should smoking be banned in public places?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

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?

That's not what I said. If there is only one position available in a bar and a non-smoker accepts the job knowing it's a smoking bar, he has in effect denied a smoker, who is obviously better suited to the environment, a job. The non-smoker then goes on to create problems for the owner by demanding the bar be non-smoking because of his concern for his own health. Billvon is arguing a bar owner has a greater duty to accept responsibility for the working environment of his employees than to provide a relaxing environment for his customers. I disagree with this. Non-smokers are nothing but trouble makers when they impose their own personal health choices on privately owned bars and the bars customers.

As a non-smoker, I avoid smoking bars. As a potential employee, so should other nonsmokers.

-

[billvon 3,116]

>Aren't you a skydiving instructor?

Yep. And if a DZ was using bad private pilots to fly their jump planes, I'd quit - but many other instructors can't afford to quit jobs like that. We don't put up with that any more because it leads to dead skydivers, students and pilots.

>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.

Should students have a right to jump without AAD's? (Assuming they were informed of the risks, of course.) Should skydivers have the right to jump without reserves? Should DZO's have the right to not maintain their aircraft at all, as long as people sign a waiver? Would those things protect skydiver's rights, or damage them in the long run?

[Shell666 0]

Quote

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

It's been in place here in Edmonton since July 1st.

Now everyone complains about the people smoking OUTSIDE the doors to bars and clubs.

Can't win for losing ...

'Shell

'Shell

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

he has in effect denied a smoker, who is obviously better suited to the environment, a job.

By your rationale, a smoker is more highly qualified to tend bar in a smoking establishment than a non-smoker, all other things being equal. I don't think so.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

he has in effect denied a smoker, who is obviously better suited to the environment, a job.

By your rationale, a smoker is more highly qualified to tend bar in a smoking establishment than a non-smoker, all other things being equal. I don't think so.

When I enter a smoking establishment, my nose starts running and my eyes start tearing up. How can you possibly believe a non-smoker can function better in this environment than a smoker who is used to it? Wouldn't you agree the smoker can more easily adapt? Besides that, the non-smoker would eventually develop a poor attitude towards breathing in all the smoke and not work very efficiently. The non-smoker is poorly suited to a smoking environment.

-

[champu 1]

Quote

...Prior to the ban several local restaurants had become non-smoking and still did better business than those that allowed smoking...

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

Except maybe the smoking patrons, but f$%^ them...

OSHA has done a lot of really good things for workers since the 1970s, and although in a handful of situations they've imposed standards which might be construed as "treating people like idiots," I'd consider the organization to be a good thing.

But this isn't about OSHA, this is about "sicking" the government on businesses to make them cater to your liking.

druvaughn spelled it out pretty nicely, there's some kind of underlying assumption that restaurants and bars need to allow smoking to stay competitive. His statement is that some restaurants banned smoking and yet in spite of that managed to do... um... better? Maybe there's less truth to that assumption than we thought.

Rather than petition the government to put a smoking ban on the ballot, vote for it, and get smoking wiped off the planet, it would have been a lot harder to petition restaurant owners individually, and appeal to their wallet by showing them all the customers who want a smoke-free environment, but it might have also been the right thing to do.

[TheAnvil 0]

Hmmm...you think the dangers associated with skydiving equate to those associated with long term smoking? I think not. None of the activities you've listed come anywhere close to the $$ value of the costs smokers have caused insurance companies to incur. None of them in and of itself will result in higher health care costs. Grossly obsese? Sure, the costs will go up. Skydivers - look at the stats. Drinkers - again, look at the stats. Were I an insurer I would state up front in any policy that cancers associated with smoking would not be covered under this policy.

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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Skydivers - look at the stats.

If there were as many skydivers in the US as there are smokers (covered by insurance), then I'm pretty sure the $ value that skydiving-related injuries would be costing the insurance companies would cause all the self-righteous non-skydivers to demand that skydivers no longer be covered.

And drinking is already an equal, if not worse, problem than smoking... With drinking, you have to consider all of the drunk-driving-related injuries that end up getting paid for by insurance companies.

It just sounds really funny for a skydiver who constantly professes his love for tequila to be complaining about people who knowingly endanger their health by smoking.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

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.
.

Smoking reduces the overall cost of health care. Smokers die young, and require much less long term care than non-smokers.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

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.

