If We're Gonna Fight About It Endlessly: Smoking Ban Poll

[Warren DeMontague]

We've all heard the arguments on all sides, ad nauseum- I'm just wondering where everybody sits, and whether or not they, personally, smoke cigarettes.

I'm talking about bans on indoor, public smoking... like in California. Bars AND restaurants. Not throwing smokers in jail, not telling people what they can or cannot do in their own homes, not saying they can't go out the door to the sidewalk and smoke there.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Thank you.

It's nice not having the whole persecuted-smokers thing thrown in your face.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. Smoking sucks

I am allergic (eyes and physician confirmed) to the crap.

[beam me up scottie]

4. How DARE you!

Why can't you just stop breathing or blinking when I'm smoking, fer crying out loud?

:evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

107. ETS contains no allergens.

That's not to say it isn't an irritant or, in some fashion, exacerbates other immunological responses, but I'm not yet aware of any scientific evidence of allergens in ETS. I'd appreciate a citation from a credible scientific source indicating otherwise.

[greatauntoftriplets]

164. My eyes turn red and itchy.

At times, it also feels as if someone is poking it with a finger. For those times, my ophthamologist has diagnosed an allergic reaction for which I must use medication when exposed to too much smoke, sunlight or air pollution.

[femrap]

3. It is a big consideration for me....I am going to move to a city

that bans indoor smoking because I would like to have a social life.

I can't stand the smoke...I am miserable while I am at a bar or restaurant. But more important, I am miserable the following day with a sore throat and swollen sinuses. So I rarely go out...and remember only 25% of the population smokes. Lexington, KY and Columbus, OH have gone smokefree....and their economies are much better than here in Cincy.

And I was a 2 pack a day smoker for over 20 years...I quit 9 nine years ago and now smoke makes me sick.....literally. I can't wait to leave this city and move to one where I can have a social life.... (I should just leave this pissy state...but maybe I can do more regarding the voting system in Columbus.)

[Warren DeMontague]

5. The effect in California was like night and day.

All of a sudden I would come home from a bar and I realized my clothes didn't stink.

[beam me up scottie]

9. I moved to Kentucky from Vermont.

I can't stand it.
I never go out anymore.

And the non-smokers are the villains here.

Many of the doctors don't even counsel smokers, I think they're afraid to lose patients.

My coworkers said they would get another doctor if theirs criticized their habit.


Geez, when I lived in Vermont and did smoke, I wouldn't have trusted a doctor that DIDN'T lecture me or discuss ways to quit.

[Bluebear]

14. As an aside, Kentucky is the top state for adult smokers (27.6 %)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_on_he_me/smoking_rates

[beam me up scottie]

25. One quarter of pregnant women smoke in Kentucky.

ONE QUARTER!!!

One third of high school kids smoke.

It's horrible, there's no reason for anyone to quit, they practically encourage smoking by saying it "helps the farmers".

:banghead:

[femrap]

110. Move to Lexington, KY....

they banned smoking....of course AFTER I lived there.

[beam me up scottie]

122. I heard that!

And Louisville is making progress too.

We're in South Central-lots of tobacco farmers around here so they'll never ban it unless it's a state or federal law.


And yet I live in a dry county.:banghead:

What a fucked up state.

[U4ikLefty]

10. Except for the smell of puke & perfume.

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Thanks for clarifying what MY experience with the smoking ban has been

...really.

But if I'm coming home smelling like puke, it better be my own. And if I'm coming home smelling like perfume, I'm in trouble with the missus.

[U4ikLefty]

22. have no problem other than the nagging lack of liberty I see

I am not a smoker (except pot), but I guess I just feel you are a grown up & if you can puke on yourself or stink it up with cologne/perfume then those who smoke should be able to light up. If you feel you need to drink, then go home & drink, and let those who want to allow smoking to allow it.

...but like I said, this is just an exercise. I personally could care less what smokers do. If I want to go to a bar, I should be more concerned with getting in a fight or getting a venereal disease from the girl I met that night...instead of repeated exposure to smoke. It seems like this is a small threat to the patrons. The waitress is another matter, but to the patron I say "go elsewhere & shut up."

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Well, you're living in the wrong state, then.

'cuz the law here seems to work pretty well.

If someone came into a bar and puked on every single other patron in the place, he would be kicked out- so the idea that smokers have this god-given right to foul everyone else's air is a bubblin' crock, particularly when stepping outside is not that big of an imposition.

[U4ikLefty]

29. Why am I living in the wrong state??? I said I'm not a cig smoker, duh!!!

I'm a pot smoker...and I'm living in the wrong country.

Are you sugessting I leave the US cause pot is outlawed?!?

[Warren DeMontague]

32. No, I think it's ridiculous that pot is illegal, too.

But I understand that there's a big difference between what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own homes and what they can do in public. And with smoking, the nature of the delivery system necessitates that smokers in enclosed public spaces should compromise with the people who don't also want to breathe their smoke.

What I was saying was, if you find the law so bothersome, you might be happier somewhere like Nevada. Shit, go to Reno and walk into a casino - you can order a nice big dinner and simultaneously enjoy the gently wafting clouds of five thousand little old ladies puffing marlboros while playing the dime slots. It's a wonderful, time-warp experience.

