direct consequences to another vice which has no connection whatsoever to that consequence is so logically inconsistent it can't even be stated more baldly than that.



Actually the argument is that they shouldn't be expected to work in an environment where they must be subjected to smoke all the time, despite the fact that smoking is not an inherent and central part of the service that employment provides. Fro a Cigar bar, smoking is central to its business, so people have no right to complain about smoke if they work in one. They do, however, have every right to complain about encountering a lot of smoke when they are serving food, which, last I checked, only smokes if you burn it.



Actually, in California, they have not discounted that. They give employers free reign to allow smoking in their establishments, so long as they are indeed the owners and all of the employees agree to allow it. These are called owner-operated establishments, or something like that, and you see a lot of smaller bars with small staffs use this legal loophole to have smoking bars and restaurants. So, the uptake is, at least here in California, if you want to work in a smokey environment, you can. Thus invalidating your whole point there.



Honestly, do you not know the difference between establishments that are there to provide a specific purpose. We give them names to separate them. Restaurants serve food. Bars serve drinks. Cigar bars serve drinks and cigars. Porn stores serve porn, in its various forms. No one is claiming that someone who applies to a porn store or a Cigar bar has the right to complain about what they find there, when it is related tot he specific purpose of that business. It is assumed that if you have a problem with such, you won't work there, because it is clear that you will encounter that there. As far as I know, the law gives no protection to idiots who take on jobs they know will put them in an environment they can't abide by.

But restaurants or simple bars are a different matter. They serve food and drink. Nothing about smoking is central to their raison d'etre. Since these establishments can continue to operate just fine without allowing smoking, it is within employees' rights to complain about the presence of having to work in an unnecessarily harmful working environment.



I'm glad you have such choices in your life, but there are plenty of people in this country who have no such choice. They lack the skills to do anything else, and they lack the money and/or the intelligence to seek education which could train them for a different job. You might be able to be a porn store clerk. Or a bartender in a Cigar bar. Or a nuclear physicist. But these people are waiters and waitresses, busboys and bartenders, FOR LIFE. This is what they do.



The tough job market only exacerbates the situation, but the inherent point is that if serving is what you do, and that's what you need to do to make a living, you shouldn't be required to work in a harmful environemnt that is the result of something not central to purpose of the business you work for.



Once again, coal mining, out of necessity, has to be done in dark mines with the possibility of tunnel collapses and amidst heavy coal and soot dust. Janitors have to run into cleaning materials, even potentially harmful to them, because that is central to what they do--they clean. Smoking, I'll state again, is not a central purpose of restaurants or bars.



I think you are getting way ahead of yourself. I don't see a prohibition coming at all. Too many reasons to keep people smoking. Smokers spit out money--to tobacco and related companies, which have loads of workers; to retail shops, which derive much of their business from it; to the government, in the form of taxes; to the health care system, caring for smokers. Smoking is a multi-multi-multi-billion dollar business, unfortuntaely. If you think it's going to be banned any time soon, all I have to say is your paranoid. Or trying to making a point with an illogical hyperbole. The facts of the situation just come nowhere near agreeing with your fear.

I can't wait to meet the Al Capone of cigarette smugglers, BTW. That should be fun.

Chief Rum

I've always wanted a post this long, but since I'm too damned lazy, I figured that I would just ride Chief's coat-tails to my dream.

[Tekneek]

I think smoking is something that should be reserved for when you are with other consenting adults (ie, children should not be forced to be exposed to it, no matter where they are or who owns the property). I am not saying that government should be policing all of it. I am saying that respectful and responsible human beings should agree that smoke is not something any non-consenting person should be exposed to, and if you have to put an age on when kids can consent it should be 18 (before that, do they really have any choice at all? When they are 18 they can move out on their own).

Cigarette smoke is not there by default. Some human has to put it there, so it does not get the default rights. The default should be non-smoking, and then smoking only allowed as long as only adults are present and all of them consent.

I feel the same about cigars, pipes, marijuana, and on down the line. As long as you are only with adults and they all consent, do whatever you want.

As far as government forcing businesses to be non-smoking. I think it should be the choice of the business. If everyone there is an adult, and they all consent to the smoking, the government should not be worried about it. They should be trying to round up Al-Qaeda instead.

