should smoking be banned in public places?

[fireballgrl 0]

In my midwestern soccer mom suburb (kansas city), they are attempting to get a ban on smoking in restaraunts, bars and other public buildings. If the petitions are sucessful, it will be on the ballot in November.

I personally do not smoke. My father has for 40 years and I got all the second hand I will ever need for the first 18 years of my life. I used to bartend as a second job and made some good money, but the smoke was giving me headaches and "hangovers" the next day.

What do all of you smokers and non-smokers think?

I am one of the volunteers circulating the petitions and would like to hear what everyone else's thoughts are on this.

[Amazon 7]

If someone wants to self pollute their own lungs... kewl.. let them.

BUt their right to pollute themselves does NOT include my space or my lungs.


I also do not want to have to PAY for their health care when they are dying of emphesema.. or lung cancer.. they made a chioce to slowly kill themselves.... I chose to NOT kill myself in that way.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I don't have a problem with smoking being banned in public places. I do have a problem with the Govt. telling owners of Bars, restaurants etc. they cannot allow smoking in their places of business. I don't smoke, hate the smell of it, so I avoid places that stink of smoke in favor of those that don't. People have the right to take their business wherever they want. Don't like smoke? Vote with your wallet.

-

[Shotgun 1]

I think that, for the most part, bar and restaurant owners should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether to allow smoking in their buildings.

[Gawain 0]

I am an ex-smoker. Thankfully, I am not a "born-again-ex-smoker" who gets in every smokers face preaching to them to quit.

Having said that, I do not support extensive smoking bans. Individual rights should be considered, and as a result, hopefully good manners on the parts of smokers and non-smokers will win the day.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[fireballgrl 0]

If they allow smoking in the business, it smells like smoke. There is no way around it. Some smell less like smoke (high, open ceiling) but it still smells of smoke. Voting with my wallet would mean the grocery store since no restaraunts/bars are exclusively non smoking.

What about the people that work there? Sure they could work at McDonalds but that does'nt quite pay the bills of the college kids. When I was in school the available hours I had for working were late and varied so I had very few options.

The restaraunt industry is stronger than ever with busy people eating out more than they eat in. All the people that work these jobs have to reek of smoke every night they come home. You could say find another job but someone else will have to work in this smoky enviroment. In my opinion, smoking is a dirty nasty habit and it should have no place in a place where food is served.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

If they allow smoking in the business, it smells like smoke. There is no way around it. Some smell less like smoke (high, open ceiling) but it still smells of smoke. Voting with my wallet would mean the grocery store since no restaraunts/bars are exclusively non smoking.

What about the people that work there? Sure they could work at McDonalds but that does'nt quite pay the bills of the college kids. When I was in school the available hours I had for working were late and varied so I had very few options.

The restaraunt industry is stronger than ever with busy people eating out more than they eat in. All the people that work these jobs have to reek of smoke every night they come home. You could say find another job but someone else will have to work in this smoky enviroment. In my opinion, smoking is a dirty nasty habit and it should have no place in a place where food is served.

If I decide to open up a bar or a restaurant, I should be the one who determines whether I am going to allow smoking or not. People don't open businesses to provide others with a job. They open them to make money. If you come into my place of business and apply for a job, knowing it's a smoking establishment, you have no right to complain later.

In the same vein, if you hate smoking, then don't go to a place that allows it. You have no right to walk into a smoking bar and demand everyone cater to your preferences. There are plenty of places where the owners have recognized there is a large percentage of the population who prefer to frequent a non-smoking establishment.

I agree with you that smoking is a dirty, disgusting addiction. Whenever I am in an establishment that allows smoking, I can't wait to get home and take a shower. But, that's not the point. I don't want the govt. deciding who can and can't do something in a private business.

-

[billvon 3,118]

>If I decide to open up a bar or a restaurant, I should be the one who
>determines whether I am going to allow smoking or not.

If you open a sole proprietorship, then you should be allowed to do whatever you want. If you have employees, then you can't - because you have a responsibility as an employer to provide a safe work environment.

>People don't open businesses to provide others with a job. They open
>them to make money. If you come into my place of business and apply
> for a job, knowing it's a smoking establishment, you have no right to
>complain later.

People said the same thing for years about sweatshops. Employers would nail the fire exits closed so people wouldn't skip out for a break. They would let them use their own gloves, masks, protective suits etc if they wanted; if their employees didn't want to buy them and were exposed to radiation or toxic chemicals, why, it was their own damn fault. They'd let them operate machine tools without even the most basic safety devices or belt/chainguards on them. They'd hire kids for pennies a day and use them until they were blind or had lost their fingers. If the workers didn't like it, they could quit and go somewhere else! Heck, they'd hang people who tried to interfere with the company's god-given right to do whatever they wanted.

Then there were a few spectacular disasters and a lot of small ones. Hundreds of women and children died in sweatshop fires. People started demanding protections like OSHA, child labor laws, and workplace safety. And today, for the most part, we are better off because of those protections.

We wouldn't let a company operate that regularly exposed its employees to dangerous levels of radiation, or mercury, or arsenic. Smoke is little different.