[U4ikLefty]

40. Maybe we are in confilct as to what constitiutes "public"

I feel it up to the owener to decide if they'll allow certain LEGAL vices to be exercised in their establishment. The fact that smoking is dangerous is obvious, but if you don't like it..then go elsewhere. It's a BAR for goodness sake!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Like I said in the OP, I've heard all the arguments

And I still think the CA law worked out just fine. And all my smoker friends, who moaned and bitched and talked about boycotts and stomped their feet? They go outside and jib-jabber over their cigarettes, just like they would have done inside before. Everyone has managed to survive, somehow.

[Catrina]

159. Has CA's cancer rate subsided?

And what about the foul smell of alcohol on the breaths of those who drink in those bars, not to mention their obnoxious behavior which those of us who don't drink to excess have to tolerate, or the fact that they leave, get in their cars and are far more of a threat than those who smoke.

The point is, to be totally safe or free from being irritated by the behavior of others (and I hate the smell of pot also, but am against the drug laws, preferring liberty to a false sense of security) we would have to have so many laws that life wouldn't be worth living.

What surprises me about those I know who are for smoking laws, is that they never consider the fact that they have some habits that are often bothersome or even threatening to others.

Like I said before, many people are very allergic to perfume. Should those who want to wear it, drink on the sidewalk in consideration for those who are adversely affected by it? Or better yet, not wear it when they are going out to a public place?

[beam me up scottie]

163. Does perfume cause cancer?

Does it poison the air with cancer causing carcinogens?

How many people die from sniffing perfume each year?

Is drunk driving illegal because it "irritates" the people who might be killed by the drunks?

Or is it illegal because it can and does kill them?

If we made complying with workplace safety regulations voluntary, how many employers would choose to protect their employees?

How terribly inhumane is it to require people to step outside to smoke?


I didn't consider it to be anything but sensible when Vermont banned indoor smoking in public places because I already went outside to smoke but many other smokers wouldn't.

They do now and guess what?

It's still one of the most liberal and progressive states in the country.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Move to Kentucky.

They practically give cigarettes away and label non-smokers as anti-American.

They are also overwhelmingly red and vote for people like Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning.

Oh yeah, and * is their hero.

You'd love it here.

[U4ikLefty]

46. Can I smoke weed there..cause I'm not a cigarette smoker, DUH!!!

n/t

[beam me up scottie]

51. Of course not.

Did you think this was a liberal state or something?

I live in a dry county, you can't even fucking drink a beer here.

But you can happily poison your kids, customers and coworkers all day and night and nobody will say a thing.

Gawd Bless the smokers and the USA!

:patriot:

[U4ikLefty]

69. Poison my kids with what??? I said I'm a non-smoker...jeez!!!

Maybe you should learn to read the post before getting emotional & accuse me of "happily poisoning my kids" it's that kid of ignoranbt bullshit that turns poeple off.

To re-state since you can't get it the first time: I'M NOT A CIGARETTE SMOKER!!!

I did it in nice big letters so you can see in like in kindergarten.

[beam me up scottie]

77. I read it the first time but you keep defending smoker's "rights".

So if you can't defend your opinion without insulting or attacking, pick up your toys and go home.

[U4ikLefty]

100. You say I'm attacking/insulting while you said "poisoning my kids"???

Get a clue and a grip on reality. You are the one whom was insulting with that insulting "Bush is their hero...you'll love it there",yet you accuse me of the very thing YOU have done...lol!!! Anyone who read it will be able to tell.

I'n done with you...buh-bye!!!

[beam me up scottie]

108. I didn't realize English wasn't your first language.

See when we say "you" we mean anybody ... oh nevermind.

You'll catch on eventually.

:hi:

[U4ikLefty]

144. Everyone read post #41 & see if "you" referred to everyone.

This person directly insulted me & then called me insulting. This is why I will no longer directly respond to them in this thread...they're waaaaay too angry.

BTW, that "English wasn't you first language" stab was a weak-assed attempt at getting the last word...don't you agree?

[beam me up scottie]

149. I thought I heard something...

[Catrina]

57. So, when you were smoking two packs a day

were you worried about how other people felt about it?

I love people who only think of themselves and what bothers them and how they think the rest of the world needs to cater to them.

I hate alcohol ~ I would be happy if there was no such thing. Ban it! Make it go away!

My friend hates perfume. She is allergic to it. Why should she have to put up with people wearing perfume indoors?? She wants it banned!

Some people react to deodorant. A definite no! no! Ban it!!

Hairspray causes others to cough and choke and does cause cancer in some people. Time for a ban on hairspray.

Nuts can kill people who are allergic to them. Ban them, right now!!

Some people will die if a bee stings them. Let's ban bees!!

Cats!! How many people are allergic to cats?? Ban them too!!

Let's ban everything!! Then everyone will be happy.

*Sigh* ~ I hope there's a country left somewhere where people are tolerant of others, realizing that they may have habits others have to be tolerant of. I'd like to go there.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. There's a difference between banning something

and asking people to do it outside.

[Catrina]

156. Yes, asking is alright. But we are talking

about laws. I am against the drug laws and I am against these laws.

An over-lawed society is a failed society.

But, my point is if we are going to legislate everything, then let's consider everyone's complaints and lets legislate to please them too.

Cigars, pipes, perfume, hairspray, coal mines, automobile emissions etc. etc. All I'm saying is that many of those who are rabid about smoking have some habits of their own that are threatening to others.