I know I will not go somewhere that does not have a non-smoking area that actually keeps you away from the smoke. I point it out to management as well. Any restaurants we go to that are entirely non-smoking are ones where we make a point of telling management how much we like that policy and hope they keep it forever.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Solecismic
I simply don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. Almost 80 percent of Americans don't smoke, and many of us don't view going out to dinner as terribly important because we associate restaurants with smoke.

Come on over to Keene - no smoking in any restaurants here (restaurants can have a "bar" area where smoking is allowed, but this area has to be in a seperate, closed off room).

It's one of the best laws I never knew I'd like. I had NO idea how much 2nd-hand smoke I was inhaling at dinner until this law was enacted and we started eating meals smoke-free. Simply amazing.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Tekneek
I think smoking is something that should be reserved for when you are with other consenting adults (ie, children should not be forced to be exposed to it, no matter where they are or who owns the property). I am not saying that government should be policing all of it. I am saying that respectful and responsible human beings should agree that smoke is not something any non-consenting person should be exposed to, and if you have to put an age on when kids can consent it should be 18 (before that, do they really have any choice at all? When they are 18 they can move out on their own).

Cigarette smoke is not there by default. Some human has to put it there, so it does not get the default rights. The default should be non-smoking, and then smoking only allowed as long as only adults are present and all of them consent.

I feel the same about cigars, pipes, marijuana, and on down the line. As long as you are only with adults and they all consent, do whatever you want.

The same thing could be said of alcohol. For those with children, how many "birthday parties" have you attended where the adults served beer? Admittedly, children won't become intoxicated merely by watching the adults drink, but then they are learning a behavior- that drinking alcohol is acceptable even at a child's bday party...

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Solecismic
I'm mostly for allowing businesses to make their own decisions, but the question of workplace safety seems very important. There's little doubt that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke kills an awful lot of people.

I simply don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. Almost 80 percent of Americans don't smoke, and many of us don't view going out to dinner as terribly important because we associate restaurants with smoke.

Would banning smoking open up new markets for restaurant owners? Seems likely. At least there's evidence that's happening in California. But that shouldn't be justification for lawmaking. The sole determinant should be the effects of second-hand smoke - both on employees and patrons.

But unless working at or patronizing a business is compulsory, a universal smoking ban is a dangerous precedent. What's next, banning restaurants from serving fatty food?

We as society must be assidious in our protection of human rights. As we bestow more and more authority on the gov't to control our morality, you may find that we have fewer and fewer rights. First it's smoking, fatty foods, pornography; next it's speech, religion, and the right to bear fire arms. One can easily imagine our society evolving into a moral dictatorship. One in which you may only do that which is sanctioned by the moral majority.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Solecismic
I'm mostly for allowing businesses to make their own decisions, but the question of workplace safety seems very important. There's little doubt that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke kills an awful lot of people.

I simply don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. Almost 80 percent of Americans don't smoke, and many of us don't view going out to dinner as terribly important because we associate restaurants with smoke.

Would banning smoking open up new markets for restaurant owners? Seems likely. At least there's evidence that's happening in California. But that shouldn't be justification for lawmaking. The sole determinant should be the effects of second-hand smoke - both on employees and patrons.

My wife and I had breakfast this morning at an IHOP near us. Smoking was banned in restaurants in our county a few months ago. She was remarking on the HUGE HUGE difference it makes to her on whether she eats at certain restaurants or not. She didn't like to go to IHOP prior to the new law, but now she LOVES it. Just one anecdote...

[Alan T]

I am allergic to cigarette smoke. When I am in a room with smoke in my area, it causes me to have problems coughing, sneezing, and irritable eyes. I am thankful for laws that do ban smoking in public areas and fully support them. They make it possible for me to actually go out and enjoy myself without getting sick.

I do not know of much else in my experience from going out that other people do that has been as harmful to me. I don't really drink, but could care less if others do since their drinking does not harm me. If they drink and drive, I do back drinking and driving laws to try to prevent people from doing that since it is harmful to me.

I guess I don't see why I should be harmed for other people's pleasures, or they should be harmed for mine.

