w00t! Allegheny County council (Pittsburgh) votes to ban smoking

[Hababi]

Pittsburgh, provided county executive Dan Onorado signs the bill, is set to become the next metropolitan to ban cigerrete smoking in most every public place (restaurants, bars, etc.). They're exempting casino's, but I don't care since I don't go to casino's. This is wonderful news, now it can build momentum toward a nationwide ban on smoking. At this point, with the newest surgeon general reports, it's unthinkable not to.

[AmericanWeiner]

man, we did that ages ago

[Jaded]

That's lame. People should be able to smoke in open, well ventilated public spaces.

[White Riot!]

Draconian

[AmericanWeiner]

That's lame. People should be able to smoke in open, well ventilated public spaces.

why

[Syncratic]

I live a few counties away (Cambria) and there's talk of this happening here in Johnstown/Altoona.

[666Ozzfan]

We've banned smoking inside pubs/bars etc. Not yet for outside on the street, and I doubt we'd get to that either.

I heard that in Sydney you can't smoke within 200m of a shop. Or something like that. Might just be 20m.

[Iskandar]

I would support this for public buildings, but not outdoor public areas.

[sexymuffin]

how retarded

if you're in a bar, why would you care if some people are smoking? You're in a ****ing bar for christ's sake. People are drinking, relaxing from a long day at work and they just want a cigarette or two to finish their day off. What's the big deal?

[Surgicalgod]

I would support this for public buildings, but not outdoor public areas.

123. If they're going to ban smoking in outdoor public areas, they might as well ban cars and factories.

[Hababi]

What's the big deal?

Lung cancer.

[sexymuffin]

Lung cancer.

It's a bar. There are far more things to be worrying about then second hand smoke.

[John Paul Harrison]

to ban cigerrete smoking in most every public place (restaurants, bars, etc.)

Wtf? Restaurants and bars are not "public" places.

You don't have to take your family into a smoke filled pub.

[AmericanWeiner]

I've got a better proposal-

We should ban smoking. I like that idea.

[666Ozzfan]

how retarded

if you're in a bar, why would you care if some people are smoking? You're in a ****ing bar for christ's sake. People are drinking, relaxing from a long day at work and they just want a cigarette or two to finish their day off. What's the big deal?

The reasoning was for those who work at pubs, and for those who don't smoke and don't want second-hand smoke. Tbh, they smell worse now than with cigarette smoke hanging around. Either way, I don't mind.

[Hababi]

It's a bar. There are far more things to be worrying about then second hand smoke.

Well yeah, things like having a nuclear bomb dropped on you and stuff like that, but there's laws against that, too. Second hand smoke causes cancer, and no level of exposure is safe.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well yeah, things like having a nuclear bomb dropped on you and stuff like that, but there's laws against that, too. Second hand smoke causes cancer, and no level of exposure is safe.

**** I should be dead, 18 years living with smokers...

[sexymuffin]

Well yeah, things like having a nuclear bomb dropped on you and stuff like that, but there's laws against that, too. Second hand smoke causes cancer, and no level of exposure is safe.
I was thinking more of excessive drinking. Bars are not a family zone and people who go there want to smoke. Yes, smoking is bad for you and bad for people that are inhaling it, but anyone smoking knows this and people who work at bars are fully aware of the risk involved with being around smoke so often. If they don't want to breath in the smoke, they can work elsewhere. I think banning cigarettes in privately owned pubs and bars is going to do more harm then good.

The reasoning was for those who work at pubs, and for those who don't smoke and don't want second-hand smoke. Tbh, they smell worse now than with cigarette smoke hanging around. Either way, I don't mind.

Unless you're going to a bar every night and inhaling a pack of cigarettes everytime you go there, you won't really experience many health issues. If you work there, you should be aware that where you work is a bar, and people smoke there. If you don't want to be around it work elsewhere. Bars aren't publicly owned, so they should be allowed to have their own policies on the issue.

[AmericanWeiner]

No one's responded to my point about banning smoking outright.

I could understand if tobacco had recreationally disassociative side effects, but it doesn't.

We could just give people rotten lungs from dead people- it'd be just as violating and purposeful. :)

[YDload]

I'm thinking about closing this because there has never been a thread about smoking that doesn't degenerate into the same terrible arguments as always. Nobody cares about your lung cancer or what Bill Hicks says on the topic. YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND SHOULD DIE

[Jude]

What an utterly ludicrous and illegal ruling.

[Iskandar]

Why not ban smoking in publically owned enclosed areas, but allow owners of private businesses to offer smoking or non-smoking policies as they wish? I don't see any substantial problem with such a ruling.

One thing's for sure: banning smoking in any outdoors area is ridiculous.

[Hababi]

'm thinking about closing this because there has never been a thread about smoking that doesn't degenerate into the same terrible arguments as always.


Man you've already messed with me enough the past few weeks, don't close my perfectly good thread :(



One thing's for sure: banning smoking in any outdoors area is ridiculous.


It's not banned in outdoor areas; I should've specified that :(

[TheClap]

What an utterly ludicrous and illegal ruling.

How? Why the f.uck do you start smoking, people who smoke are retarded, but then again so are the people that eat fast food three-times a day.

[sexymuffin]

^because some people enjoy the feeling of a cigarette after a long day of work or if they're going through some tough times.
Why not ban smoking in publically owned enclosed areas, but allow owners of private businesses to offer smoking or non-smoking policies as they wish? I don't see any substantial problem with such a ruling.

One thing's for sure: banning smoking in any outdoors area is ridiculous.

this.

Anything other then this is just stupid.

[Jude]

How? Why the f.uck do you start smoking, people who smoke are retarded, but then again so are the people that eat fast food three-times a day.

Please continue to amuse me with your lack of intellect and knowledge about legal affairs.

Why not ban smoking in publically owned enclosed areas, but allow owners of private businesses to offer smoking or non-smoking policies as they wish? I don't see any substantial problem with such a ruling.

One thing's for sure: banning smoking in any outdoors area is ridiculous.
This.

-Banning smoking outdoors is ridiculous
-Banning smoking in privately owned places is completely uncalled for and hardly legal
-Banning smoking in publicly owned indoor places is legal


Works for everyone. If you don't like smoky bars....don't go to them.

[Iskandar]

this.

Anything other then this is just stupid.
It just makes sense. Nobody has the right to pollute my lungs on public land which is meant for everyone, same as I can't drop my trousers and take a **** in the middle of a street (although it'd be amusing to try). Anyway, I digress.

On the other hand, private businesses should be able to offer smoking or non-smoking policies.

[AmericanWeiner]

So jude, when exactly did making a law banning a substance in certain areas become illegal?

Last time I checked I wasn't allowed to have open alchohol containers in my car.

[TheClap]

Please continue to amuse me with your lack of intellect and knowledge about legal affairs.



That has nothing to do with my knowledge of legal affairs, douche.

This is just one step to banning smoking all together, which I happen to be for.

[sexymuffin]

That has nothing to do with my knowledge of legal affairs, douche.

insults already? this is only your second post in here.

Oh and the government has no right telling privately owned pubs and bars whether or not they can have smoking in their pub/bar. So it is a legal affair.

This is just one step to banning smoking all together, which I happen to be for.

and why is that?

[TheClap]

insults already? this is only your second post in here.

Oh and the government has no right telling privately owned pubs and bars whether or not they can have smoking in their pub/bar. So it is a legal affair.

I was calling people who smoked retarded, would you consider that a legal affair? Its simply unconstitutional to ban smoking in a privately owned bussiness, but quit just talking about pubs and bars, there are plenty of other places with a "smoking section."

Smoking should be banned altogether.

[sexymuffin]

I was calling people who smoked retarded, would you consider that a legal affair? Its simply unconstitutional to ban smoking in a privately owned bussiness, but quit just talking about pubs and bars, there are plenty of other places with a "smoking section."