>In the same vein, if you hate smoking, then don't go to a place that
> allows it. You have no right to walk into a smoking bar and demand
> everyone cater to your preferences.

I agree there. If you are a customer, the owner has no obligation to cater to your needs. Employees are different.

[Gravitymaster 0]

WOW!!! Talk about creating a Drama.

I'd hardly equate sweatshops of the past with smoking establishments today. IMO if I own a bar and you come in and apply for a job, knowing it's a smoking bar, then it's your problem. Or do you advocate taking a job away from a smoker under false pretenses?
Perhaps bar owners need to modify the DZ waiver to suit their need?

[billvon 3,118]

>I'd hardly equate sweatshops of the past with smoking establishments
>today.

Nor would I.

>IMO if I own a bar and you come in and apply for a job, knowing it's a
> smoking bar, then it's your problem.

I disagree. Employees cannot waive their right to a safe working environment, and an employer has more responsibility to their employees than they would to a customer. If a health care worker gets a job in a hospital even though she sees unsafe practices in use there, she still has a right to ask that they be remedied.

> Or do you advocate taking a job away from a smoker under false
> pretenses?

Again, no. Are you answering someone else here?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I'd hardly equate sweatshops of the past with smoking establishments
>today.

Nor would I.

>IMO if I own a bar and you come in and apply for a job, knowing it's a
> smoking bar, then it's your problem.

Quote

I disagree. Employees cannot waive their right to a safe working environment, and an employer has more responsibility to their employees than they would to a customer. If a health care worker gets a job in a hospital even though she sees unsafe practices in use there, she still has a right to ask that they be remedied.

I disagree. If you accept employment in an establishment that allows a legal activity, even though it's dangerous to your health, then you shouldn't complain if you have health problems. Using your logic, all coal mines should be shut down.


> Or do you advocate taking a job away from a smoker under false
> pretenses?

Quote

Again, no. Are you answering someone else here?

No I'm answering you. Are you saying it's fair that a non-smoker has as much a right to employment in a smoking establishment while an equaly qualified smoker is denied the position even though they are better suited for it, is advocating other than the best candidate for the position.

-

• Quote

[skykittykat 0]

I own a Backpacker's Hostel with my brother and from the first day we opened every room was no smoking - apart from the tv room or the kitchen (which was where the social nights/parties were held).

After a couple of years, we both agreed to only allow smoking in the kitchen after 8pm at night (24 hours in the tv room). When I went to America, my brother made the whole hostel non smoking, apart from the office (he is a smoker as well). We butted heads as I disagreed with making people go outside, especially as winter in London is nasty. I felt we should have at least one area where people can smoke inside rather than outside. He made that rule when the majority of guests were non-smokers, but generally most of our guests are smokers.

The UK is bringing in laws next year to ban smoking in public places, inc bars and clubs. I will not be giving up smoking in my office at the Backpackers as the Backpackers feel like my home.

We do employ other people who are non-smokers, but when they are working, we do not smoke around them unless they allow us to.

I think businesses should be allowed to choose between smoking and no smoking areas. If there is an enclosed room where smokers can go into whilst in a pub/club, then the owner can put a sign up stating that it is a smoking room and enter at your own risk. It keeps everyone happy and prevents a blanket ban on smoking.

My 2 cents worth.

Liz

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

I do have a problem with the Govt. telling owners of Bars, restaurants etc. they cannot allow smoking in their places of business.

I was thinking the same thing. I like going to this nice cigar bar with a kick ass lounge, and big wine cellar. You get a bottle of wine, nice smoke and sit my but on a big fat leather couch and enjoy the nice jazz. The place is packed everynight, but what would happen if the city passed a smoking bar. He would go under. You know what your going into when you go through the door. If you dont want to smeel smoke dont go in. If you work in a bar and dont like smoke maybe being a bartender is not the right job for you.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[feuergnom 29]

i'm all for a ban on public farting

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"The UK is bringing in laws next year to ban smoking in public places, inc bars and clubs."
Its been in Scotland for the last month or so, and it is actually working fine.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[RMURRAY 1]

I think it is already in place in Ontario (Canada). I haven't seen anyone smoking indoors (like resturants) in a couple of years...

rm

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

No I'm answering you. Are you saying it's fair that a non-smoker has as much a right to employment in a smoking establishment while an equaly qualified smoker is denied the position even though they are better suited for it, is advocating other than the best candidate for the position.

What the hell are you talking about? Obviously I can't speak for Billvon but having read this whole thread you are the first person to mention anything about employing smokers/ non smokers. Where on earth did you get the idea that smokers shouldn't be allowed to be employed by bars/restaurants?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Employees cannot waive their right to a safe working environment . . .

There are a million exemptions to that. Aren't you a skydiving instructor? Many jobs have assumed risk and associated waivers -- knowingly working in a smoking bar should be no different. This would best allow people to excercise their rights.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Employees cannot waive their right to a safe working environment . . .

There are a million exemptions to that. Aren't you a skydiving instructor? Many jobs have assumed risk and associated waivers -- knowingly working in a smoking bar should be no different. This would best allow people to excercise their rights.