Just legislating where people can smoke (for now, soon it will go further than that) won't keep us safe from cancer. If that's the goal, there are far more threatening things than second-hand smoke, yet they are not illegal

[beam me up scottie]

I smoked a pack a day for twenty years.

And while I wasn't worried about how people felt about it, I was concerned about forcing them to inhale the poison from my bad habit.

It's called being a responsible adult.

I didn't purposely harm other people.

Only myself.

[Catrina]

158. Being responsible is what

should be encouraged. Laws are a different matter. As I said already, while I hate drugs, I am against the drug laws. I know people who are for laws against smoking cigarettes, yet want pot legalized.

Everyone has something they would like to see outlawed ~ or restricted. The end result of all these laws is more people in jail. We already have more people in jail because of the drug laws than any other country in the world. Yet, the drug problem is still as bad as it ever was.

Education is far more effective than laws ~ but laws feed our system of an economy based on law-enforcement and the military industrial complex. Why bother educating people when there is money to be made from making everything a crime?

'Give me liberty or give me death'. I guess I consider living in an over-lawed society way more threatening to my health and well-being. Sitting in jail for smoking pot is not good for anyone's health, nor will going to jail for smoking benefit anyone. It certainly will not remove from the air we breathe each day, all the other life-threatening elements that are absorbed into it from factories, automobiles etc. All the smoking and drug laws do is give people a false sense that something is being done when in fact it is not.

[beam me up scottie]

162. Wow, quite a leap from indoor smoking bans to jailing smokers, isn't it?

False analogies all around.

Second hand smoke is a threat to people's health and cigarette smoke causes cancer.

And like other cancer causing carcinogens, it should be illegal to force employees to ingest them.

It's that simple.

Here's a good analogy:

If my employer is not allowed to expose me to dangerous levels of radiation at work, why should he be allowed to force me to inhale dangerous levels of toxic chemicals when I'm here?

If I'm pregnant, should he be allowed to endanger the health of my unborn child when there is another option that doesn't endanger anyone?

[femrap]

106. Yes, I was worried about others and their health...cuz I knew

damn well I was killing myself. I smoked in my home and in my car. Where it was banned, I didn't.

Please don't be ignorant.....smoking affects other people. If there could be a smokeless cigarette that didn't affect anyone else but the smoker, I would be happy. But your smoking hurts others. They have NO choice. You are affecting their health.

I wish there were a country or state or county for smokers....go there and kill each other....a smarter solution would be to open private clubs for smokers.

And all the $ you give to Corporate America for killing you....doesn't that bother you?

[TahitiNut]

132. Re: "smokeless cigarette"

The tobacco industry announced such a development (very low sidestream smoke) quite some time ago and were rapidly slam-dunked by the feds. Apparently, the reasoning is that anything that tobacco manufacturers might attempt to make smoking less offensive would be seen as encouraging people to smoke. Go figure.

[TahitiNut]

136. Can you imagine how zealous Americans would be with national health care?

We already have a two-tiered life and health insurance rate schedule. :shrug:

[LiberalPersona]

6. Support public indoor ban

I don't care what people do at home, but when you step into a public area you should respect the health of other people.

[U4ikLefty]

7. So I guess my dream of a Amsterdam-style cafe in the US is gone!!!

too bad...I guess we will never reach that level of freedom. And partially due to "progressives"...sad, real sad.

Still, someday I hope we will reach the level of maturity when we can find another establishment & I can smoke my marijuana in public without the nanny-state telling me to hide in my closet.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. If we get to a place where people can stand on the sidewalk and smoke pot

like they can tobacco, I will consider that a victory for freedom, TYVM.

[U4ikLefty]

19. As long as it's 25 feet from the building...almost out in the street

woo-hoo, now that's freedom!!! I think we should make exemptions for certain establishments when/if we come to that point.

By that time I hope we will be mature enough to deal with true freedom..like the Dutch & accept that some people like to smoke pot (or cigarettes, yuck) in a "special" place. And if they don't like smoke...go elsewhere or deal with it.

Cause God help us if a precious non-smoker's "right" to get drunk is violated.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Did I say anything about 25 feet?

Actually, if you read the OP, I said "like California's law". There's no 25 feet in California's law - if there is, no one is following it.

Again, pot smokers get sent to jail- cigarette smokers have to go outside. Clearly, the cigarette smokers are the ones suffering under the onus of repression.

[U4ikLefty]

24. I have signs all around my university specifically stating

that there is no smoking allowed within 25 feet from the building. I wish tomorrow wasn't a holiday or I would post a picture. Belive me, I live in California & it's true.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Well, maybe that's a school policy.

AFAIK, that's not the law pertaining to bars and restaurants in California- if it is, it's being broken by just about everyone.

I remember when I was part of the University of California system, they had all kinds of rules which weren't state law.

That was a long time ago, before I watched my dad die of lung cancer. Kind of made me re-evaluate my attitude about some of this shit.

[U4ikLefty]

36. Sorry about your dad, but it was his choice not to quit.

I smoked for 15 years & quit 9 years ago, but I'm still not against freedom to fuck up your health. I really don't have any issues, but I mostly see ex-smokers or dead/ cancer-ridden smoker's family members getting all authoritarian about this issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I'm with you on the freedom to fuck up your health.