Smoking should be banned altogether.

okay what? i was reffering to you calling him a douch but whatev

and yes, it's illegal to ban smoking in privately owned places, but pubs and bars are gonna be the most obvious places to allow smoking becuase nobody wants to shop in a supermarket with smokers.

and once again, why do you think smoking should be banned altogether? And what do you think is the best way to go about doing this?

[Jude]

That has nothing to do with my knowledge of legal affairs, douche.

This is just one step to banning smoking all together, which I happen to be for.

Ummmmmmm, the fact that you think banning smoking altogether is a good idea or is at all legally feasible shows your extreme lack of knowledge of legal affairs.

So jude, when exactly did making a law banning a substance in certain areas become illegal?

Last time I checked I wasn't allowed to have open alchohol containers in my car.

Every time one of these threads comes up I have to explain this from the ground up.

Smoking is legal provided you are the right age. The government does/should not have the authority to declare that an otherwise legal activity is not legal inside certain privately owned properties which is the problem here. There are exceptions such as the alchohol thing; that's because alcohol consumption while driving is directly linked to imminent danger to all who may happen to be using that road. With smoking there is no such link. The risk of the smoker dying or even becoming ill is far from absolute and for others it is even less. The argument that smoking should be banned because it's unhealthy is not grounds for the government intruding on property owners' rights because anyone who dislikes smoky restaurants or clubs is utterly free not to frequent them.
With publicly owned spaces, a smoking ban would be legal because the government/public owns that space but the intrusion of such a ruling onto private property is intolerable.

I was calling people who smoked retarded, would you consider that a legal affair?
1. You're retarded for calling people who smoke retarded...and no I don't smoke
2. The fact that you're bringing that up in a legal discussion indicates your ignorance

Its simply unconstitutional to ban smoking in a privately owned bussiness, but quit just talking about pubs and bars, there are plenty of other places with a "smoking section."
What?
You just admitted it's unconstitutional to ban smoking in the places we are discussing here

Smoking should be banned altogether.
You're stupid.

[TheClap]

okay what? i was reffering to you calling him a douch but whatev

and yes, it's illegal to ban smoking in privately owned places, but pubs and bars are gonna be the most obvious places to allow smoking becuase nobody wants to shop in a supermarket with smokers.

and once again, why do you think smoking should be banned altogether? And what do you think is the best way to go about doing this?

Smoking is bad for all forms of life, no one is entirely sure who the first person was to go, "hey lets light this stuff on fire and inhale its smoke," but still how it has developed over the years is quite rediculous, so are many polices to stop it.

As far as a good way to ban it.

Thats just it, there is no good way to do this. Smoking is seen as a release for many, and they know they are hooked but don't know how hooked yet.

Even if we did ban smoking, people would still do it. I mean mary-J is illegal, but people smoke that **** all the time. I would say maybe devise a better way to lean most off smoking, cause clearly you can't just ban smoking all at once. Besides tabacco is good for our economy, but at the same time it is extreamly harse to the land you raise it on, thus possibly destroying possible fields. Possibly design a type of ciggarette that does not harm your body(impossible). because just banning it would be pointless.

Jude: seriously your being a douche.

[sexymuffin]

Possibly design a type of ciggarette that does not harm your body.

yeah right after the perpetual motion machine.

[AmericanWeiner]

Out of curiousity- is imminent danger anymore dangerous than longterm danger?

[sexymuffin]

yes

[AmericanWeiner]

how come

[TheClap]

I think taht ppl shoub be able to smoke werever tehy watn tooo. cuase if thye dont' ppl wlii get angry.

Even though it has been proven to kill, you keep doing it.

/and you can yourself smart?

just wondering.

Just going to tell you guys: this is a circle debate, and it is completey pointless to keep going back and fourth.

[John Paul Harrison]

Even though it has been proven to kill, you keep doing it.

/and you can yourself smart?

The issue isn't whether or not smoking is healthy. It clearly isn't. The argument is that it's a persons right to choose this unhealthy behaviour.

I think Jude explained it best.

[sexymuffin]

how come

becuase drinking and driving has the potential to kill many people in a single moment, where as being inside a building with a few lit cigarettes does not, and most likely won't do any harm to someone who frequents the place.

[TheClap]

The issue isn't whether or not smoking is healthy. It clearly isn't. The argument is that it's a persons right to choose this unhealthy behavious.

I think Jude explained it through.

Second hand smoke kills, is that not pertaining to the subject?

[Reaganista]

It's a bar. There are far more things to be worrying about then second hand smoke.
not really

[Jude]

Jude: seriously your being a douche.

If presenting simple facts that any idiot can comprehend qualifies as being a douche, I proudly claim my douche badge.

Meanwhile you're pondering ways to ban smoking completely.

BAN SMOKING COMPLETELY. I'm not even making this up.

I think taht ppl shoub be able to smoke werever tehy watn tooo. cuase if thye dont' ppl wlii get angry.

Even though it has been proven to kill, you keep doing it.
YES, now why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Reaganista]

I don't see what would be wrong with banning smoking completely

-Banning smoking in privately owned places is completely uncalled for and hardly legal
um of course regulating workplaces for health reasons is legal
or did you miss the last 100 years or so

[John Paul Harrison]

Second hand smoke kills, is that not pertaining to the subject?

Second hand smoke is unhealthy, yes.

But you're not forced to inhale it. We don't have the right to be protected from unpleasent conditions in private establishments. We have the right to not frequent them.

And please note that I have never smoked.

[Jude]

I don't see what would be wrong with banning smoking completely

I don't see what would be wrong with banning french fries completely.

um of course regulating workplaces is legal
or did you miss the last 100 years or so
I'm so glad you came to this thread even if I'm about to go to bed :\

Regulating workplaces in some ways is legal even if it shouldn't be and this is one of the ways it shouldn't be.

[dustindow]

As long as there isn't a ban for smoking outdoors. I understand indoor areas because I choose to smoke not them.

[Reaganista]

I don't see what would be wrong with banning french fries completely.

I agree with the spirit of that statement
but not the letter
saturated fat and sodium is only bad for a person when eaten to excess
cigarettes are always bad

[dustindow]

I agree with the spirit but totally against the ban of cigs. I don't mind going outside......I most the time smoke a ciggerette in peace. I like to relax and smoke one..But thats just me.

[sexymuffin]

that's me as well, they just take you away from the hustle bustle for a moment. It's nice.

[Jude]

I agree with the spirit of that statement
but not the letter
saturated fat and sodium is only bad for a person when eaten to excess
cigarettes are always bad

There are plenty of people who occasionally eat french fries and who occasionally smoke and suffer no noticeable ill effects. Either one is bad mainly when used to excess.

But in any case it's not the government's place to prevent people from choosing to partake in unhealthy behaviors, and it's definitely not the government's place to tell people they can't do something that's completely legal while in a privately owned property.

[spitfirejunky]

Ah I misinterpreted the question. Ban it from public places yes, but don't ban it completely.

[Reaganista]

Regulating workplaces in some ways is legal even if it shouldn't be and this is one of the ways it shouldn't be.
um if you can't intervene for worker's health then what do you intervene for

Either one is bad mainly when used to excess.
no cigarettes are always bad

But in any case it's not the government's place to prevent people from choosing to partake in unhealthy behaviors,

um why not

and it's definitely not the government's place to tell people they can't do something that's completely legal while in a privately owned property.
um
if it's not the government's place to make something legal illegal
then whose place is it

[Jude]

um if you can't intervene for worker's health then what do you intervene for

You can intervene for the worker's health in the event of serious dangers or safety violations, but exposure to secondhand smoke hardly qualifies.

no cigarettes are always bad

So are trans fats, but it takes a lot of them to make a noticeable difference, same as cigarettes.

um why not
Because there's no good reason to do that, given that people make the choices consciously and for themselves.


um
if it's not the government's place to make something legal illegal
then whose place is it
It's not the government's place to decide to limit an otherwise legal activity. If there is going to be a ban on smoking, it has to be all or none. Smoking weed is illegal in your house or in public or in a bar, but if it were legal, it would be ridiculous to tell owners of businesses or homes that they could not do it in those places.