To be fair, I have been in plenty of resturaunts that did a fine job in setting up smoking sections that did not affect me in a non-smoking section. I have been in just as many who did a lousy job where the smoke would seep all through the non-smoking section, making it pointless.

I can understand smokers not enjoying their pleasures being limited in where they can do it, but do hope that they can see both sides to the issue. My biggest pleasures are playing ball, mountain biking, reading, watching movies. If it was found that my doing any of these things caused harm to others, then likewise some regulation probably should be made for that.

I don't think the government should be in the business of preventing people from harming themselves (making smoking illegal, drinking illegal, etc..) but when it can harm others (drinking and driving, smoking in public places, etc) then it is a different story in my eyes.


Just my viewpoint as someone who is effected positively by the anti-smoking laws. Not saying that my viewpoint means more or less than anyone else's, but I strongly believe in what I wrote

[Tekneek]

There is an IHOP in Lawrenceville that is completely non-smoking by choice, at least that is what they say. It's very nice, and is the only one we go to these days.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally posted by wbonnell
But unless working at or patronizing a business is compulsory, a universal smoking ban is a dangerous precedent. What's next, banning restaurants from serving fatty food?

We as society must be assidious in our protection of human rights. As we bestow more and more authority on the gov't to control our morality, you may find that we have fewer and fewer rights. First it's smoking, fatty foods, pornography; next it's speech, religion, and the right to bear fire arms. One can easily imagine our society evolving into a moral dictatorship. One in which you may only do that which is sanctioned by the moral majority.

Let's not forget that non-smokers have rights as well.

[B & B]

THE world's leading health organizationhas withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.


"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."

[Tekneek]

My opinion on smoking has nothing to do with any health risks. It has to do with the fact that I believe that every human being has the right to not have to breathe your cigarette smoke. From that point, every child has the right to not be forced to breathe cigarette smoke. Beyond that, you should have the right to smoke with other consenting adults. There ya go.

[Silver Owl]

Originally posted by Tekneek
My opinion on smoking has nothing to do with any health risks. It has to do with the fact that I believe that every human being has the right to not have to breathe your cigarette smoke. From that point, every child has the right to not be forced to breathe cigarette smoke. Beyond that, you should have the right to smoke with other consenting adults. There ya go.

I couldn't agree more. Maybe if someone held a bag of dog shit under these smokers noses everywhere they went they may possibly figure out that its not the fact that they are smoking but the fact that they are forcing me to breath second hand smoke.

[sabotai]

"I couldn't agree more. Maybe if someone held a bag of dog shit under these smokers noses everywhere they went they may possibly figure out that its not the fact that they are smoking but the fact that they are forcing me to breath second hand smoke."

Or worse yet, fat ugly women who wear way too much perfume! Oh wait...that already happens...

*sigh*...and I was really going to try to quit smoking. Now all you whiney, commie non smokers have made me stay on the habit for at least another 6 months, possibly more.

I need them. Why? Because if I didn't have them, instead of secand hand smoke coming your way, there'd be second hand bullets flying your way. (Bill Hicks owns)

But seriously, I do everything I possibly can to keep my second hand smoke away from other people. As I said before, second hand smoke still bothers me, so I rarely smoke indoors, except at a resturant (I don't go to bars. Not my thing). I always stand pretty far from the door going in and out of a place.

At college, I sat on the bench and always blew my smoke away from the doors. When someone would walk by, I woudl either not take a drag or if I just had, held it in until they walk passed.

As I said before, at least every single place I have been, the smoking and non smoking sections have been well seperated. Not my "two tables", but by either a large distance or a wall. And even then, the smoking sections had good ventalation.

I'm not saying that being in a non smoking resturant doesn't make the food tastes better to you. But you should at least consider the possibility that the food hasn't changed, but your perseption of what the food is supposed to tastes like. Just offering up possible alternatives.

I do everything I can to keep my smoke away from other people. I can't say the same for other's with BO or an overdoes of perfume. When I have been smoking (which is not every day), I keep my distance from people so they don't have to smell my clothes.