It's the fucking up of everyone else's health that I have a problem with. Given the fact that second hand smoke DOES affect people, I'm of the opinion that asking people to step outside isn't that big of a deal.

Maybe in places with crappy weather most of the year, places could do those airlocked plexiglass enclosure things like they have in some airports, with separate ventillation.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. I don't think smoking pot in bars is neccessary either......

....but I have no objections at all to anybody doing so in their own homes. And it should be legal.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Right, see, but pot smokers only get sent to jail- cigarette smokers

have to... GO OUTSIDE!

Oh, the humanity! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

[U4ikLefty]

27. and alcoholics get to do as they wish...unless they kill somone

with thier car.

Oooohhh the fairness!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

33. That's right. Once their problem becomes someone else's

that's when the law should get involved.

[U4ikLefty]

44. But unlike the victim of the drinken-driver, the FREQUENT bar patron

is given a choice, many times, to decide to go to a non-smoking establishment. You seem to ignore that fact. Nobody forces you into a bar.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. No, they don't. But given the fact that a) the bar air doesn't "belong"

to the smokers as a default position,

and b) when one person smokes, EVERYONE has to breathe it..

and c) I grew up in the midwest. "Non-smoking" bars are a fucking red herring. I never saw one in my whole life. Leaving it up to the owners means, EVERY bar is going to be a smoking bar.

and lastly, d) That may be fine with you, your attitude may be - "tough shit".. but still, in all this, no one has come up with any kind of rational explanation about WHY IT IS SUCH A HUGE FUCKING IMPOSITION to ask people just to GO OUTSIDE TO SMOKE?

And if that's your attitude- I have to ask- do you oppose smoking bans in restaurants? on airplanes? Hospital ICUs?

[U4ikLefty]

93. You accuse me of a red-herring & then pull a straw-man...lol!!!

I never said "tough shit" to hospitals, or airplanes. They are forced to sit for hours in a place without a choice to leave. Restaurants are a different matter. If they want to keep customers such as yourself then they will accommodate you & have a clean non-smoking area. If you don't like that place then "go outside". See, there are more of us (non-smokers) whom don't like to smell that shit while eating...myself included.

...but when it comes to BARS, we should expect that in a "place of vice" that the atmosphere may be harmful. We can choose to deal with it or find another bar.


Now, I must go & smoke a joint. maybe I'll call my buddy over...he smokes. You know what??? If he wants to smoke, I tell him to go outside & when I'm aver his place...he tell me to leave if I don't like his smoking. I love freedom.. that includes the freedom to walk away.

Nice chatting with you, hope someday we will see that pot-smoking thing in the US, so wee can argue the merits of smoking doobs in bars/restaurants...what a glorious day that will be, eh?!?

Have a good one,
U4ikLefty

[LincolnMcGrath]

94. That 'place of vice'....

Is also a 'PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT'.

[mondo joe]

99. Y'know, it's really only the lame arguments of the pro smoke zealots that

ever really make me want to support smoking bans.

The absolute lacl of consideration for their fellow human beings is what gets to me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

104. The Marlboro Militia definitely HURTS the cause of courteous smokers.

[mondo joe]

114. Indeed. I voted against the smoking ban here in Seattle, but some of

these posts make me wish I'd voted for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. 'non-smoking' sections in restaurants don't work.

The smoke doesn't stay in one section.

But I didn't realize any of this until I moved to california and got AWAY from ever-present cigarette smoke. I used to live in it 24-7. Now I'm acutely aware of it. Going back to the midwest and into a restauraunt with a non-smoking "section" is like going into a time warp.

I agree with you- pot should be legal. Like I said before, if all pot smokers had to worry about was going out to the curb to fire one up, I should think it would be a great improvement on the situation we have now.

Peace.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

171. u4ik, you missed point c

Hard to simply "find another bar" when they're ALL filled with smoke.

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. I have no objections to someone taking a bong hit on the sidewalk either..

..smells better than cigarette smoke anyhow. Not that I've touched the ganja in years myself, but I absolutely support legalization.

[drhilarius]

12. It's important to respect the health concerns...

of someone sucking down their fourth Long Island Iced Tea.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. And the person serving 'em, too.

But, you know, if you can't deal with it, stay out of California. Must be why no one wants to live here- obviously this onerous, fascist smoking ban that requires smokers to go outside has really damaged our property values.

[drhilarius]

23. I guess some types of fundamentalism are okay, huh?

I don't see why it's so difficult for non-smokers to find bars for non-smokers (they exist I've been to them. They're boring as hell, but I've been to them).

[Warren DeMontague]

34. It's Fundamentalist to act like being forced to go outside to smoke

is some kind of grand imposition on one's 'rights'.

[drhilarius]

43. I don't know what the situation In california is...

but when I go out here, in DC, the majority of people in the bars are smokers, and the non-smokers who bitch about it usually hit me up for smokes after their fifth rum and coke. They're contemplating a smoking ban in DC, meaning that the vast majority of bar-goers (smokers)must bend to the will of the small minority present.

I have no problems with restaurant smoking bans (even if said restaurant has a bar), or bans in workplaces, or even at freaking bus stops. But people, the majority of people, when they go to bars go to drink and smoke.