And I don't think public nudity is some huge menace to society that should be banned either, for the record.

[Reaganista]

You can intervene for the worker's health in the event of serious dangers or safety violations, but exposure to secondhand smoke hardly qualifies.

yeah it only gives you cancer or w/e

So are trans fats, but it takes a lot of them to make a noticeable difference, same as cigarettes.

you can make fries without trans fat

Because there's no good reason to do that, given that people make the choices consciously and for themselves.

you shouldn't get to decide that i have to breath your smoke

It's not the government's place to decide to limit an otherwise legal activity.
what
then what's the point of having laws dammit

If there is going to be a ban on smoking, it has to be all or none.
i think it should be all
but there's no reason that it would have to be

Smoking weed is illegal in your house or in public or in a bar, but if it were legal, it would be ridiculous to tell owners of businesses or homes that they could not do it in those places.

no it wouldn't
there's lots of things that are only legal to do in specific contexts

And I don't think public nudity is some huge menace to society that should be banned either, for the record.
public nudity should be 100% legal

[sexymuffin]

if someone applies as a bartender or worker in a bar, make them sign a release saying they don't mind secondhand smoke problem solved

next issue

[Reaganista]

um that's ignoring the problem not solving it

[sexymuffin]

how is that ignoring the issue. That way they can smoke in the bar and people that work there are aware of the effects it's having on their health.

They don't have to work there.

[Reaganista]

the issue is they have an unhealthy workplace
saying 'oh well' is ignoring the issue

[sexymuffin]

yes but it's a bar. People go to bars to unwind with a couple shots and a cigarette after work or when they go out with their friends. We're not talking about a grociery store.

[Reaganista]

well now they'll go to bars to unwind with a couple shots

[sexymuffin]

and have to go outside and break the atmosphere to have a smoke?

[Reaganista]

at the very least

[sexymuffin]

yeah but do you know how much it sucks to get up sometimes? damn, if you smoked, you'd understand.

meh it's not a big deal, i just don't like people trying to use this as a stepping stone to illegalize cigarettes.

[spitfirejunky]

I can tell you one thing, if I was a non-smoker I'd hate to have to leave my favorite bar just to enjoy a non-smoking environment.

Some of these places get conjested, and it's impossible to breathe when everyone's smoking as well.

[YDload]

eventually smoking will probably be made illegal, but not for a long long time. like, around the time gay people can get married and a black atheist is elected President of the United States.

social changes that seem impossible today can happen, but you can't force them to occur anytime soon. smoking used to be cool in the 40s and 50s, now it is undermined severely, and someday it will be outlawed all together (making it look even more badass with the proper aura). oh well, i seem to be the only person in the world who doesn't have a strong opinion on smoking.

i just trust Jude over the other guy in this thread because he knows how to spell "ridiculous" >:-}

[Futue te Ipsum]

It's a bar. There are far more things to be worrying about then second hand smoke.Tell that to Roy Castle.

Oh, wait, you can't. He's dead.

[Jude]

yeah it only gives you cancer or w/e


It's going to take an insane amount of second hand smoke exposure to cause cancer. That's completely different than, say, dangerous machinery that frequently maims or kills people.

you can make fries without trans fat
You could probably make non-carcinogenic cigarettes too.


you shouldn't get to decide that i have to breath your smoke

You can always pick a different restaurant if you don't like the smoke.

what
then what's the point of having laws dammit
To decide if something is bad enough to be illegal, not to be all wishy-washy about it.

i think it should be all
but there's no reason that it would have to be
There's no real reason why it should be all, either. May as well ban alcohol altogether.

no it wouldn't
there's lots of things that are only legal to do in specific contexts

Name a few and I'll see if they're relevant to this or not.

public nudity should be 100% legal

I agree, there's nothing wrong with it.

i just trust Jude over the other guy in this thread because he knows how to spell "ridiculous" >:-}
Wait, the ferdinand guy?

Because Tway probably knows more about this than me, I just still think I'm right.

[MattyBlade]

What if people like smoking and they don't CARE about the negative health effects.

Why don't you think about those people before you guys run your mouths off about how great it is.

Sure it's good for you, but really you do have to take into other people's concideration.

I am a non cigarette smoker, I am all for having smoking banned from places like Restaurant eating areas...but, a well ventilated bar (or even a dank pit) it'd be nice to be able to smoke a cigarette without having to go outfront (especially in say, -40º temperatures).

[griftadan]

bars and restaraunts aren't public places, i don't know why city councils have such a hard time with this concept.

[sexymuffin]

bars and restaraunts aren't public places, i don't know why city councils have such a hard time with this concept.

becuz smoking is bad didn't you know!?

[spitfirejunky]

It's going to take an insane amount of second hand smoke exposure to cause cancer. That's completely different than, say, dangerous machinery that frequently maims or kills people.

Places without proper ventilation pose a far greater risk than you think. It's not so much the passive smoke that'll do you in, it's the shortage of oxygen.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. It gets dangerous when the same 70+ people are breathing the same air with the same smoke.

[Jude]

Places without proper ventilation pose a far greater risk than you think. It's not so much the passive smoke that'll do you in, it's the shortage of oxygen.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. It gets dangerous when the same 70+ people are breathing the same air with the same smoke.

It's still completely different that dangerous machinery or corrosive chemicals or anything of that nature.

[666Ozzfan]

Quite a few bars here have tables, chairs heaters and stuff under verandas etc for smokers. It's really not that cold. If you smokers can't go outside for a cigarette for 5 mins, you really have to toughen up.

[sexymuffin]

if you can't sit through someone smoking a cigarette for five minutes, then you really have to toughen up.

[666Ozzfan]

if you can't sit through someone smoking a cigarette for five minutes, then you really have to toughen up.

Dude, I smoke. I go outside, because I know that there are people who don't like it, but still want to go to a bar. There's also things like asthma sufferers, who like to drink in bars. Its a respect thing.

[Hababi]

if you can't sit through someone smoking a cigarette for five minutes, then you really have to toughen up.

In case you missed the Surgeon General's statement, he said that there is no safe level of exposure of cigerette smoke exposure. That means 5 minutes is 5 minutes too much.


Its a respect thing.


Plus a health consideration thing, as you hinted at. I'm allergic to cigerette smoke; it gives me a headache.

[Jude]

In case you missed the Surgeon General's statement, he said that there is no safe level of exposure of cigerette smoke exposure. That means 5 minutes is 5 minutes too much.



Plus a health consideration thing, as you hinted at. I'm allergic to cigerette smoke; it gives me a headache.

Are there not enough voluntarily smoke-free bars and restaurants for you?

[sexymuffin]

Dude, I smoke. I go outside, because I know that there are people who don't like it, but still want to go to a bar. There's also things like asthma sufferers, who like to drink in bars. Its a respect thing.

okay good for you, but that still doesn't change the fact that they choose to be in that specific bar that allows smoking, it's their problem.

[666Ozzfan]

Are there not enough voluntarily smoke-free bars and restaurants for you?

I don't think it is necessarily that. Some places that allow smoking, are really nice places. But if you can't cope, physically, with smoke, you are basically forced to not go there, even though you'd really like to.

[sexymuffin]

I don't think it is necessarily that. Some places that allow smoking, are really nice places. But if you can't cope, physically, with smoke, you are basically forced to not go there, even though you'd really like to.

oh boo hoo for them then

if they don't want to hang around smoke then they merely have to go to some place that doesn't have smokers. It obviously can't be that nice of a place if they can't stay in there without dry heaving.