I know there are insensative smokers out there, but I don't blame them. Some of you non smokers can be complete assholes. I do everything I can and you people still bitch at me. It's no wonder I still smoke. It's the only way to help my blood pressure you non smokers start spouting off your lies and misinformation.

[condors]

the world is a changing

there was a time when an ashtray was "built into" my desk, then smoking was only allowed after 5pm, now i have to go outside and around the side of the building.

I am a smoker and nothing is more annoying than some jackass sitting in the smoking section telling me to put out my smoke cause it bothers him.

If i went up to every person who was wearing a stupid looking shirt and told him to go home and change because it annoys me should he listen?

I don't have a problem if smokers can only go to certain places to smoke but if i am in a place i am allowed to smoke don't give me grief, tell the owner to make the place smoke free

[EagleFan]

I can name plenty of places that I have been to that the only thing between the sections is either an aisle between the takes or a divider that is only about 3 feet tall with a few plants on top.

Living in a condo I can also tell you when the people in the condo behind me are smoking.

Casinos have 'non smoking' sections around here and they are merely a couple tables on the coasino floor that say no-smoking. Not sure how the smoke from the other 90% of the room knows how to stay away from those tables.

I've been to sporting events that are completely ruined because of someone smoking right near us and my allergies kick in. Thankfully that has been getting addressed more and more. But I guess smokers don't feel that non smokers have the right to not be bombarded by the smoke.

I'm not saying all smokers. I have a friend who is very good with that. He doesn't smoke at all when he eats and will only smoke away from people. He understands the issue, unlike many who don't seem to give a damn about the rest of the people around them. Unfortunately that is a problem with society in general, the lack of common courtesy.

Again I will say... No other company makes a product who's only affect on the people that use it is to ruin their health.

Don't even try talking about drinking and driving. Driving under the influence is the cause of that problem and not the alcohol. Just having a drink does not hurt your health and has been proven to actually help. Eating too much and drinking too much hurt your health, duh, but it is the the act of going over the limit that hurts you, not using it reasonably.

I never laughed so much when I saw the attempt to compare working somewhere that allows smoking to working at a porn shop. What kind of logic is that? So what you're saying is that non-smiokers should have to chose from working at a place that can harm their health or possibly not being able to support their family. How does that compare to not wanting to work somewhere because you are against the porn industry. When did a health concern turn into a morality question?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by condors
the world is a changing

I used in the meat room of a supermarket - the "vets" there could remember a time when the tables in there would all have cigarette burns in them from the cutters putting down their smokes while working.

[sabotai]

"I can name plenty of places that I have been to that the only thing between the sections is either an aisle between the takes or a divider that is only about 3 feet tall with a few plants on top."

That's pretty strange, being as I have been all over New Jersey. I've been to countless places all over the state. And yes, I've even been to Mays Landing.

Again I will say...never have been to a place where the smoking and nonsmoking sections were not well sperated.

So only 3 things are possible. 1) You don't get out much and have not been able to only go to places where I have not been. 2) You're exagerating. 3) You're lying.

I'll assume the 1st for now...

"Again I will say... No other company makes a product who's only affect on the people that use it is to ruin their health."

Smoking does a lot for me. So you're just wrong.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by sabotai
Again I will say...never have been to a place where the smoking and nonsmoking sections were not well sperated.

that is simply beyond belief.

[KWhit]

I don't have a problem with restaurants being non-smoking or a law that makes all restaurants non-smoking.

But bars (not just cigar bars) are a different thing altogether. Smoking IS an inherent part of going to a bar for many people. The best way to handle all of this is for the free market to sort it out. If there really is a market out there for smoke-free bars, then a good businessperson will open one and sales will go throught the roof. But most people who go to bars (not bar-and-grills, etc) DO smoke while they drink. It's part of the deal at a bar and shouldn't be outlawed.

Note: I never smoke cigarettes. I'm a casual cigar smoker. I don't even want to go into how I'm treated (even in a smoking friendly establishment).

[EagleFan]

The Applebys's right near hear. Unless they have remodled in the last 6 months. We were seated in the non smoking section. One table over from us was someone puffing away. When I asked about it I was informed "That's where the smoking section starts, all the tables on that side of the aisle".

