Wolfie

No, but the government could decide that those are bad for you anyways.

You are against bars set up specifically for smokers. Those places don't hurt anyone around them. And yes, if you were to go into the bar, it would hurt you...but that is not the fault of the bar nor the smokers in it, it was your decision to go into said place.

Wolfie

No it wasn't a joke, it was a serious statement.

Cigar shops are setup as private businesses to serve the public. Should they be illegal too since smoking is bad for you? By your logic it should since a non-smoker might go in there and inhale second hand smoke......

even though it clearly is a place setup for smokers.

verbose

There is a significant amount of carbon monoxide in first- and second-hand smoke. Not only are the smokers chosing to suck that down, they're also contributing to the pollution of the air that everyone else has to breathe, smokers and non-smokers.

verbose

If yours was the only bar, it might work. But on the grand scale, the scale we're currently working with, it's not that simple. Those working below-minimum-wage jobs often have little choice. They either take the job they can get, or they starve. They don't have the luxury of choosing a working environment. It's our job, our government's job, to ensure that people are not forced to work in hazardous environments. The exact same basic principles that minimum wage and OSHA regulations are based on show up here. If the government doesn't regulate, owners can and often do impose hazardous environments and unreasonable pay upon their employees, often in cooperation with other companies in the same business. If they all have equally crappy working conditions, the workers have no choice but to endure it. Sweatshop principles.

verbose

I'm fairly libertarian. What you do in your own home is your own business. I don't care if you smoke, do crank, or indulge in satanic worship. But what you do in public must be reasonable. A business is, however, _not_ completely free from regulation, so stop trying to pretend that it is. The quote Wyzcrak found says that fairly well. We need regulation because it has never worked to rely on every human to be moral, logical, rational, just, or even plain honorable in the slightest. We're greedy bastards.

CingularDuality

Lots of replies since last time I was here... I'm not going to go back and quote everything, but I'll make a few statements.

Maybe my candy and fatty food analogy wasn't the greatest. Let's use alcohol instead. It's a legal product that directly causes harm to innocent bystanders, often fatally. It's about as beneficial to our society as smoking, is indulged in by about the same percentage and has a similar negative stigma attached to it. Should we ban alcohol drinking anyplace other than your home? (BTW, do you know how much fat people raise our insurance rates in this nation? It may not be a direct health risk, but candy and fatty foods have a definite negative impact on our society.)

For the most part, I'm not arguing for freedom for smokers. I'm arguing for freedom for business owners. Wyzcrack's anonymous quote argued that smokers are a minority, and that therefore this is a case of a minority ruling on this issue. If that was the case, then restaurants/bars would be much more likely to voluntarily tap into the non-smoker market. The fact is that this issue isn't about smokers vs. non-smokers. This issue is about people that want smoking banned vs. people that don't care to see it banned. Wolfie is proof of this.

Smoking on airplanes? Bad idea, IMO. This is an environment where you can't step outside for some fresh air. If there were seperate smoking and non-smoking flights, then it wouldn't be a problem. But the world's air transportation market is having a difficult enough time staying above water financially as it is, it sure can't support those types of flights...

Wyz mentioned other areas that are regulated (noise ordinances, exhaust laws, headlights...). Great idea. Lets regulate smoking in areas open to the public, not BAN smoking.

And I just wanted to state, so that you might get a better idea of where my views come from, that although I'm a smoker, I dislike smoking indoors. You'll never catch me asking to be seated in the smoking section of a restaurant. You might find me lighting up in a bar, but only if I'm with smokers that are doing the same, otherwise, I step outside for some peace and quiet and cool air (I would say "fresh air", but someone would make fun of me...). I don't smoke in my house at all, nor do I smoke near my 3 yr old son. I'll never light up near a non smoker, but I refuse to put out my cigarette if a nonsmoker approaches me.

This discussion has proven to be very interesting, and I've seen a couple of views that I had not thought of... Thanks, everyone!

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Wyzcrak

How can you say that regulation against faulty heaters is OK, but regulation against smokers for the SAME EXACT REASON is ludicrous?

How is that even possible to argue?



And for goodness sakes, haven't you gotten yet that the only justification I've argued this entire time for concern is the health of the general public? It's not reasonable to hold a homeowner responsible for the health of the general public.



Alcohol doesn't harm anyone around you. Driving in public places after you've had it might, and that action is regulated for that reason alone. It only stands to good reason that smoking in public places would be regulated to protect that very same public health.



Never before have I seen a discussion that so incredibly earned an attempt at compromise. Is it fair to accept regulation as a compromise?
For example, put enforceable and clearly measurable laws into place that protect the health of the non-smoker when they're in a private location which caters to the public at large?

Wyzcrak

Wyzcrak

It's very possible for the smokers to both be a minority of the society's population and be a majority of the customers in these restaurants/bars. Just something to consider before we get carried away with slippery slope.

Wyzcrak

CingularDuality

But you're trying to argue that smokers are the minority, and that they're forcing themselves on the majority of non-smokers. If smokers are the majority in bars/restaurants, then your point is moot.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

CingularDuality

There isn't a significant percentage of our population that chooses to own faulty heaters or to intentionally associate with people that have faulty heaters. Is there?