[Jude]

I don't think it is necessarily that. Some places that allow smoking, are really nice places. But if you can't cope, physically, with smoke, you are basically forced to not go there, even though you'd really like to.

The same could be said for a place that, say, plays music you don't like, or has a type of patrons you don't like.

The only valid argument in this thread that supports this ban at all is the stuff Tway said. Come on guys.

[666Ozzfan]

You're not very tolerable others are you?

So boo hoo for you if you are going to have to go outside for a cigarette if this gets passed. Seriously it's not that huge of an issue for you is it?

[Hababi]

Are there not enough voluntarily smoke-free bars and restaurants for you?

Not really :\ Many, maybe most restaurants around here having smoking areas, and that's just not acceptable. I go into a restaurant not expecting to broken glass to be scattered on the tables, because it might hurt me. And I go in not wanting to have cigerette smoke flowing through the air, because it will hurt me.

[Jude]

You're not very tolerable others are you?

So boo hoo for you if you are going to have to go outside for a cigarette if this gets passed. Seriously it's not that huge of an issue for you is it?

Are you talking to me?

I don't even smoke.

And I consider people who would put a broad ban on smoking rather than just pick and choose which restaurants they frequent to be a lot more intolerant than smokers.

[666Ozzfan]

Are you talking to me?

I don't even smoke.

And I consider people who would put a broad ban on smoking rather than just pick and choose which restaurants they frequent to be a lot more intolerant than smokers.

Nah, sorry, that was to sexymuffin

[Iskandar]

Not really :\ Many, maybe most restaurants around here having smoking areas, and that's just not acceptable. I go into a restaurant not expecting to broken glass to be scattered on the tables, because it might hurt me. And I go in not wanting to have cigerette smoke flowing through the air, because it will hurt me.
So don't go to restaurants like that.

[Hababi]

So don't go to restaurants like that.

A restaurant has no right to create an environment that is dangerous to their patrons.

[Iskandar]

A restaurant has no right to create an environment that is dangerous to their patrons.
Patrons who choose that restaurant?

[sexymuffin]

You're not very tolerable others are you?

So boo hoo for you if you are going to have to go outside for a cigarette if this gets passed. Seriously it's not that huge of an issue for you is it?

no it's not a huge issue becuase i'm not even old enough to go into bars

but it's the principal. They can decide whether or not they want to go to a smoking bar or a bar where people don't smoke in. It's not that difficult.

[AmericanWeiner]

Patrons who choose that restaurant?

That's why this isn't a laissez-faire economy.

Either way, I've never seen a resteraunt that was voluntarily completely non-smoking. It's bad for their business.

[Hababi]

Patrons who choose that restaurant?

Yes. There are certain expectations a patron has the right to have when entering a restaurant. That the food prep meets health standards. That the help is not uncleanly. And that the restaurant doesn't place their health in peril. Allowing smoking does this. It's no different than allowing a restaurant to keep food at unsafe temperatures.

Simply put, why have a health review board at all, then?


It's bad for their business.


In NYC, business picked up for joints once they banned smoking.

[Iskandar]

It's no different than allowing a restaurant to keep food at unsafe temperatures.
The closest comparison for it, in my opinion, is fast-food.

[sexymuffin]

It's no different than allowing a restaurant to keep food at unsafe temperatures.


actually, it's a lot different. One has to deal with the food they're directly recieving, and the other has to do with people in a well ventilated section enjoying a cigarette while they eat.

I've never once smelled any smoke carry over from the smoking section to the non smoking section in any restraunt i've been in.

[Hababi]

and the other has to do with people in a well ventilated section enjoying a cigarette while they eat.


The problem is that there is no such thing as well ventilated. Unless the restaurant is willing to have two completely separate enclaves, in no way connected. If they're willing to do that, then it's ok. Other than that, no.


I've never once smelled any smoke carry over from the smoking section to the non smoking section in any restraunt i've been in.


I have.


The closest comparison for it, in my opinion, is fast-food.


Fast food has no nutritional value but the food is still prepared in a proper fashion. You're at risk if you overeat it, but not from anything the restaurant does in the operation itself. With smoking, you're harmed no matter what.

[Iskandar]

Fast food has no nutritional value but the food is still prepared in a proper fashion. You're at risk if you overeat it, but not from anything the restaurant does in the operation itself. With smoking, you're harmed no matter what.
You're at risk if you over-smoke.

[sexymuffin]

I have.


oh okay super strong nose man. are you telling me we don't have a section of our health inspections to ensure that the smoking sections are ventilated enough?

[Hababi]

You're at risk if you over-smoke.


You're at risk if you smoke at all. Oversmoking just makes it even worse, but any exposure to cigerette smoke puts you at risk.


are you telling me we don't have a section of our health inspections to ensure that the smoking sections are ventilated enough?


I'm telling you it's not enough.

[Iskandar]

You're at risk if you smoke at all. Oversmoking just makes it even worse, but any exposure to cigerette smoke puts you at risk.
There are negative health effects of eating fast food even occasionally, I should think.

[sexymuffin]

I'm telling you it's not enough.

and why not? If it's government regulated, what's the issue?

You're at risk if you smoke at all. Oversmoking just makes it even worse, but any exposure to cigerette smoke puts you at risk.

um what exact risks is one facing when they sit in a non smoking section of a restraunt and occasionally smell cigarette smoke?

[Jude]

Yes. There are certain expectations a patron has the right to have when entering a restaurant. That the food prep meets health standards. That the help is not uncleanly. And that the restaurant doesn't place their health in peril. Allowing smoking does this. It's no different than allowing a restaurant to keep food at unsafe temperatures.


If there were people who really had no problem with contaminated food or dirty waiters, it should be fine for restaurants to have those things as long as they were readily obvious. There ARE plenty of people who want restaurants where they can smoke and that IS obvious.

[Iskandar]

Furthermore, I don't see how it violates anyone's rights if one chooses to patronize a smoky bar. It's their own fault if they develop lung cancer. It's the same as if I were stupid enough to visit Beirut during a street battle.

[Hababi]

There are negative health effects of eating fast food even occasionally, I should think.


Not in the direct and palpable way that there is with cigerette smoke, and also that's the difference between the product itself and the environment of the product. Restaurants are legally obligated to maintain a safe, cleanly environment. Thus, it is only logical for them to not allow cigerette smoke.


and why not? If it's government regulated, what's the issue?


The government regulations are not up to date with medical research.

[sexymuffin]

The government regulations are not up to date with medical research.

so write them a letter.

[AmericanWeiner]

In NYC, business picked up for joints once they banned smoking.

That's because it was a total ban :thumb:

Involuntary cases, they'd face losing smokers to other resteraunts.

[Hababi]

If there were people who really had no problem with contaminated food or dirty waiters, it should be fine for restaurants to have those things as long as they were readily obvious. There ARE plenty of people who want restaurants where they can smoke and that IS obvious.


But it's not about what those people want. It's about the standards we have in place as an organized society. And that includes standards for public facilities. People have no right to endanger other people at a place that is open to the public.

[Iskandar]

But it's not about what those people want. It's about the standards we have in place as an organized society. And that includes standards for public facilities. People have no right to endanger other people at a place that is open to the public.
But it's not public property (although it, of course, will be after my noble comrades and I enact the glorious sotsialisticha revolution).

My front lawn is open to the public.

[Hababi]

But it's not public property (although it, of course, will be after my noble comrades and I enact the glorious sotsialisticha revolution).


:lol:

While it's not public property, it is still open to the public--so long as they can not discriminate admittance based on race, color or creed.

[Iskandar]

While it's not public property, it is still open to the public--so long as they can not discriminate admittance based on race, color or creed.
Well, that's a given.

My front lawn is open to the public. I cannot discriminate againt race on it.

