SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I'd be more in favor of stricter health code standards in bars than outlawing it all together in them, only because a majority of the patrons are smokers.

Hospitals for example (at least around here) have much stricter standards on their ventilation systems. They have to draw 100% of the air in from the outside, whereas department stores and other commercial establishments are only required to take in 25% or so of the air from the outside and can recycle the air already in the building.

Tom said:

And I would have no problem with a well ventilated establishment that allowed smoking. I've been in them and still don't like the smoke but at least I can breathe. I'm willing to meet halfway on the subject and i can't even expres HOW MUCH I hate smoking but most smokers are only willing to have it their way. At least most of the smokers I've met/know.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

LOL some smokers will stand behind their cigarettes the way the NRA stands behind guns. I take more of an issue with the government than I do individuals who dont smoke. They depend on our habbit, then turn around and condemn us for it.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 8 13:36:01 PDT 2003 by Tom]

BOOO

I'm a smoker (a pack a week, baby - just call me OLD MADGE), and I rarely if ever allow smoking in my apartment - doesn't matter how cold it is, I always take it outside...having said that, I think the pressure to create smoke-free environments in clubs and bars should have been set up by way of positive reinforcement and initiatives, rather than compromising business by imposing a ban. The economy's in enough trouble as it is, not to mention I've noticed my friends planning more and more get-togethers at their apartments, so people can save money on overpriced drinks while enjoying the privilege of smoking indoors.

I dunno..I'm torn, I spose.

Smoking is more than just vile behavior, it's a deadly public health crisis.

There is no other product, legally manufactured, that maims, disables and kills more people than cigarettes. In this country alone, 400,000 people will DIE this year because of smoking. In China, it has resently been estimated that a third of the male population (that's a very big number) will die prematurely from tobacco use in the early part of this century.

An imagine this, death is often not the worst fate for smokers. Countless hundreds of thousands more will develop chronic heart disease, suffer a nonfatal disabling heart attack, develop chronic lung disease or lung cancer, require supplemental oxygen 24 hrs a day, pee out of a bag after losing their bladder to cancer, have their tongue and larynx removed because of other head and neck cancers, or suffer a devastating stroke. And I'm just getting warmed up. The list goes on and on.

For others, they'll suffer from simple, recurrent repiratory infections that cause them to miss work. Pregnant women will have miscarriages, whereas other women will not be able to become pregnant at all. The children of smokers will have higher rates of respiratory illnesses including asthma. And young vain women will be shocked to see themselves aging twice as fast as their nonsmoking peers.

Who can possibly be proud of this addiction? Smokers should be angered that they have been lured into the use of a product that is both intrinsically defective and offensive to others. I am outraged by the defiant, selfish behavior of many smokers. Few seem to be able to control their impulse to litter the streets and sidewalks with their unsightly butts. Others seem to relish the act of throwing their butts (usually lit) out of car windows. At other times, in crowded outdoor spaces where no one else is smoking, a smoker will casually "light up" and create a noxious plume which then affects everyon around them. And my biggest pet peeve, the congregation of sickly smokers around the entrances of buildings, forcing the rest of us to run the gauntlet of stench in order to enter the building. I think smokers should be embarrassed! You all should hide that stink, not flaunt it. Think of it as an unhealthy version of taking a dump! Privacy, please!

So with regard to smoking in bars and restaurants and individula "choice," these laws are a sign of an enlightened government and society. In contrast to what some have written here, the antismoking laws in California were actually not crafted to protect nonsmoking patrons. Similar to those enacted for airtravel, the laws are designed to protect EMPLOYEES of these establishments from known risks associated with dangerous secondhand smoke. The rest of us benefit from the clean air as well when we choose to visit these places of business.

And I take strong exception the statement that someone made that "most patrons are smokers." Since when? MOST people don't smoke, and there has been no evidence to support the assertion that business will suffer when smoking is banned in bars and restaurants.

Finally, what about the "rights" of smokers? Sorry, but smoking is not a constitutional right. On the contrary, smokers have no protected status under existing laws. If you're an employer, you can deny a job to a smoker. If you are a landlord, you can refuse to rent to a smoker. If you are a business owner, you can refuse to allow smoking in your establishment - and that predates the latest legislation by years. No, smokers have no special rights. Thank goodness.

Pagey said:[quote]

pejman said:

DUDE...BE CAREFUL!!! I quit smoking for 2 years, went to Vegas (the smoking capital of the US)...decided to smoke when I was there, but would stop the minute I got home. Well I am smoking all the time again...it's been 4 years since I went to Vegas.