Smokers are addicts. I know - I am one. Most of us are not thoughtless slobs who don't care about ourselves. Aside from the smoking I eat well and exercise, it's just damn hard to quit.

I never smoke around non-smokers and never throw my butts in the street, or in the grass. At the least I break off the filter and put it in my pocket, to dispose of later.

And if you want to address poisonous fumes that can casue cancer, how about looking at the 150 million autos driving around spewing billions of cubic feet of cancer causing pollutants every day. And guess what - those fumes are nearly impossible to avoid - unless you live in the sticks.

So please, don't group all smokers together as slobs. There are plenty of non-smoking slobs who litter and act inconsiderate in other ways. And someone driving like an idiot(for instance) is going to kill you a lot faster than someone smoking nearby.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,116]

>And if you want to address poisonous fumes that can casue cancer,
> how about looking at the 150 million autos driving around spewing
> billions of cubic feet of cancer causing pollutants every day.

That's been looked at A LOT. We now have cars which, if operated in LA during a smog alert, will output cleaner exhaust than the air it took in. (In other words, take in nitrogen, oxygen, particulate pollution, ozone, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons etc and exhaust nearly pure nitrogen, CO2 and water.)

If cigarette smokers were as nonpolluting as modern SULEV cars, there would be no issues with them smoking anywhere they wanted to.

[sfc 1]

Quote

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.

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.

I think it is great that you are doing this.
Some claim that this is govt. interference, sounds like me that you are a group of converned citizens, not the govt, more power to you.
I hope you get your ban, I hate smoking it is disgusting, you would get arrested if you took a shit in a bar, why should you be able to stand and spew smoke into someone elses lungs with the full knowledge it can harm others and just for your own pleasure.
As an ex-smoker myself I know smokers are very selfish as a whole (with exceptions of course), they need to be stopped by rules nothing else works. Smokers are drug addicts, social niceties don't stand a chance when you are dealing with an addict.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That's been looked at A LOT. We now have cars which, if operated in LA during a smog alert, will output cleaner exhaust than the air it took in. (In other words, take in nitrogen, oxygen, particulate pollution, ozone, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons etc and exhaust nearly pure nitrogen, CO2 and water.)

HMMM I wonder at what point you could take that stuff in.. compress it.... and actually run the car on pollutants...

I bet it would work a lot better in Houston though

[jumpingjimmy 0]

i wish smoking killed everbody who smoked, that way people wouldn't have they "it won't be me" attitude to smoking

i went up to scotland the second weekend of their smoking ban, i walked to the near by pub with my girlfriend.. and being scotland, it was raining. i laughed my cock off at the sad fucks all standing outside getting soaked having a fag

smokers bleat on about rights... they say they have a right to smoke if they want to. that argument just makes me smile even more because fuck their rights, smoking is going to be banned in England in 2007 whether they like it or not. so, moan all you want, all your moaning is doing is showing me you're even more wound up by it than i first though, good !!!! nice to know a smoker is even more fucked off than i gave them credit for

[TheAnvil 0]

Statistics, my dear.

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

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

i wish smoking killed everbody who smoked, that way people wouldn't have they "it won't be me" attitude to smoking

Yeah - it's kind of like that crazy, irresponsible "it won't be me" attitude that skydivers display.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Statistics, my dear.

Present them.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

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.

Not the same. As a skydiving instructor you are willingly partaking in the dangerous behaviour. Not identical to inhaling second-hand smoke.

A bouncer in a night club has associated risks, though still has the right to work in a safe environment. i.e. one he does not have to inhale second hand smoke in.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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.

Good manners? You can't legislate morality, but you can legislate dangerous behavior.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hmmm...you think the dangers associated with skydiving equate to those associated with long term smoking? I think not. None of the activities you've listed come anywhere close to the $$ value of the costs smokers have caused insurance companies to incur. None of them in and of itself will result in higher health care costs. Grossly obsese? Sure, the costs will go up. Skydivers - look at the stats. Drinkers - again, look at the stats. Were I an insurer I would state up front in any policy that cancers associated with smoking would not be covered under this policy.

Smoking claims a higher percentage of people...but you shouldn't ignore the timing. One third die - in 30 or 40 years. Skydiving - 1 in 1000 die - NOW. In the form of DUIs - drinking kills 1 in 10000 - NOW. Plus the other stuff - in the 30-40 year frame you got the liver damage. In the short term you have the accidents and date rapes.