[Hababi]

Yes but your own private property isn't governed the same as a business that's open to the public.

[Iskandar]

Yes but your own private property isn't governed the same as a business that's open to the public.
What do you mean?

If I allow people into my living room and let them smoke, what's the difference?

[Hababi]

What do you mean?

If I allow people into my living room and let them smoke, what's the difference?

You can turn people away from your house for being black, being Jewish, or being red haired. A restaurant can't.

[Iskandar]

You can turn people away from your house for being black, being Jewish, or being red haired. A restaurant can't.
I can't be overt about it.

Maybe laws in America are wiggedy-wack, but I don't think I can tell a visitor that he's not welcome because he's black.

[Hababi]

I can't be overt about it.

Maybe laws in America are wiggedy-wack, but I don't think I can tell a visitor that he's not welcome because he's black.

I'm pretty sure you can :\ You can't assault the person, but you can say, "get lost, ******."

[Iskandar]

I'm pretty sure you can :\ You can't assault the person, but you can say, "get lost, ******."
In Canada? I really don't think I can insult another person about his race, religion etc. under any circumstances.

[Hababi]

In Canada? I really don't think I can insult another person about his race, religion etc. under any circumstances.

Oh I don't know about Canada, I'm just talking about the states.

[Iskandar]

Oh I don't know about Canada, I'm just talking about the states.
America's wiggedy-wack if a racial insult is no grounds for harassment.

[Amit]

mmmm ban the wacky tabacky

[Iskandar]

mmmm ban the wacky tabacky
Jeez, you're on a real statist kick lately.

[AmericanWeiner]

America's wiggedy-wack if a racial insult is no grounds for harassment.

There are no grounds for harassment when you're standing on my front porch.

[Iskandar]

There are no grounds for harassment when you're standing on my front porch.
Wait, I don't know what you're trying to say to me.

Allow me to establish a grounding: I don't have the right to insult another person's race, religion, etc. in the process of telling them to remove their person from my property.

[Smokey D]

Allow me to establish a grounding: I don't have the right to insult another person's race, religion, etc. in the process of telling them to remove their person from my property.

If a person approaches you on your property, they have no grounds on which to bring a claim of harrasment, whatever language was used to tell them to leave. If there's some law saying that racially (or whatever else) abusive language is illegal at all times, then you'd have case, but it wouldn't be harrassment.


Smoking is legal provided you are the right age. The government does/should not have the authority to declare that an otherwise legal activity is not legal inside certain privately owned properties which is the problem here. There are exceptions such as the alchohol thing; that's because alcohol consumption while driving is directly linked to imminent danger to all who may happen to be using that road. With smoking there is no such link. The risk of the smoker dying or even becoming ill is far from absolute and for others it is even less. The argument that smoking should be banned because it's unhealthy is not grounds for the government intruding on property owners' rights because anyone who dislikes smoky restaurants or clubs is utterly free not to frequent them.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about. If there is no Constitutional constraint active on the government, it can make laws about anything. Since your right to smoke or to allow other people to smoke in your commercial establishment is not gaurunteed in the Constitution (and, I suspect, no individual state constitution either), the government can require you to ban it even in a private establishment. I suspect there's some privacy laws which prevent the government from enforcing a ban in a private home, but the Courts are likely to apply far more relaxed tests with regards to a restaurant or something.

There's a point to specific provisions in the law, you know. Things like 'Smoking shall be legal except where it occurs inside an establishment with the purpose of selling food or drink' is a perfectly valid and legal clause for any government to pass.

With publicly owned spaces, a smoking ban would be legal because the government/public owns that space but the intrusion of such a ruling onto private property is intolerable.

This is the main issue. It's not whether the government can legally ban the use of a substance or activity, but whether it should.

[666Ozzfan]

Smoking is legal provided you are the right age. The government does/should not have the authority to declare that an otherwise legal activity is not legal inside certain privately owned properties which is the problem here.

I don't know if this is on the same line, but in Amsterdam, smoking pot is legal. Therefore, growing it is legal. But in your own home, you aren't allowed to grow more than 5 plants..... (or there abouts)

[666Ozzfan]

We have no problems over here about smoking outside. Because we're not allowed to. On the night the law changed, cigarettes were allowed to be smoked, until 12pm, the day the law changed. After that we had to smoke outside. It really isn't any hassle.

[Iskandar]

If there's some law saying that racially (or whatever else) abusive language is illegal at all times, then you'd have case, but it wouldn't be harrassment.
I'm fairly certain there is such a law in Canada and that it applies to all situations, but I'm really a novice at law.

[Smokey D]

I'm not entirely sure, but Canada seems to have laws regarding hate speech which advocates genocide incites hatred against any identifiable group in society (which includes things like ethnicity, race, sexual orientation religion etc). Therefore, saying something like 'Get off my porch ******/cracker/faggot/etc', while absolutely abhorent, does not probably constitute hate speech, and would be subject to Canada's laws on freedom of expression.

[Reaganista]

come on it's hardly abhorent to insult somebody creeping around your house

[Amit]

Jeez, you're on a real statist kick lately.

whats that

[Lupus]

You guys do realise that nobody is obligated to open a bar, right? It's their choice to do so, and their choice as to whether people smoke in there. If people don't want to go to a place where people smoke, that's fine, don't go to that bar. I know I'd be pretty pissed off if I opened a bar with the intent of allowing smoking, only to be told that smoke-free bar law had just been passed.

[666Ozzfan]

You guys do realise that nobody is obligated to open a bar, right? It's their choice to do so, and their choice as to whether people smoke in there. If people don't want to go to a place where people smoke, that's fine, don't go to that bar. I know I'd be pretty pissed off if I opened a bar with the intent of allowing smoking, only to be told that smoke-free bar law had just been passed.

But every bar would be effected by the same law. You'd theoretically get the same profits compared to other bars before the law pass as after. It shouldn't really affect it.

[Lupus]

But every bar would be effected by the same law. You'd theoretically get the same profits compared to other bars before the law pass as after. It shouldn't really affect it.

Yes, but there are other reasons to open a bar than just to make profit. I'm sure a lot of people who own bars enjoy owning one, and would enjoy being allowed to smoke on their private property.

Really, I don't care what you call it, house, bar, restaurant...If it's my private property, you're my guest. I don't have to let you in, and I don't have to listen to you complain about my personal habits.

[semi]

Scotland did this a while ago and its working very well.

[666Ozzfan]

Scotland did this a while ago and its working very well.

Exactly. I don't see the problem, really. Ok, as Lupus said, it is the owners private property, but still, essentially the public is there.

On that note, Lupus, if you were to start a new bar, you could always make an on-site partially enclosed area for smokers to go for a smoko. As in, separate from the bar, and essentially outside. LPG heaters, 3 walls and a roof, and it is still relatively warm. You could even put a small bar there, and the main bar inside.

[semi]

people jsut stand outside now. and some places have put up little shelter things on the side of the building because rain is lol and ash trays.

[FA]

Rule 1: Don't associate yourself with smokers.
Rule 2: If it's that big of deal that someone is smoking a cigarette...get over it.

[Amit]

ban cigs and shoot people on sight for smoking

[FA]

That's Rule 3 eggs

[Futue te Ipsum]

err, it's actually considered to be "semi-public" rather than private due to the nature of pubs : /

[Jaded]

For god sakes if you have a problem with the way a bar is run, don't patronize it. If it allows smoking, don't go there, or don't get a job there. It's really as simple as that.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Banning tobacco would probably just give it a cult status - it would be considered even more "cool" by young people if it was illegal. Prohibition did nothing to decrease alcohol use and in some areas drinking actually increased.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

If people do not like smoking in a bar/restaurant, they don't have to go to that bar

If there are enough people who want their favorite bar/restaurant smoke-free enough to cause a decrease in profit, that bar/restaurant would ban smoking in a heartbeat

To quote the old Libertarian answer to damn near every problem: "Let the Market decide"

[Iskandar]

If people do not like smoking in a bar/restaurant, they don't have to go to that bar

If there are enough people who want their favorite bar/restaurant smoke-free enough to cause a decrease in profit, that bar/restaurant would ban smoking in a heartbeat

To quote the old Libertarian answer to damn near every problem: "Let the Market decide"
For once I agree with that.