Any non-chain restaurant that has been around, like most diners, also are the same way. Smokers to the right, non smokers to the left or the other way around).

My favorite is the one down at the circle that has the smoking section near the door. Great, so if you want non-smokling you go past the smokers entering and exiting and have the smoke drifting back to you from the draft coming in through the door.

New restaurants and more expensive ones are much better so I am assuming that you frequent a higher class of restaurants than I do. Some day I'll rach that level.


I have no problem with people smoking, I just don't want to be forced to partake of their habit. If you are a courteous smoker than I will never give it a second thought. Working in casinos for the time that I did, I have nothing but bad pictures of smokers though. Like seeing one lady in a restaurant holding her cigarette in one hand and her fork in the other. It was alternating from taking a bite to taking a puff. I don't understand that one bit. Or there's the psycho guy just sitting there with his coffee and lighting a cigarette smoking it about half way and putting it out in the ash tray, only to repeat several times over. He must have gone through two packs and countring as the ash tray was overflowing with half smoked cigarettes. This was back before the price went up as much as it is now, I can;t imagine how much that habit would cost him now.

[Tekneek]

Hah. The vast majority of places I have been to hardly have the sections separated at all. I can't speak for New Jersey regarding it, but I can speak for Georgia. Especially once you get out of the immediate Metro Atlanta area, they have a very different view of it. If the smoke is a problem (if we smell it at all during our meal) we don't come back, or we request seating further away next time (and if it is still a problem, they've lost our business).

It was like this in the closest town to where we moved into our new house back in 2001. Slowly, most of the restaurants are changing. When they get around to doing renovations, they either go all non-smoking, or they section off the smoking area completely (ie, sealed off with walls and doors that are never propped open). We like this, and give them our business. This type of stuff may be the wave of the future, but it is slow in spreading, and hardly typical of the experience most people are going to have.

I don't have a problem with smokers smoking with adults who consent to it. I have a problem with smokers thinking everyone should put up with it in any situation. You won't have problems with BO from me unless you live with me, and then you can make me take a shower...that's what my wife does. We don't allow smoking on our property. If family visits (and some of them, unfortunately do smoke), they have the choice to not smoke or stand in the street. They choose to not smoke, so I know smokers can go without when sufficiently motivated.

[EagleFan]

dola: That is actually kind of funny KWhit. It's weird how cigarette smokers look down on cigar smokers. I've seen someone light up a cigar while standing in the 'smoking' crowd outside only to have everyone else migrate away from him and giving him nasty looks. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

[KWhit]

Exactly. I understand that cigars put out more smoke, but sometimes there will be 30 people in a small bar and all of them are smoking, but the place won't let me light up a cigar?!

And actually, cigar smoke is not QUITE as bad for you as cigarette smoke (no additives or paper burning, just pure tobacco).

[tucker342]

Originally posted by wbonnell
But unless working at or patronizing a business is compulsory, a universal smoking ban is a dangerous precedent. What's next, banning restaurants from serving fatty food?

We as society must be assidious in our protection of human rights. As we bestow more and more authority on the gov't to control our morality, you may find that we have fewer and fewer rights. First it's smoking, fatty foods, pornography; next it's speech, religion, and the right to bear fire arms. One can easily imagine our society evolving into a moral dictatorship. One in which you may only do that which is sanctioned by the moral majority.

What about my right to not have to smell it? I look at it this way, if someone wants to smoke, they can wait or go outside.

[Alan T]

Originally posted by sabotai
"

Again I will say...never have been to a place where the smoking and nonsmoking sections were not well sperated.

Things must be different where you live then the places I have lived (Atlanta, Dallas and Boston). There are plenty of places that do a great job of seperating the sections. Likewise there are plenty of places that do the bare minimum and might as well not have a non-smoking section.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally posted by EagleFan
In fact, I think it's time to raise that tobacco tax a little more. Keep the taxing until you wipe out the debt or finish off the tobacco companies. No other company sells a product who's only affect on people is to ruin their health.

Hmmm alcohol anyone?

Hmmm fast food anyone?

I'm an ex-smoker so in theory I should be an ardent protestor of smoking rights, in practise I'm very tolerant really - although I now can't stand the smell of most cigarettes (exceptions being hand rollege Golden Viginia for some reason) I don't have a problem with people smoking really.