Yes; however, a smoker's right to smoke ends where my lungs begin.

The majority of smokers are thoughtless slobs, and don't give a damn who is affected by their filth. They don't care about themselves, so why should they respect anyone else? Ever look at the sides of an intersection? Covered in cigarette butts. If I were king, I'd make those fuckers lick them up.

If it takes laws to make people think of others before they light up and pollute a place, so be it. It's just the 99.99995 percent of the smokers that make the rest of them look bad.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[druvaughn 0]

I started working in restaurants at 16. It was a highschool job and I needed the money (I could make a lot more than bagging groceries). Should I have been subjected to the smoking of patrons? I agree with Billvon on the protection of employees.

In CT the ban has been in effect for several years and longer in NY. Restaurants, almost completely, havea noticed a strong uptick in business as a result of the ban. Costs have gone down (bartenders aren't comping every other drink for the "regular" who is nursing his daily pack of smokes), sales have increased (it is cleaner to go to bars without the smell of smoke ruining your business suits for lunch of afternoon munchies and cocktails). Prior to the ban several local restaurants had become non-smoking and still did better business than those that allowed smoking.

The exception to this may be bars or clubs, but once you can't smoke in any bars or clubs, the business owner is at no competitive disadvantage to the other bars. Similarly, as a restauranteur, I'm certain anyone who stops going out because they have to go outside to smoke, isn't a patron that I want (talk about low self esteem -- staying home so you can smoke).

I think the ban is great and works for the betterment of the patrons, the staff, and the owner.

-
-
"Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical."

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>In the same vein, if you hate smoking, then don't go to a place that
> allows it. You have no right to walk into a smoking bar and demand
> everyone cater to your preferences.

I agree there. If you are a customer, the owner has no obligation to cater to your needs. Employees are different.

If an employee who knowingly accepted a job in a BAR - where people drink alcohol and smoke - suddenly wants the bar owner to be responsible for completely protecting their health, then they should also demand that every single customer be monitored to make sure that they are not consuming more than the amount of alcohol that would cause intoxication. A bar is simply not a place to go work if you are looking for a healthy work environment, unless you consider being around drunk people all the time to be healthy...

Now a restaurant, I suppose I can see the argument there.

(And just for the record, I quit smoking about four years ago. I now hate the smell of cigarette/cigar smoke and prefer to go to places that don't allow smoking inside. But I still think that a bar owner should be allowed to make such decisions for themselves.)

[TheAnvil 0]

I support smoking bans. I HATE it when I'm exposed to second hand smoke, regardless of venue.

The libertarian in me balks at the government telling business owners what they can and cannot do within the confines of their own property, but with regrads to smoking the anti-smoking side of me wins out.

I agree with Jeanne - insurance companies should make the smokers pay for their own health care costs with regards to smoking related illnesses.

My US$0.02.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,118]

> If you accept employment in an establishment that allows a legal
> activity, even though it's dangerous to your health, then you
> shouldn't complain if you have health problems. Using your logic, all
> coal mines should be shut down.

Unsafe coal mines _should_ be shut down. Just because someone accepts employment in a coal mine does not mean that the mine can forego the use of OSHA-defined safety equipment, gas detectors, ventilation etc.

> Are you saying it's fair that a non-smoker has as much a right to
> employment in a smoking establishment while an equaly qualified
> smoker is denied the position even though they are better suited
> for it, is advocating other than the best candidate for the position.

?? No, I'm not. Again, I think you're answering someone else.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Should smoking be banned in public places?

Yes.
1. Smoking-related lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease take a terrible toll not only on collective health, but on the health care infrastructure. Drives up the cost of health care and/or health insurance for everyone.
2. I rather like the fact that smoking in the US & Canada is steadily reducing & becoming less and less socially acceptable compared to the rest of the world. I presume that will correlate to comparatively lower rates of smoking-related diseases, too.
3. I'm selfish. I want to be able to go into the bar of my choice without second-hand smoking someone else's Marlboros or my clothes smelling like shit. Ditto for my teenage kids; I want to be able to have the option of taking them out for tavern food without them breathing smoke.

Factoid, FWIW: I used to work at a law firm with about 50 lawyers, 50 paralegals and 100 secretaries/clerks. The lawyers of course all had advanced degrees; all the paralegals had at least 2 years of college & some had bachelor's degrees, and most of the secretaries/clerks had no college at all. Not a single one of the lawyers smoked; about 1/3 of the paralegals smoked, and I'd say about 90% of the secretaries/clerks smoked. Now, you don't have to be a sociologist to analyze the import of this raw data; it plainly speaks for itself.

Society is better without smoking than with it. Most things (within reason) done to make it fade away forever are fine by me.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I agree with Jeanne - insurance companies should make the smokers pay for their own health care costs with regards to smoking related illnesses.

Sure, insurance companies should make anyone who knowingly puts their lives at risk pay for their own health care costs... Hmm, that would include anyone who consumes more than one alcoholic beverage per day, anyone who chooses to eat a less-than-perfect diet, anyone who doesn't exercise regularly, anyone who drives over the speed limit, umm, SKYDIVERS, etc., etc. etc...