[Jude]

If people do not like smoking in a bar/restaurant, they don't have to go to that bar

If there are enough people who want their favorite bar/restaurant smoke-free enough to cause a decrease in profit, that bar/restaurant would ban smoking in a heartbeat

To quote the old Libertarian answer to damn near every problem: "Let the Market decide"

Thank you.

Interestly enough this would also solve problems of not having hygiene regulations on restaurants, although I do think those should exist.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

It's a lot easier to tell if a restaurant allows smoking than if it is unhygenic

[meanpeoplesuck]

I support a ban of smoking in public places, we brought it in over here ages ago and everyone whined and moaned but a week after it had been brought in everybody came around to the idea. The amount of people smoking has gone down 16%, and us non smokers aren't inhaling smoke, risking our health, and having clothes smell like crap for the sake of some addicts.

Our government framed it as a law to benefit those who work in public places, and are being put at risk due to smokers. Which is fair enough.

[Futue te Ipsum]

"Let the Market decide"That doesn't work.

[Electronic Wolf]

I don't think smoking should be banned, but it shouldn't be allowed in public places not out in the open (inside buildings and isht).

[Illmatic]

I don't know what the big deal is.

I personally love it when my government decides what is good for me and what is bad for me.

I want the government to pass a law telling me what to wear, eat, and drink, too.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I don't know what the big deal is.

I personally love it when my government decides what is good for me and what is bad for me.

I want the government to pass a law telling me what to wear, eat, and drink, too.Oh, sarcasm. I notice how you relate all this to YOU and YOUR rights.

[Hababi]

I don't know what the big deal is.

I personally love it when my government decides what is good for me and what is bad for me.

I want the government to pass a law telling me what to wear, eat, and drink, too.

The government already passes laws telling you what to wear. Try walking into a grocery store without any clothes on (just don't do it in my neighborhood). See how long before you're arrested for public indecency.

Same thing with what to eat and what to drink (IE moonshine).

[Illmatic]

Oh how I love sarcasm. I notice how you relate all this to YOU and YOUR rights.

I don't even smoke anymore.

I just want to draw a line somewhere.

besides, doesn't the state max money off taxing cigarettes?

The government already passes laws telling you what to wear. Try walking into a grocery store without any clothes on (just don't do it in my neighborhood). See how long before you're arrested for public indecency.

that's not WHAT to wear, that's whether or not you even wear clothes. I want them to tell me what shirt, pants, whatever I should wear. please, federal government, state government, I beg you to save me from myself.

[Electronic Wolf]

I think he means like, for dinner you can only eat eggplant, beef, and spinach (E. coli'd or not!).

[Hababi]

that's not WHAT to wear, that's whether or not you even wear clothes


Ok, try wearing a bikini and an illfitting loin cloth, and nothing else. You've decided what to wear, and they're going to tell you to wear something else.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I don't even smoke anymore.

I just want to draw a line somewhere.

besides, doesn't the state max money off taxing cigarettes?I know that the tax taken from smoking in the UK is slightly higher than the predicted cost of smoking, but then it's not a case of economics.

How about we draw the line behind putting other peoples lives at risk?

[WhoDidTheElf]

I know that the tax taken from smoking in the UK is slightly higher than the predicted cost of smoking, but then it's not a case of economics.

How about we draw the line behind putting other peoples lives at risk?

Have you ever inhaled fumes from fueling your car up or tar from an asphalt truck? Those are just as bad, if not worse, for you than smoke, yet you don't hear jack **** about that at all.

[sexymuffin]

Ok, try wearing a bikini and an illfitting loin cloth, and nothing else. You've decided what to wear, and they're going to tell you to wear something else.

um wtf no they wouldn't. You have every right to wear a bikini and loin cloth in public. girls do it all the time

[666Ozzfan]

um wtf no they wouldn't. You have every right to wear a bikini and loin cloth in public. girls do it all the time

Thats the same reasoning females here used. They now get to walk topless publically. Yay for feminism! :D

[RNR]

I don't mind people smoking near me and so I don't care. But 2nd hand smoke could technically be considered as a form of assult so I don't think that people who do mind people smoking near them should have to deal with it

[WhoDidTheElf]

I don't mind people smoking near me and so I don't care. But 2nd hand smoke could technically be considered as a form of assult so I don't think that people who do mind people smoking near them should have to deal with it

It would only be assult if it was like with some form of intent on making you breath it in I believe...

[sexymuffin]

2nd hand smoke could technically be considered as a form of assult

hahaha no it couldn't

[TheClap]

hahaha no it couldn't

Im against smoking and I fully agree with you. :smoke:

[Secumbro]

I noticed that people here group restaurants and bars together when they seem like completely different things to me. Here in Thailand it's still up to the establishment if smoking inside is allowed or not. Having said that, 90% of the restaurants here will not allow smoking to happen within its walls. I personally don't have a problem with this at all (as a smoker), because even though I love to have a cigarette after a meal, it's just rude as hell to be smoking when people around you are still eating, so I go outside where an ashtray is usually provided. I do however, have a problem with banning smoknig in bars, which thankfully, hasn't happened here and never will. The bar/pub is, and for a very long time, has ALWAYS been a place where people go to drink and to smoke. People don't go to bars to excercise their health, they go there to injure it, in a fun and recreational way :) If you're the kind of person who goes to a bar with a couple friends to drink water and nag about the vaguely proven lung cancer/second hand smoke relationship, then next weekend please stay at home, eat a healthy meal and do some sit ups and push ups. Hell, call a couple of friends over to join you! That way I can enjoy my unhealthy lifestyle while you can enjoy your healthy one.

[John Paul Harrison]

I noticed that people here group restaurants and bars together when they seem like completely different things to me. Here in Thailand it's still up to the establishment if smoking inside is allowed or not. Having said that, 90% of the restaurants here will not allow smoking to happen within its walls. I personally don't have a problem with this at all (as a smoker), because even though I love to have a cigarette after a meal, it's just rude as hell to be smoking when people around you are still eating, so I go outside where an ashtray is usually provided.


I hate to exaggerate, but this here sounds to me like the voice of reason. Private establishments are smart enough to go after the money and cater to the consumer's demands. I know of at least ten local restaurants I frequent that have individually taken the initiative and banned smoking, without the federal government stepping in.

I don’t see why this system needs to be tampered with.

[Steerpike]

As much as I loathe smoking, the idea of a public ban doesn't sit right with me.

People should be allowed to make the idiotic mistake of ****ing their lungs up just as much as their livers. Just don't do it around me.

If someone is smoking around me, I politely ask them to stop. If they don't, then I can deal with the problem without nagging for legislation. If a restaurant wants to appear more "family friendly" or something like that and bans smoking on their premises, fine. They own the property, it's within their rights.

[Give me Beer]

You can turn people away from your house for being black, being Jewish, or being red haired. A restaurant can't.

They can if you're a smoker!

I'm against it because I think that as an owner it should be your choice.

Don't like smoke? Don't go to smokey bars. Oh, and Serenity, walking down the mainstreet of your city will do your lungs a lot more damage than the occasional whiff of cigarette smoke that you have to endure. Are we going to ban cars as well then?

[Hababi]

They can if you're a smoker!

I'm against it because I think that as an owner it should be your choice.

Don't like smoke? Don't go to smokey bars. Oh, and Serenity, walking down the mainstreet of your city will do your lungs a lot more damage than the occasional whiff of cigarette smoke that you have to endure. Are we going to ban cars as well then?

