Smoking Bans - Page 12

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Right, but at the same time, you are saying that I can not establish a business that caters to smokers. If I wanted to create a smoking club or a smokers bar, I should have that right to do so. I am not inflicting second hand smoke on the general public if I do so.

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I really wish that a business could designate his business as a "smoking establishment". Maybe require a sign on all entrances?

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.

Then fight back against those businesses. Don't do business with them.

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, you are bringing non-smokers into the equation when I specifically said a bar that was established to cater to smokers. This pollution is not effecting the general public.

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 02:53 PM

There are alot of alternatives to a downright ban of smoking.

For example, pass an ordinance that promotes city health. Businesses that do not allow smoking inside could get a tax credit (say 5% less taxes) that would be a benefit for the owner to not permit smoking. That business gets to hang a smoke-free sign letting people know.

Those that want to cater to both the smokers and non-smokers and having more than a certain amount of capacity (for example, say more than 75 people) have to have seperate non-smoking and smoking sections.

Those that want to cater to smokers have to place a sign out front letting non-smokers know that smoking is allowed inside and that the place is not setup for non-smokers.

**Wolfie** · 11-22-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And although ventilation and seperation would be preferable to an outright ban

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.

Then they have a tough choice. They can either A) accept the fact that they are going to be around smokers, or B) find work elsewhere.

11-22-2003, 03:02 PM

You guys are talking in circles now...the same points are on page 8.

**CingularDuality** · 11-22-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbose

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I really wish that a business could designate his business as a "smoking establishment". Maybe require a sign on all entrances?

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.

You keep saying this... And I'll say it again: this argument proves that it's not a smoker vs nonsmoker issue. It's people that don't care about smokers vs people that want smoking banned. Capitalism works. If 25% of the population wanted a place to eat or drink without smoke, then capitalism would ensure that such a business existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

And although ventilation and seperation would be preferable to an outright ban

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.

This is such a crock. Nobody is forced to work anywhere... Nobody has a right to a job. I wouldn't mind seeing a mandated warning on the job application that warns the potential applicant that smoking occurs in this establishment.

Quote:

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.

I think a fine like that would be a great thing. Perhaps the money collected from the fines could be used to improve the ventilation in local restaurants' smoking sections?

**CingularDuality** · 11-22-2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

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.

Are your rights not written into the law over there? What a shame...

Over here rights and legalities are the same. Interpretations sometimes have to be made by the courts, but that really is fairly rare.

My argument is that a bar owner should not be punished for allowing his patrons to engage in an activity that is perfectly legal on the sidewalk outside his pub.

Look, if this is really such a health issue, why don't we simply ban the manufacture of cigarettes? The majority of the people would vote for that, right?

**Wyzcrak** · 11-22-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre

You guys are talking in circles now...the same points are on page 8.

Agreed. We have been for pages. I tried to branch out from bars, but there's no escape.

Wyzcrak

**CingularDuality** · 11-22-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Agreed. We have been for pages. I tried to branch out from bars, but there's no escape.

I use bars because it more effectively demonstrates the fact that no person needs to go there.

**_Ender_** · 11-22-2003, 07:31 PM

Not only that but its a place that would most likely allow smoking..

**CingularDuality** · 11-22-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I tried to branch out from bars, but there's no escape.

How 'bout this: In the city of Dallas, it's illegal to smoke in a tobacco shop/cigarette store/head shop... This is a business that is dedicated specifically to smoking, and it's illegal to smoke there... You don't think that's silly?

**_Ender_** · 11-22-2003, 08:24 PM

LOL thats just silly

**Wyzcrak** · 11-22-2003, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I tried to branch out from bars, but there's no escape.

How 'bout this: ... it's illegal to smoke in a tobacco shop.... You don't think that's silly?

Yes, that's silly. The smoking regulations should allow for shops dedicated to the act of smoking to allow it. And I really do understand how that might include bars. But the list of exceptional establishment types would be quite short.

Surely, if we agree that smoking is harmful to those around you, we could agree that regulations regarding smoking in a florist's shop would be reasonable?

Wyzcrak

**CingularDuality** · 11-23-2003, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Surely, if we agree that smoking is harmful to those around you, we could agree that regulations regarding smoking in a florist's shop would be reasonable?

Sigh...

I've already said that I don't have a problem with reasonable regulations as opposed to outright bans. You asked about regulations re: a florist's shop, not banning smoking in a florist's shop. I don't care what the private business is, it should be up to the owner to allow legal activity on his/her property.

Here's a regulation I could really support: If a business has a no smoking sign obviously displayed, and you're caught smoking in that establishment, you are to be punished by a $5000 fine or 15 days in jail for the first offense. Subsequent offenses have increased fines and jail time.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smoking Ban	Buck Fush	The Sandbox	127	07-24-2006 12:24 PM
Smoking Tarpan	percu	Battlefield 2 - After Action Reports	20	11-21-2005 07:17 PM

11-22-2003, 02:53 PM	#169 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	There are alot of alternatives to a downright ban of smoking. For example, pass an ordinance that promotes city health. Businesses that do not allow smoking inside could get a tax credit (say 5% less taxes) that would be a benefit for the owner to not permit smoking. That business gets to hang a smoke-free sign letting people know. Those that want to cater to both the smokers and non-smokers and having more than a certain amount of capacity (for example, say more than 75 people) have to have seperate non-smoking and smoking sections. Those that want to cater to smokers have to place a sign out front letting non-smokers know that smoking is allowed inside and that the place is not setup for non-smokers.

11-22-2003, 03:02 PM	#171 (permalink)
Spectre Guest Posts: n/a	You guys are talking in circles now...the same points are on page 8.

11-22-2003, 07:31 PM	#176 (permalink)
_Ender_ Join Date: May 2003 Location: I am lost, if you know where I am then please feel free to tell me. Age: 29 Posts: 2,048	Not only that but its a place that would most likely allow smoking..

11-22-2003, 08:24 PM	#178 (permalink)
_Ender_ Join Date: May 2003 Location: I am lost, if you know where I am then please feel free to tell me. Age: 29 Posts: 2,048	LOL thats just silly

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links