If you want to play the cost game, there is plenty of ammo to ban all 3.

The attack on smokers (of which I have *never* been a member) has long gotten out of hand.

Taxing a quarter a pack to pay for anti smoking ads and programs is defensible. Taxing a buck to fund preschools and ER services is a joke. Also a dangerous budget practice - if the higher prices work in driving people to quit, you have insufficient funds. Just look at the lawsuits flying this month when it was ruled that the established tobacco powers deserve part of their reparations back due to declining market share.

Smokers can no longer smoke in restaurants and bars in California, and many states. That has largely been positive. I wouldn't go to night clubs before because I didn't want to dress up just to smoke my nicer clothes. And to allow smokers to go outside, clubs no longer have a no exit policy, so I can go outside for fresh air/quiet as well. But now the drive is to ban smoking in the place these people have been directed to! If smoking isn't allowed within 50ft of the doors, don't be shocked that there is a ring of people at the 50ft distance, and a concentration to rival amtrack trains in the 80s.

It should be permissible for an office building to have a smoking room. Same for restaurants and bars. And on the street, up until the point that they throw their butt on the ground it should be smooth sailing. People are still allowed to have bad habits.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

i'm all for a ban on public farting

I disagree, thee should be a farting section.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm...you think the dangers associated with skydiving equate to those associated with long term smoking? I think not. None of the activities you've listed come anywhere close to the $$ value of the costs smokers have caused insurance companies to incur. None of them in and of itself will result in higher health care costs. Grossly obsese? Sure, the costs will go up. Skydivers - look at the stats. Drinkers - again, look at the stats. Were I an insurer I would state up front in any policy that cancers associated with smoking would not be covered under this policy.

Smoking claims a higher percentage of people...but you shouldn't ignore the timing. One third die - in 30 or 40 years. Skydiving - 1 in 1000 die - NOW. In the form of DUIs - drinking kills 1 in 10000 - NOW. Plus the other stuff - in the 30-40 year frame you got the liver damage. In the short term you have the accidents and date rapes.

If you want to play the cost game, there is plenty of ammo to ban all 3.

The attack on smokers (of which I have *never* been a member) has long gotten out of hand.

Taxing a quarter a pack to pay for anti smoking ads and programs is defensible. Taxing a buck to fund preschools and ER services is a joke. Also a dangerous budget practice - if the higher prices work in driving people to quit, you have insufficient funds. Just look at the lawsuits flying this month when it was ruled that the established tobacco powers deserve part of their reparations back due to declining market share.

Smokers can no longer smoke in restaurants and bars in California, and many states. That has largely been positive. I wouldn't go to night clubs before because I didn't want to dress up just to smoke my nicer clothes. And to allow smokers to go outside, clubs no longer have a no exit policy, so I can go outside for fresh air/quiet as well. But now the drive is to ban smoking in the place these people have been directed to! If smoking isn't allowed within 50ft of the doors, don't be shocked that there is a ring of people at the 50ft distance, and a concentration to rival amtrack trains in the 80s.

It should be permissible for an office building to have a smoking room. Same for restaurants and bars. And on the street, up until the point that they throw their butt on the ground it should be smooth sailing. People are still allowed to have bad habits.

With this logic, shouldn't we be able to masturbate in public? I mean, we are allowed to have bad habits, right? Oh, it's offensive? Well at least it won't kill or make ill anyone.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

i'm all for a ban on public farting

I disagree, thee should be a farting section.

There are several. One of them is called Twin Otter

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jumpingjimmy 0]

Quote

Quote

i wish smoking killed everbody who smoked, that way people wouldn't have they "it won't be me" attitude to smoking

Yeah - it's kind of like that crazy, irresponsible "it won't be me" attitude that skydivers display.

Zipp0

but skydiving doesn't eventually kill half the people who participate in the activity, unlike smoking

would smokers be in favour of people taking hard drugs if they wanted to? say in a seperate part of a club, or in the privacy of their own homes?

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

would smokers be in favour of people taking hard drugs if they wanted to? say in a seperate part of a club, or in the privacy of their own homes?

I don't give two shits what people do. If they want to do hard drugs - go for it. I am all for freedom and personal choice.

Skydiving, like smoking, has the potential to kill. And someone who smokes for 2 years and skydives for 2 years is at a much greater risk from skydiving.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.