It's not just for the patrons, though (I find this angle easier to argue). It's also for the workers--you are obligated to give a safe workplace. Allowing smoking fails to do this.

[Amit]

As much as I loathe smoking, the idea of a public ban doesn't sit right with me.

People should be allowed to make the idiotic mistake of ****ing their lungs up just as much as their livers. Just don't do it around me.

but that's making the assumption that their actions do not affect everyone else

[sexymuffin]

the workers know that they are going to be working in an unhealthy enviornment, and if they're not aware of this, then they have no place working at a bar.

[Hababi]

the workers know that they are going to be working in an unhealthy enviornment, and if they're not aware of this, then they have no place working at a bar.


So why have any workplace standards legislation? Just tell the people what they're getting themselves into and revert back to the early 1900's. Hands lost to meatgrinders? Pfft, tough luck.

[Iskandar]

So why have any workplace standards legislation? Just tell the people what they're getting themselves into and revert back to the early 1900's. Hands lost to meatgrinders? Pfft, tough luck.
Dammit, I knew you'd get me if you tried this angle.

I'm going to have to think this over again. I'm definitely sure nobody has the right to allow unsafe working conditions ... but then what if they choose to work there ... but is it really a choice ...

Way to overcomplicate my life, Steve.

[Hababi]

Dammit, I knew you'd get me if you tried this angle.


Muhahaha :evil:

I should've been sticking up for the workers from the start :p

[sexymuffin]

So why have any workplace standards legislation? Just tell the people what they're getting themselves into and revert back to the early 1900's. Hands lost to meatgrinders? Pfft, tough luck.

Because smoking isn't as immediate of a danger as a meatgrinder is. They don't have to work there if they don't want to, this isn't the industrial revolution or the depression where you can't find work anywhere.

I see what you're saying, and i understand your point. But is there some coalition of workers that have formed together trying to get smoking banned? I think if there are enough workers at a bar who don't like smoking, they should be able to appeal to their owner and get that bar changed to a non-smoking bar. But a lot of bars have workers who don't mind smoking at all.

[Jude]

Because smoking isn't as immediate of a danger as a meatgrinder is. l

This is what I've been trying to tell all you workplace legislation people. The principles are completely different.

[Iskandar]

But is there some coalition of workers that have formed together trying to get smoking banned? I think if there are enough workers at a bar who don't like smoking, they should be able to appeal to their owner and get that bar changed to a non-smoking bar.
In situations where unionization rights are guaranteed, I'd definitely agree with this.

[Amit]

just because the workers are too stupid (like most people who don't understand why smoking is bad for everyone in more ways than just second hand smoke) to understand the dangers and burdens of tobacco on healthcare doesn't mean they should be able to decide that they can work in an unsafe and dangerous environment

[Hababi]

Because smoking isn't as immediate of a danger as a meatgrinder is.


Just because the effects usually aren't seen as immediately doesn't change the underlying principles of workplace hazards standards. (Blah I hate the construction of those types of sentences)

The damages of exposure to asbestos weren't seen immediately. People only saw it after ten, twenty, thirty years. Then they were dying. Just because the effects are usually delayed, in terms of being realized, doesn't change the issue.

Prolonged exposure to high quantities of cigerrette smoke will cause significant damage. It's an unavoidable reality. Just because the consequences of the exposure won't be seen for years doesn't mean that workplaces lose their responsibility.


I think if there are enough workers at a bar who don't like smoking, they should be able to appeal to their owner and get that bar changed to a non-smoking bar. But a lot of bars have workers who don't mind smoking at all.


Yeah, but a lot of people were used to the unsafe working conditions of mines, too. That doesn't mean that the companies didn't have an obligation to improve them :\

[sexymuffin]

Just because the effects usually aren't seen as immediately doesn't change the underlying principles of workplace hazards standards. (Blah I hate the construction of those types of sentences)

The damages of exposure to asbestos weren't seen immediately. People only saw it after ten, twenty, thirty years. Then they were dying. Just because the effects are usually delayed, in terms of being realized, doesn't change the issue.

Prolonged exposure to high quantities of cigerrette smoke will cause significant damage. It's an unavoidable reality. Just because the consequences of the exposure won't be seen for years doesn't mean that workplaces lose their responsibility.

But asbestos was different because nobody was really aware it did them harm. Everyone knows how dangerous cigarette smoke is, you can't turn on the tv without seeing someone standing on a soapbox preaching about it and how evil the tobacco companies are, so to treat the situation as if it's paralelled to the asbestos situation is unfair.

Once again, it's not as if these people are being forced to work at a bar. The people that would be getting the most smoke would be the bartenders, and that's generally a job that you have to compete to get.


Yeah, but a lot of people were used to the unsafe working conditions of mines, too. That doesn't mean that the companies didn't have an obligation to improve them :\

i didn't say they were used to it, i said they didn't mind it.

If i like to smoke that doesn't mean i'm used to it, that means i like it
If i don't mind smoke that doesn't mean i'm used to it, that means i don't mind it.

just because the workers are too stupid (like most people who don't understand why smoking is bad for everyone in more ways than just second hand smoke) to understand the dangers and burdens of tobacco on healthcare doesn't mean they should be able to decide that they can work in an unsafe and dangerous environment

or maybe it's just that not all of us would put national healthcare before human liberties.

[Hababi]

But asbestos was different because nobody was really aware it did them harm. Everyone knows how dangerous cigarette smoke is, you can't turn on the tv without seeing someone standing on a soapbox preaching about it and how evil the tobacco companies are, so to treat the situation as if it's paralelled to the asbestos situation is unfair.


Ok, you have a point about asbestos, but it still seems like your argument was predicated on the immediacy of the impact--losing a hand there and then vs. developing long term health effects that will only manifest themselves later. And I just don't see that one flying.

As for people knowing the effects of smoking, I don't know about that. I think a great deal of people still don't recognize the damage of passive smoking, and cigerrette companies have done a whole lot to undermine the campaign to elucidate people on the matter.


i didn't say they were used to it, i said they didn't mind it.


Yeah but by growing used to it, the people would say they didn't mind it, that it just came with the territory.

[Amit]

or maybe it's just that not all of us would put national healthcare before human liberties.

it isn't really a human liberty when it disrupts everyone else

sort of like how it isn't a human liberty to call 911 for no reason

[Iskandar]

or maybe it's just that not all of us would put national healthcare before human liberties.
Is it a human liberty to create a situation which will definitely lead to future burdens on taxpayer-funded healthcare?

[Hababi]

sort of like how it isn't a human liberty to call 911 for no reason


What are you talking about? I do that all the time:

Operator: 911, what's your emergency
Me: Docta Docta give me the news, I got a da-da bad case of luvvin you
*hangs up*

[sexymuffin]

As for people knowing the effects of smoking, I don't know about that. I think a great deal of people still don't recognize the damage of passive smoking, and cigerrette companies have done a whole lot to undermine the campaign to elucidate people on the matter.

one of the largest anti-smoking campaigns is funded by tobacco companies. Granted, not by choice, but it's not as if we don't have these commercials or surgeon general's warnings on the packages. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in this country who actually believes breathing in second hand smoke is healthy.

Yeah but by growing used to it, the people would say they didn't mind it, that it just came with the territory.

no no, i mean people who inherently don't mind smoke or smokers. I know many people who would never touch a cigarette but dont get bothered at all when they breathe in smoke. This isn't because they're used to it, it's because they just have never had a problem with it.

it isn't really a human liberty when it disrupts everyone else

sort of like how it isn't a human liberty to call 911 for no reason

not exactly the same, but i see what you're saying. My only problem with that is that banning cigarettes would be a step in the direction of just banning anything that's unhealthy.

Why not tax cigarettes, or smokers to compensate for the money lost?