Can't find a non-smoking bar that's fun? No problem, force everyone to bend to your will.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. "...hit me up for smokes after their fifth rum and coke..."

You too, huh? :rofl:

[drhilarius]

56. Every-freakin'-time...

and it's almost always the one standing by the door crinkling her nose and poo-pooing the smokers.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. It's worked out pretty well here.

The smokers have survived, and the bars are as packed as ever. Even all my smoker friends who swore up and down that they would boycott the bars somehow managed with it.

Of course, I will concede that California has pretty temperate weather. For somewhere like Minnesota, maybe the answer is enclosed plexiglass areas with separate ventillation. I'm going with my experience in California.

But smoking cigarettes isn't real popular here anymore, either, to begin with.

[drhilarius]

92. So maybe our disagreement is just regional in nature...

because nothing sobers my ass up faster than January in DC.

I can understand your positions, I just think there is a more reasonable compromise than these draconian measures. For instance, large bars, ones with a high capacity or that make x amount of revenue yearly, could be forced to pay for quality ventilation systems. I have been to bars that have these installed and it does make a difference. Small bar owners, or bars that make under x amount of revenue, would be exempt. This, to me, seems entirely reasonable.

As for the popularity of smoking cigs here- all I know is I see it everywhere. Smokes are cheap and alot of the bar goers are young, college age/ hipster/ "the only thing I eat is smoke" types.

Lastly, don't think me a rude smoking type. I try to avoid smoking near entrances to buildings, at bus stops or outdoor metro stations, and avoid smoking in restaurants, even if there is a smoking section. It's just at the end of the week all I want a smoke and a scotch on my favorite stool at my favorite dive.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Believe it or not

I grew up around it. I cut my teeth during my crazy years on Chicago area bars and a TON of cigarette smoke. I lived in a flat in Rogers Park with two other guys who probably EACH smoked 2-3 packs a day. I didn't even notice it at the time, but when I moved out of that place I found walking up one flight of stairs put me out of breath. And I was in my early twenties.

Watching my dad die of lung cancer and moving to California, and subsequently being AWAY from cigarette smoke to the point of now, acutely noticing it when it's there, has colored my attitude. I can't reasonably fathom how California's law would work, for example, in Chicago. I'm not a sadist- I wouldn't expect my smoker friends to sit out on the sidewalk in a minus forty wind chill..

When I was living back there, the 'no smoking bar' didn't exist- so I've always been under the impression that business owners would never do it. Cigarettes are taxed up the yin-yang as it is, I wouldn't have a problem with some of that money going to public funding of 'separate but equal' (probably the wrong phraseology to use) ventillation systems for large establishments. Shit, legalize and tax pot, and feed that money into the thing as well. As long as the end result is that the people who don't want to breathe it aren't constantly forced to without having to stay at home, I should think there would be room for compromise.

[drhilarius]

115. I completely agree with you...

Tax revenue from cigarettes should go to preventive health measures (stop kids from smoking in the first place) and subsidizing ventilation systems.

I apologize if my earlier posts seemed like attacks, I just think these smoking bans are a failure of imagination. Both of us just spit up a reasonable compromise that could, in pretty much any area, be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. I just think people can't see beyond the extremes (which, I admit, even I do when I get passionate).

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Oh, this is a time-honored subject for DU getting worked up.

Either this, or PETA, or porn.. round and round and round we go.

Personally, I'm hardly the control freak. I'm very much of the 'to each his own' persuasion, consenting adults, yadda yadda yadda. I think the arguments about letting business owners decide actually have some merit, but that is weighed on the other side by other factors, among them employee health concerns and my experience that most businesses don't on their own seem to get there.

Peace.

[drhilarius]

125. Peace, friend, and if I'm ever in California...

I won't bitch (oops) too much, because I'm sure the view outside will be nice. :-)

[JVS]

117. Yeah. Some of us want to get ripped without risking poor health!

[Warren DeMontague]

130. The liver is hardier than the lungs

It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.

[devilgrrl]

16. I like having to go outside to smoke... to get away from people!

Don't bother me at all. :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

17. The Democratic libertarian streak at work.

Well done, folks.

Freedom is very, very important.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I'm as socially libertarian as they come... but I think there is a

legitimate place for regulations pertaining to indoor, public spaces.

You can't go to a restaurant and take a dump on the table. It shouldn't be 'up to the owners' whether they allow table-pooping...

I support the rights of people to watch porn- but you can't watch it in a bar.

I support the rights of women to choose- but you can't get an abortion in a bar.

When people smoke, they force everyone else in the building to smoke, too. That being the case, I can't grasp why it is supposed to be such an impositon of liberty to just ask people to go outside.

AFAIC, It's not.

Also, with this idea that 'it should be up to the establishment owners'.. I grew up in the midwest- there was never ANY such thing as a "no smoking bar". And I would be greatly surprised if there is ANYWHERE in the country-- that doesn't have a government ban-- where such an animal exists.

[14MNE]

31. I am unable to vote

I don't smoke, and I don't like smoke.
I cannot stand the smell, and I find it repulsive when I am dining.
That being said, who am I to infringe on someone else's desires?
Granted, it creates a real issue for the people around them...but if you allow yourself to expound on the situation, one must ask themselves, at what point does my own need supersede another's?