My stance is simply that there are numerous other ways in which people can obtain harmful substances (most notably exhaust fumes from cars) and that the harm from secondary smoking in public places isn't the worst thing that my lungs are exposed to during the day by any stretch of the imagination (if you travel on a subway/underground/metro avoid looking into any of the health expose's on the germs etc. that circulate on those during a day).

[EagleFan]

Fast food and alcohol are only bad for your health when consumed in large quantities. Smoking is bad for your health from square one. I would figure a programmer would know about logic.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Fast food and alcohol are only bad for your health when consumed in large quantities. Smoking is bad for your health from square one. I would figure a programmer would know about logic.

Alcohol can be much worse for you as in even relatively small amounts it can impair your thinking and cause violent acts or stupidity which can lead to injury/deaths if the person is unfortunate.

I find it amazing the amount of people who defend alcohol (a substance which is found today would surely be categorised as an illegal drug) yet are willing to villify smoking which has been proven to cause possible long term harm, but has very little other adverse affects (ie. no tendency towards violence, won't cause people to lose control of large machinery etc.).

PS. Fast Food, yeah I know its not a good example - put it in on a whim because I'm eating a KFC and feeling guilty about my (lack of) diet.

[Alan T]

Originally posted by Marc Vaughan
Alcohol can be much worse for you as in even relatively small amounts it can impair your thinking and cause violent acts or stupidity which can lead to injury/deaths if the person is unfortunate.

I find it amazing the amount of people who defend alcohol (a substance which is found today would surely be categorised as an illegal drug) yet are willing to villify smoking which has been proven to cause possible long term harm, but has very little other adverse affects (ie. no tendency towards violence, won't cause people to lose control of large machinery etc.).

PS. Fast Food, yeah I know its not a good example - put it in on a whim because I'm eating a KFC and feeling guilty about my (lack of) diet.

I dont have a problem if people drink or if they smoke as long as it doesnt affect me. I am totally against people drinking and driving as an example.

My point mainly has been that I do get sick from other people's smoking. If not for anti-smoking laws I would have to limit where I could go. I would be against things that would prevent people from smoking however period. It is their decision and I have no problem if people want to do it. Just please not around me

[Abe Sargent]

I don't think I have ever been more quoted in a post in all my life. Probably because I am rarely as absolute in my speech. Of course, check the time that I posted and put it in EST if you are not in it. (around 4 am for those who do not want to do the math)


Recognize that I was not referring to any one post when I made my post - you'll note the decided lack of quotes. And I am not doing the same here because I want to respond to several points made by various people:


I brought up the Cigar bar initially because some were saying that smoking should be banned everywhere except for outside, cars and homes. Hence I used the best example of commercially allowed smoking that I could.

As to taxes, let's be honest, shall we? We tax cigarettes because we can get away with it. Our society has deemed that cigarettes are bad. We don't tax cigarettes in order to keep them out of the hands of children. If we taxed the hell out of things in order to keep them away from children then why isn't there a Porn Tax?

I doubt that it's because we want to put porn into the hands of babes.

The Thai example, however, I'll readily concede to it being poor. Late night and all that.

And I recognize that some people just don't like cigarette smoke. If it's puffed into my face, I'll caugh too.


I like Tekneek's approach - excatly what a mature citizen does. Not whine and try to change laws, but talks to management and tells them howmuch he appreciates non-smoking aras or restaurants. That's good stuff.

I think that it's funny that people here are saying that various localities have banned smoking and now they like to eat out. But what about the restaurant owners? They could ban smoking in their establishment without any law or edict. And therefore attract a sizable non-smoking crowd. But what if I, as an owner, simply want there to be smoking in my establishment? What if, hypothetically, I lost customers because they couldn't somke there anymore? What if I was going out of business? Would I have a moral or ethical claim to damages? To allowing smokers back in?

Is our morality tied to our pocketbook so openly?

I also think that it is funny how many people are dismissing fatty foods as a strain on our health care system and welfare state when obesity is one of the top health problems in our country.

Anyways, my thoughts.

-Anxiety