I don't think I would mind too much if they banned smoking in bars. I am like Carrie, if I can't smoke, I don't think about it too much. But if I can I smoke an entire pack within hours. I totally understand non-smokers bitching...but at the same time, don't comlain too much about the dangers of second-hand smoke when your at a bar getting plastered from alcohol. It's kinda hypocritical.

your right...I quit on the day I turned 24 and had one the the day I turned 25...smoked until this last NewYears...had 2 to 3 a day until 2 weeks ago...haven't had one yet...fuck it I changed my mind...no cigs for Pej in Vegas...by the way I have a huge wall sized poster of your avatar...I'm sure you do to...
[This message was edited Tue Apr 8 14:33:01 PDT 2003 by pejman]

TheMax said:

that's all well and good, but I don't understand the mentality of people telling ME what I can and can't do, concerning a legal activity. or someone telling a business owner what his patrons can and can't do, concerning a legal activity.

Based on some of the prohibitionist thinking on this thread, I'd be interested to know what some of your views are on banning alcohol...after all, it wrecks the liver, it's often cited as a contributing factor to fatal accidents and violent crimes, and it makes people talk too loud and act like morons.

And nobody likes the sight or smell of vomit. Just sayin'.

So maybe alcohol should be next?

After that, I think we should ban coffee. It's bad for your nervous system, your liver, and your breath. Seriously. And if you spill a cup of coffee in your lap, you burn your crotch.




Edit, schmedit.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 8 14:58:35 PDT 2003 by Anxiety]

AaronFantastic said:

I think that the line so to speak should be drawn at the point where your actions affect other people's health. And again, again, again, again...why do smokers feel they have more of a right to patronize establishments and pollute the air for everyone than smokers have to go to the same establishments and have enough clean air to breathe?

I really want an answer to that question.

AaronFantastic said:

Please see the part about employee health - those laws trump the desires of the business owner and his patrons. Certainly we support laws to improve workplace safety, don't we?

And as far as others telling you what you can or can't do with respect to a legal activity, there's plenty of precedent as you know. I'm addressing the aspect of smoking aprt from the potential for harm to others - the part that hurts you. Driving is "legal" even though it's dangerous. But you can only drive legally in certain places and at certain speeds. Drinking is "legal," and it can be dangerous as well. But try drinking in most public places or while driving a car - no way.

Point is, we have every right and interest to regulate dangerous activities in this country, mostly because we have a vested interest in one another's health and safety. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, have an accident, and live on a machine for the rest of your life - WE pay. Hence the helmet laws, seatbelt laws, antismoking laws, gun laws, drinking laws, etc. Others here, mainly the libertarians, have a vastly different view of things. For them, the social darwinists, these sorts of laws and other protections are offensive.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

They don't feel that way. They feel that there should be a well-ventilated smoking section. And they feel that they'd like to see some actual independent proof that second-hand smoke is actually harmful to others' health instead of the studies that have come out backed by anti-smoking lobbying groups and tobacco companies themselves. So far, there has been no well publicized study that concludes that there is a harmful effect from second-hand smoke. Particularly if one is only injesting it for 30 to 60 minutes.

Do your clothes stink? Your hair? Sure, I guess. If you're up in some smoker's face or you choose to sit in the smoking section. But I don't really care...

TheMax said:

snipped the rest.


there is no proof that second hand smoke is harmful.

also... if they don't want to breathe smoke, why don't they do something else for a living? nobody's forcing them to be a bartender or wait tables. and if that is what they want to do... great, they are in a smokeless environment, but they're not getting my money. and i'm a damn good tipper.

And why should the restaurant/bar establishments be off limits to a non-smoker who would want to work at that job but can't because of the health issues involved?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Why should someone who wants to be a firefighter have to put up with all that smoke and fire if he doesn't want to?

AaronFantastic said:

Did you read the part where I said that I used to wake up in the middle of the night gasping for air? Since the smoking ban I don't have this problem and have noticed that on a few occasions where I've taken road trips with friends and have been confined to a heavily smokey area that I woke up gasping for air just like I used to when I used to party in smokey bars with my friends.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

well hey, that's your problem. if you have an allergy to it or asthma, i can understand. but because YOU have a problem with it, everyone should have to live by the standards you set?

AaronFantastic said:

The scope of their job is to take people out of dangerous situations, not subject them to it.