I find it difficult to suggest that my needs to breathe clean air are anymore important to me than a smokers needs are to have that cigarette. Argue it anyway you like, the fact remains, my desire to breath smokeless air is no less greedy than the smokers desire to light up.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I think that's choice #3 nt

[Codeine]

42. Greedy to want clean air?

That's a human right, as far as I'm concerned. Am I greedy to want clean water as well?

[LiberalPersona]

157. There's no such thing as

a "need" to have a cigarette. It's purely a physical desire for pleasure, much like sex.

Why should other people's health be gambled with simply because a few people want to experience a filthy pleasure in public?

[cynatnite]

37. Smoker here supports indoor smoking bans

I made the choice to smoke, but those around me don't have the choice if I light one up.

I don't have a problem with the bans at all. If I'm in a non-smoking place I've got enough self-control to wait until I'm in my own space.

A few years ago I did some temp work at a clinic with a strict no-smoking policy. They even banned it if you were sitting in your car. That's the only time I thought it went too far.

We don't do bars and rarely go to restaurants so it's not much of an issue either way. Also, being from TN where there is a fair amount of tobacco growers, I don't see any type of ban coming in the near future.

I do believe more and more towns, cities and states will adopt stricter smoking bans and smokers should follow them, IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Your own car, your own house- your own air.

Public, indoor places, that's something else IMHO.

[phusion]

50. Bars are not "public" places

like parks and subways.

[Codeine]

54. But they are places subject to restrictions

on cleanliness, number of patron, number of exits, availability of restrooms, licensing, liability, and a million other things. Smoking just got added to the list. No biggie.

[phusion]

64. Yes, and half of those restrictions are unnecessary

and ridiculous. The smoking ban is another.

[mondo joe]

67. Are public accommodations not subject to health and safety standards?

Do the people not have the right to regulate commerce?

[phusion]

76. Yes, people have the right to regulate commerce

and it's usually done with their wallet.

[mondo joe]

79. People have the right to regulate commerce through law.

Or are you more pro business than that?

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Maybe to you.

I think it was the best thing California ever did. And the night life hasn't suffered a bit.

[phusion]

102. Well, good for Californians!

:toast:

[Codeine]

80. Ridiculous?

It's ridiculous to require fire safety and health codes? It's ridiculous to make sure that people handling beverages are licensed and trained to do so in a manner that will ensure health and safety?

Are you for real?

[mondo joe]

86. You've encountered a poster on a dem board who doesn't believe businesses

should have to deal with health or safety codes, can expose employees to toxins in order to keep their jobs, and citizens have no right to regulate commerce!

[phusion]

111. Yes, I'm a freeper

so ban me.

:eyes:

Really, why do you inflate my statement about "half" of health or safety codes being unnecessary to mean "all" health and safety codes?

My other question is, what have employees in bars said about smoking bans?

Also, where are the studies that say second-hand smoke exposes people to more toxins than the average American diet?

And, I NEVER said that citizens have no right to regulate commerce. I said *most* of the time this is done with their wallet and that that should be the case here.

[mondo joe]

Which half of health and safety codes are unnecessary?

And since regulation is a legal, not economic, method, do you or do you not believe the citizens have the right to regulate commerce?

[phusion]

129. Here you go:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_level=1&p_part_number=1910

That's a fraction of them...Shouldn't be too hard to find some that are unnecessary...

Also, regulation is both legal and economic. Of course I believe citizens have the right to regulate commerce and if it was the will of the people of California or Seattle or wherever, so be it.

All I am saying is that I would oppose such legal attempts to regulate commerce. That's what the point of this thread was about...

[mondo joe]

161. Hazardous materials restrictions are unnecessary? Ventilation too?

Nice.

[beam me up scottie]

119. False analogy. I choose my diet.

I don't choose to smoke.

But I am forced to at work.

Why do you find this acceptable?

[beam me up scottie]

60. They are workplaces.

I can't think of any other place of employment that would legally be able to allow their workers to be poisoned.

[phusion]

75. So, that begs the question...

has there ever been any polling done on bartenders and other bar staff in regards to how they feel about a smoking ban?

Have there been any concerns expressed or actions taken by employee unions to ban smoking in these businesses?

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Bartenders are unionized? Not in California.

If they are, that's news to me.

[phusion]

98. I was asking you...

Why aren't there any unions?

What do bar workers say about the ban?

[Warren DeMontague]

109. The bars are doing fine.

Why aren't there any unions? Shit, I don't know. Maybe it's because almost NO ONE is unionized anymore. Welcome to the 21st century.

But come to California, and although you will have to go outside to smoke a cigarette, you will notice that our bars- and bar workers- haven't suffered a bit from the ban.

[beam me up scottie]

116. And I'm asking you.

Since when have business owners been allowed to vote on which toxic substances their employees are exposed to?

[phusion]

127. We are both avoiding each other's questions

great...

This argument has turned into a shouting match.

'nite.
:boring:

[beam me up scottie]

131. 'Scuse me for not wanting to involuntarily smoke 100 cigarettes a day.

Who's shouting?

I would like an answer.

Why do you think that's acceptable?

[phusion]

134. See post #129

I think this may answer your question.

[beam me up scottie]

137. There's quite a bit of regulation about adequate ventilation.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9734

Funny, you'd think the toxins I'm breathing in every day would be in there somewhere...