Then again the government really doesn't spend its money too wisely to be taxing the working class like that.

[Iskandar]

Why not tax cigarettes, or smokers to compensate for the money lost?
Whoa, you guys don't do that already?

[sexymuffin]

well we tax cigarettes, but i don't know if we tax smokers.

we should though, i wouldn't mind paying a bit more if i'm allowed to smoke without people being on my back all the time.

[666Ozzfan]

well we tax cigarettes, but i don't know if we tax smokers.

we should though, i wouldn't mind paying a bit more if i'm allowed to smoke without people being on my back all the time.

hmm, but not many smokers will agree. I wouldn't want to. And it wouldn't be the easiest thing to do would it? Another thing, aren't many smokers of the low income households? Would they be able to afford it? Because it really wouldn't make them stop would it?

Just a few questions that popped in my head.....

[sexymuffin]

which is why i earlier stated this:

Then again the government really doesn't spend its money too wisely to be taxing the working class like that.

eh, worded bad, but you get the idea. Our government wastes millions upon millions of dollars every year, and until it gets its act together, I don't think it has any bussiness taxing smokers.

[Iskandar]

well we tax cigarettes, but i don't know if we tax smokers.

we should though, i wouldn't mind paying a bit more if i'm allowed to smoke without people being on my back all the time.
Nah, I'd say raising taxes on cigarettes is enough. That way we can avoid complaints of "discrimination" and "police state," too.

[sexymuffin]

well the tax cigs i don't care. It's not like we can't make up for the money without banning cigarettes outright.

[666Ozzfan]

I don't know what the tax rate is over there, but here it is already insane. B&H 20's are like $10. About $8 (i think) is tax

[sexymuffin]

if that's what it takes to retain my right to smoke then i don't care

[Iskandar]

if that's what it takes to retain my right to smoke then i don't care
Quite frankly I don't see why anybody would want to smoke.

[sexymuffin]

for the nicotine

[666Ozzfan]

Just found the figures:

Excise tax: 24c per cigarette (11c US)
GST: 4.7c per cigarette

A pack of 20 is around $8.50. 20 a day habit costs around $3000 per year.
Each cigarette costs around 42c (double from 1990)
It takes average of 29 mins work on average wage to earn enough for a pack of 20. (17.30 mins in 1990)
For the price of a big mac, a smoker can buy 8.5 cigarettes. (down from 12 in 1995)

68.3% of what we pay for cigarettes is tax.

[Iskandar]

for the nicotine
Yeah, addiction to nicotine.

[sexymuffin]

Yeah, addiction to nicotine.

yes it's physically addictive but it also feels good, what's your point

[666Ozzfan]

http://www.ndp.govt.nz/tobacco/documents/tobaccotax.pdf#search=%22New%20zealand%20cigarette %20tax%22

(link to site where I got figures from)

[Iskandar]

yes it's physically addictive but it also feels good, what's your point
There are plenty of other habits that feel good but aren't addictive or harmful, like dri-

Never mind.

[sexymuffin]

yeah but i mean it feels REALLY good

especially when you're stoned oo yeah

[Iskandar]

yeah but i mean it feels REALLY good

especially when you're stoned oo yeah
Meh, I've tried it a few times and never enjoyed it.

There are better vices out there (cheaper, too).

[lfantwister]

merge with sex thread?

[sexymuffin]

Meh, I've tried it a few times and never enjoyed it.

There are better vices out there (cheaper, too).

yeah but cigarettes are hands down the easiest.

[TheClap]

merge with sex thread?

:smoke: :chug:

personally do what you want, just don't get in the way of people who don't like it.

[666Ozzfan]

Meh, I've tried it a few times and never enjoyed it.

There are better vices out there (cheaper, too).

nutmeg. Much cheaper. and hallucinogenic. and legal to buy. Although, it may look a little strange someone walking out of a shop carrying 10 boxes of nutmeg powder.

[Danger Bird]

Nope. Cigarettes are deadly, disgusting, and stupid, and people have the right to put what they want into their own bodies.

nutmeg. Much cheaper. and hallucinogenic. and legal to buy. Although, it may look a little strange someone walking out of a shop carrying 10 boxes of nutmeg powder.

You're a moron. Nutmeg will make you sicker than peyote.

[Amit]

people have the right to put what they want into their own bodies until it starts to significantly affect others

so that takes care of smoking

[Danger Bird]

There are plenty of other habits that feel good but aren't addictive or harmful, like dri-

Never mind.

See: marijuana.

Cannabis is ten times more fun than tobacco and nowhere near as harmful.

people have the right to put what they want into their own bodies until it starts to significantly affect others

so that takes care of smoking

No, that takes care of smoking in a crowded area.

At any rate, second-hand is way overblown. I barely get a whiff when I go by a smoker, so I really don't mind. And this is coming from somebody who detests tobacco.

[Amit]

lmao have you read the thread

uggghhhh i am not even talking about second hand smoking

http://tobacco.aadac.com/about_smoking/economic_costs/

or go find your own

[Danger Bird]

Oh, the healthcare thing? Just tax it more. Besides, by that logic it should be illegal to jump off your roof because if you injure yourself it will cost the taxpayers money.

[Amit]

doesn't solve the problem at all though

[Danger Bird]

Sure it does. Why doesn't it?

[Amit]

healthcare costs go up no matter how much healthcare institutions receive from taxes

[Danger Bird]

So don't make self-inflicted injuries eligible for healthcare?

[Amit]

but private practices don't want to deal with that ****

[Danger Bird]

Then it's not the smoker's fault, it's the private practice's. Just because something makes your healthcare costs go up, I really don't think that's enough to outright ban it. Like I said, you may as well ban getting sick.

[Amit]

no it is smoker's fault for indulging in a luxury that inconveniences (to put it mildly) everyone else

also

umm getting sick is not controllable

making the decision to smoke is, however

and if it isn't, then even more reason to ban it

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

So then tax it to discourage usage, but don't force owners of private establishments to not allow smoking

[Volumnius Flush]

How can you ban smoking? This is big government out of control.

[Danger Bird]

no it is smoker's fault for indulging in a luxury that inconveniences (to put it mildly) everyone else

That's an asshole thing to do, but I don't think it's bad enough to be illegalized.

umm getting sick is not controllable
So should it be illegal for me to jump off my roof?

[Iskandar]

So then tax it to discourage usage, but don't force owners of private establishments to not allow smoking
I agree with the taxation part, but I'm not sold on private establishments. It's fine if consumers want to sit in a dingy, smoky bar; what about the workers?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I haven't heard any workers calling for the bans

[Iskandar]

I haven't heard any workers calling for the bans
What I mean is that nobody can legally provide an unsafe working environment, no matter if one chooses to work in it or not. Does a lot of secondhand count as an unsafe condition?

[666Ozzfan]

Might I add that pubs smell worse without cigarette smoke to cover it up

[griftadan]

What I mean is that nobody can legally provide an unsafe working environment,

sure they can they do it all the time.

[Iskandar]

sure they can they do it all the time.
There are definitely laws, regulations (feel free to shudder) and agreements defining safe working conditions in Krazy Kommie Kanata. Something of the sort must exist in Americapitalism.

[666Ozzfan]

It was mostly those working in pubs here that wanted the change to ban smoking in pubs. Although, there were one or two pubs that tried to continue to allow smoking, but they got fined.

I don't see what is wrong with going outside for 5 mins to have a cigarette. It's not really that much of a hassle.

[Amit]

That's an asshole thing to do, but I don't think it's bad enough to be illegalized.

isn't pulling fire alarms an asshole thing to do

it's illegal as far as i know

hmm but it doesn't give the person who pulled it cancer or chronic bronchitis

where's the difference

So should it be illegal for me to jump off my roof?

if you continually use up the emergency room and PT resources for frivolous purposes over a long period of time then yes