They aren't forced to breath that smoke 8 hours a day while they earn their pay. And like I said, why should non-smokers have to be excluded from considering these jobs just so others can control the air that everyone needs?
[This message was edited Tue Apr 8 15:22:43 PDT 2003 by SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy]

AaronFantastic said:

Just because others have a high tolerance to the smoke doesn't mean that they aren't being harmed. I can't believe anyone would really believe that second hand smoke isn't harmful coming out of someone elses lungs. Just because it went through a filter doesn't protect a smoker from disease so how in the hell is it going to protect non-smokers from it?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Because the smoke has gone through the filter AND my lungs. The harmful agents in it have gone into ME. Now, I understand that second-hand smoke is an annoyance. But it shouldn't be a law to ban annoyances, that are NOT proven to actually be harmful. Might they be harmful? Could be. But there's no proof. You're putting the cart before the horse there.

People who wear a lot of cologne or perfume are an annoyance to some. Should we have a ban on all colognes and perfumes in restaurants because it annoys some people?

Good No smoke in public places. What you do in your home is your own damn business.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

The scope of their job is to deal with smoke and fire. They know this when they want to become a firefighter. Likewise, a person who wants to be a bartender or waiter should have the foresight to know that they are going to be dealing with cigarette smoke.



You miss the point. A firefighter knows before he takes the job that he is, at some point, going to have to deal with the annoyance or harmful effects of smoke. Why is it not logical that a person who wants to be a waiter or bartender would realize that it's part of the job before taking it?

I have no problem with restaurants not allowing smoking. I live in Illinois, a state with no ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, but there is no shortage of places for people to go if they don't want to go where there is or isn't smoking allwoed. Why ban it? Why not let the demand for it dictate which bars and restaurants are smoking or non-smoking establisments? Why does there need to be a law?

If you want to smoke, go to a place that allows smoking. If you don't want to deal with smoke, go to a place that doesn't. Why feel the need to remove the option for me to go to a place that allows smoking, just because you don't want to go there?
[This message was edited Tue Apr 8 15:38:47 PDT 2003 by AaronFantastic]

SuperC said:

And what about in the business establishment I own/run?

Firefighters come to the job with extensive safety equipmet to allow them to perform their hazardous job. Are you suggesting waiters have protective suits and oxygen canisters strapped to their backs?

If you don't believe that second hand smoke is hazardous, then you are in a desperate state of denial. There are volumes of data regarding the numerous dangers of second hand smoke, but you'll have to do your own research. Or just pay attention - the science is everywhere.

Whew.

AaronFantastic said:

I can't believe you are comparing the two. Yes the firefighter knows that he is taking on hazards in order to do his job of saving lives from fire and smoke. But why should an entire industry of workers be subjected to the harmful effects, (and Aaron you are way to fucking smart to believe for one second that 2nd hand smoke isn't harmful to others...my asthmatic condition is proof of that) because people feel the right to deprive them and other patrons of clean, non-polluted air?



You miss the point. A firefighter knows before he takes the job that he is, at some point, going to have to deal with the annoyance or harmful effects of smoke. Why is it not logical that a person who wants to be a waiter or bartender would realize that it's part of the job before taking it?[/quote]

I got the point just fine. See above.



Why not let the demand dicate? Because smokers overrun any and everywhere they are allowed to smoke. I was here in California before the ban and even before they banned it in restaurants and other workplaces. Smoking was everywhere!!! You couldn't escape it. That's why laws have to be enacted. Because smokers have no consideration for others.

we're working on "the ban" here in Saint John...and even as a reformed smoker i think it's great!!! i believe smokers have rights...the right to go smoke in their car or in their own home if they want to be polluted.. don't subject me to it (anymore)...i'm tryin' to get healthy...and what about the poor saps that have to work in the bar??? they have rights too...Right???

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I'm worse. Visitors to my place aren't allowed smoke there, or eat meat, or wear shoes. Fuck it, it's my home, what I say goes dammit!

I smoke...

and I think the ban on smoking
in bars and clubs is a great thing!!!

I prefer to choose when I will pollute my lungs...
second hand smoke sucks!!!


...thought ya knew!!...

ian said:

Dang! Meat and shoes are allowed in my place. Especially meat

TheMax said:

Not in Indiana.

"An employer may not: (1) require, as a condition of employment, an employee or prospective employee to refrain from using; or (2) discriminate against an employee with respect to: (A) the employee's compensation and benefits; or (B) terms and conditions of employment; based on the employee's use of; tobacco products outside the course of the employee's or prospective employee's employment."

Ind. Code § 22-5-4-1. (However, the statute "does not apply to an employer that is: (1) a church; (2) a religious organization; or (3) a school or business conducted by a church or religious organization." Ind. Code § 22-5-4-4.)

IMHO this is a silly law... employers are generally free to refuse to hire someone for any reason whatsoever, and I don't see why smokers should have any special protection... but given that this state seems to be full of nicotine addicts, I'm not surprised.

[Matt's standard disclaimer: While I am licensed to practice law in Indiana, this post is for discussion purposes only, is not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship.]