[beam me up scottie]

84. Are they voting on which toxic substances employees can be exposed to now?

Unions?
:spray:

For bartenders and wait staff?

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

63. Bars are, as a matter of law, public accommodations.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Thank you.

I smoked for twenty years and when they banned it indoors in Vermont, I had NO problem with it since I already went outside to smoke.

How delusional would I have to be to claim it wasn't bad for my health or the health of the people around me?

Banning it in your car or house or outside anywhere, for that matter, is going too far.

I haven't met anyone that would support a complete ban.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Hypocritical smoker here...I don't really mind the smoking ban

Though I'm not entirely comfortable with what I see as the intusive and paternalistic aspect of it, as a practical matter it doesn't bother me at all to smoke elsewhere. I don't like smoky rooms. I don't even smoke inside my own home. Plus it decreases the amount that I smoke.

[LoZoccolo]

48. You can tell by looking at the results...

...that it's basically smokers who want to impose on other people and vote for their own interest. I wonder what other odious personal habits they have that they don't think other people mind and cause those people to avoid them.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. I have to admit, looking at the results

I wonder if any smokers opposing the ban are putting themselves down as 'non smokers'. Maybe occasional smokers, maybe people in denial..

No, no, I am sure y'all are honest--- unless you work for the Bush administration.

[TahitiNut]

151. That's an amazing interpretation - contrary to the arithmetic.

At the time I'm composing this post, non-smokers favor a ban 64-to-25. That's 156% more favoring than opposing. At the same time, smokers oppose a ban 27-to-17, or 58% more opposing than favoring. In other words, non-smokers are nearly three times more biased in exerting their will on others.

But that's merely arithmetic. I know it doesn't hold a candle to a zealously-held belief. :eyes:

[cigsandcoffee]

53. Guess how I voted...

Thumbs down to the smoke nazis.

[U4ikLefty]

59. What happens when the gov't steps in to disallow smoking in the home

becasue you have children or elderly people & it may endanger thier health. Will you support that "ban"?

What if the smoker owns the home? Should the smoking parent lose custody? I want to know how autrhoritarian you "progressives" will go.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. No.

And I was someone who was subjected to a LOT of tobacco smoke when I was a kid. I'm certain it affects my lung capacity to this day.

Do I think it's bad for kids? Yes. Do I want the government interfering with what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes? No.

If you read the OP, I think I addressed this very issue. But I'll repeat myself- I am talking about bans on INDOOR smoking in PUBLIC places.

[beam me up scottie]

66. What happens when monkeys come flying out of your ass?

You "progressives" ? :eyes:

Give me a fucking break.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. You hope they're well greased.

And they've had their nails trimmed.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Not this time.

I hope the fuckers are rabid and claw like hell.
:evilgrin:

[Fountain79]

62. If a business chooses to allow smoking

That is their right to do it, period. If you do not like the fact that a business allows smoking let them know. Raise enough hell that they will have to abide or offer concessions. Don't smack them with a law that says they can't do it. BTW..I am a non-smoker who personally greatly dislikes smoking. Yet I go to bars and clubs with the understanding that I may encounter it.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. As an aside

I wonder how geographical location plays into people's responses. Seems to me people are more vehemently opposed to this on the Eastern part of the US.

JMO.

[Fountain79]

73. Oppossed to smoking?

Or oppossed to a smoking ban?

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Opposed to the ban.

Personally, I think what people choose to do with their own bodies is their own business- (although if my kids start smoking cigarettes I will drag out the last letter my dad wrote me before he died of lung cancer)...

but given that when you smoke indoors you force everyone else to breathe the smoke too, restrictions like asking people to go outside are not that onerous IMHO.

[Fountain79]

85. I am from the midwest...

I am oppossed to the ban.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I also think more people smoke back there.

That's been my experience living both the midwest and the west coast. Far more smokers back there, seems to me.

[Fountain79]

96. Go to Mexico...

People who bitch about smoking here would have a sh@# fit there. Everyone smokes.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Or Europe.

I know.

[mondo joe]

74. And if a city wants to permit toxic dumping and air pollution that

is their right?

[Fountain79]

82. Now we are speaking in hyperbole...

Explain to me the similarity between the two.

[mondo joe]

88. Both are releasing toxins into the environment.

Didn't get that?

[Fountain79]

95. Oh please...

Comparing a toxic dump, to the smoke that a smoker exhales in a restaurant or bar is quite ridiculous.

[mondo joe]

97. Why precisely is it "quite ridiculous"?

Please be specific.

[Fountain79]

103. welll

Firstly, people don't move to toxic waste dumps. It moves to them. If you are in own house, you might still be affected by the pollution of it. A restaurant and/or bar were a person has made a conscious CHOICE(you know that word), to visit, then the situation is different. I make a choice to visit places that allow smoking, if I happen to walk by a bar that allows smoking I am fairly confident in my own health and well being. Now if I walk by a toxic waste dump, then I may not be able to share the same confidence. Truly you are doing more to weaken your argument with rather extreme examples like that. It reminds me of the conservatives when they try to argue for torture: "Imagine if a bomb was going off in 20 minutes and the only way to find out where it was would be to torture someon"

[mondo joe]

112. Wellllllll

It's just a difference of scale.

If you buy a house in a city that permits toxic dumps, you can sell your house and move to a clean city - oops, not the next one over!