And for goodness sakes, I'm telling you that I believe that the owner of a private business should not be held responsible for the health of the general public. He should be responsible for actions that he takes and harm that he causes, but if something is legal to do on the sidewalk outside his business, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to allow it inside his business. The owner of the business is not causing harm to anyone, so why punish him?

Damn, there's got to be an analogy without holes... :?

Personally, that's what I would prefer. Idealogically, I still oppose it. There's too much precedence that supports this type of regulation, though. I really wish that a business could designate his business as a "smoking establishment". Maybe require a sign on all entrances? When I mentioned Seau's restaurant, it was to demonstrate the type of innovation that should be rewarded for its contributions to its patrons' health. And although ventilation and seperation would be preferable to an outright ban, I still think that it should be up to the business owner whether or not to allow publicly legal activity to occur on his/her premises.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

jex

Ok i'm back in lol.

[generic answer for all]

He is causing harm unless you think smoking is healthy? By allowing his clients to smoke in his bar he is causing harm to everyone in that bar. If his bar is in open air then things would be healthier.

The point about the heaters was metaphorical and there to illustrate a point - not to be a point of debate.

By your definitions I am quite within my right then to allow drug abuse in my bar. Don't quote me on the legalities though - we're talking about rights here, not law.

But what about respect - you argue that bar owners shouldn't even have to put in a non smoking section if they don't want. To me that is very short sighted and selfish - so you cannot compromise?

I'm not saying ban smoking. I am saying that they should be forced to show respect to other people's welfare.

Every other business is regulated. You can't just chuck waste into the environment willy nilly. It is up to governments to look at the bigger picture in an unbiased way, for the betterment of the people who elected them (and the ones that didn't). They have the data to hand and can make an informed discision.

Saying that people 'just have to put up with smokers' is selfish to the extreme.

Smoking is an addiction. Nothing more. You enjoy a cigarette because you are addicted to it. People who enjoy a cigarette every once in a while were once an addict. It is harmful to you and those around you. Personally if I can't jack up with heroine I see no reason why you can smoke a cigarette. Realistically it should be encouraged to be stopped altogether and advertising should be forced to advertise in a way that promotes death to the smoker. I'm all for allowing freedom of personal choice - if you wanna kill yourself then fine by me, but smoking does nobody any good. By educating the public that smoking will kill you and other around you then we can let people make the choice of whether they still wish to or not. Here in the UK you can't now by any cigarretes without a big sign on it saying that smoking kills you in some way or another.

If bar owners don't have enough respect for their customers that they can't even open a non-smoking area then I say they deserve the legislation. I can never agree that they have the right to dictate on this issue.

Since when did business ever have a say in what goes on in government anyway?

Wolfie

That is a generalize comment with no backing to it. There are people out there that do smoke that are not addicted to it.

verbose

A point I was also going to make, but I'll take it one step further: smoking is worse than many of those other drugs, as a lot of them can be consumed without polluting the airspace of everyone else in the establishment.

Exactly. That is the proper behavior of a civilized society. Many of my friends are smokers, and they have no problem whatsoever smoking away from me, taking it outside. But there are also a lot of discourteous smokers, unwilling to compromise in the slightest, who are holding firm to what they believe is in inalienable right to neglect the health of everyone else.

Ideally, every smoker would intrinsically respect the health of those around them, and would voluntarily take their cigarette outside. But, this is merely wishful thinking. Therefore the government must step in in the interest of the public welfare. And anytime that the government changes someone's lifestyle in the slightest, "foul" is cried; "big brother is bringing his hand down on us." A complete failure to look at the bigger picture, to look beyond one's self.

verbose

The problem with that approach is most business owners will trade health for greed, no matter what their personal stance is. Going non-smoking potentially turns away 25% of their business. Then we're right back where we started. Ideals have become weak in human minds; greed has become strong.

How do we solve the health problems for the workers, then? Either the owner incurs an incredible additional cost by hiring both a "smoking" and a "non-smoking" staff, or employ those who don't care and will work both sections. And as I said before, many of those people don't have a choice. It's work where you can get a job, and if most waiting and serving jobs force them to be exposed to smoke, they get the short end of the stick. And they get it worse than a non-smoking consumer. They must endure it, eight or more hours a day, several days a week. They probably take in more smoke than the smokers.

What is essentially being debated is just that, whether smoking is publicly legal or not. The proponents of the ban aren't completely crazy though, and leave in the exception that allows outdoor smoking to remain legal.

I think they should tack on a rider that makes disposing of your cigarette on the ground carry a specific, steep fine, and enforce the heck out of it. It's blatant littering, and disgusting to boot, yet nearly all smokers do it. Discourteous in habit, from start to finish.

Wyzcrak

I'm convinced that everyone here understands the value of regulations on the where and how of cigarette smoking, even if you don't agree with it. Unless someone goes out of his way to show me they don't, I'm done with this thread.

It's been very, very fun. Congratulations to everyone for participating like adults.

Wyzcrak