If a person can be subjected to toxins in a public accomodation, why not by a neighboring city?

[Fountain79]

120. What does that have to do...

With smoking in a private establishment?

[mondo joe]

121. The private establishment is a public accomodation, as a matter of

law.

[Fountain79]

124. Just curious

What's the difference between going to a bar that allows smoking and going to a private house party that allows smoking?

[mondo joe]

160. One is a public accomodation and one is not; one is a business subject

to regulation and one is not.

[Fountain79]

172. A house...

Isn't subject to regulation? I can have a toxic waste dump in my house?

[beam me up scottie]

90. I am forced to breathe in toxic fumes all day where I work.

Where's the difference?

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Or restaurants that want to allow people to take a dump on the table.

Hey, if you don't want table-pooping, go somewhere else!

[mondo joe]

71. As soon as smokers have a device that will limit their smoke to their own

bodies, I will fully support their right to smoke anywhere they like.

[GRLMGC]

113. I'm in CA and I get weirded out when I go to other

states where they have smoking/no smoking sections. I understand the ban in restaurants but I think the bar ban is dumb. You go to a bar to, quite literally, drink poison and perhaps pick up a random person for casual sex. Who cares if they add smoking into the mix? That's just my opinion

[Jack_DeLeon]

126. I support smoking bans in "Public buildings," not in "Private buildings."

IMO I dont have a problem with smoking bans in true Public buildings like libraries, courthouses, and the like.

I do not support government bans on smoking on private property like restaurants, clubs, or anywhere else.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. How about airplanes?

Assuming that, for example, the plane doesn't belong to the Air Force.

[Jack_DeLeon]

167. It should be up to the airline to decide...

as a traveller I can make up my own mind if I want to fly on a smoking or nonsmoking plane.

That being said I dont fly anyways. Its so damn expensive and then having to put up with all the stupid for show only screenings its not worth it. I'd rather drive or take the bus.

[beam me up scottie]

133. Like where I have to work every day?

And if I'm pregnant and the baby is born with health problems that can be attributed to smoking, should I be able to sue my employer and the government for not providing a safe workplace?

[Fountain79]

135. What kind of business are you in?

just curious....

[beam me up scottie]

138. An office.

With six chain smokers.

[Fountain79]

139. they are allowed to smoke..

At their desks?

[beam me up scottie]

140. Of course.

And everywhere else.

[Fountain79]

141. In case like that

I would have an issue with it, at the very least have a smoking section.

[beam me up scottie]

142. But I see bars and restaurants as workplaces too.

And when I start my new job, I will be glad to get the hell away from that place (don't get me wrong, I really like the people I work with) but I will still feel the same way about the indoor ban because of the next non smoker that has to work there.

It's not that big of a deal to go outside.

I did it in Vermont, even when it was -25°F.

[Fountain79]

143. I will use my same example...

What is the difference between going to a bar where smoking exists and a private party where smoking exists?

[beam me up scottie]

145. My boss owns the building where I work and he allows it.

Where's the difference?

[Fountain79]

146. Did you know that before you went to work there?

?

[beam me up scottie]

147. He said he smoked.

In his office.

I didn't know about the others, but-

I had been unemployed for six months and had no savings left.

This was the only job I had been offered that could pay me a living wage.

I couldn't NOT take the job.

[Fountain79]

148. Regardless

You took the job with the knowledge that smoking was going to take place there.

[beam me up scottie]

150. And I had no choice.

Perhaps you'd rather have the government pay unemployment compensation to anyone who is forced to work in such a place.


Should employers be allowed to expose their employees to toxins because they OWN the place?

[Fountain79]

152. If I own my house...

And you come to my house and I smoke in my house. Is there a difference?

[beam me up scottie]

153. Yes, I don't have to work at your house.

I could care less what you do there.
Or outside.
Or in your car.
Or in a separate ventilated room in the building.

[Fountain79]

154. Anyway...

Need to go to bed. In your case I would talk to your co-workers about it. It's an annoyance, but it doesn't mean there needs to be a law.

[beam me up scottie]

155. I would disagree that it's a health hazard and not an annoyance.

But thanks for looking at it from my side, many don't or won't.

Goodnight. :hi:

[Jack_DeLeon]

170. you always have a choice...

see my recent post.

[Jack_DeLeon]

169. You always have a choice...

We always have choices even if we dont think we do.

The other day I was with a friend downtown. He was looking for a new aparment and I said dont they have apartments downtown. He said he looked into it but they cost too much. I then joked with him that there are plenty of people living downtown who make far less than we do. They are called the homeless.

I'm not saying that you should give up your job and become homeless. But that is just one choice you could make.

There are plenty of different ways of living and surviving, even if most of the times in our modern society we choose to ignore them.

[Jack_DeLeon]

168. No...

if you are working for a private business its up to you to decide if the money is worth you health.

You say lots of people smoke where you work, and yet you still work there. So I suppose that means the risk is worth it to you. If it wasnt you would have quit already.

[sleipnir]

165. Why not just ban smokers from the country?

Ship them off to Cuba, that seems reasonable.

They like cigars down there, so I guess it'd be a good match! :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

166. Good idea!! (That'd convince me to be a smoker!! Ubetcha!)

Warm air. Sunshine. National health care. 100% literacy.

Everything Michigan lacks. :evilgrin: