Printable View
More and more smoking laws are going on the books, and I'm wondering what you Mello folks think about them. Vote and explain! Or, let me know if your choice isn't listed.
I'm making the assumption that government-owned spaces would remain smoke-free, so this only applies to privately-owned establishments.
Well I don't see a poll, but my two cents are that I'm alright with not smoking in resturants and the like, but I think that bars should be allowed to buy "smoking licenses" from the state on a yearly basis, provided that they have enough smoke eaters and the like installed to minimize the impact on non smoking employees, and we could have smoking bars like before and non smoking bars full of some kind of imaginary health fanatic who hangs out in bars eating wings and drinking beer.
Poll was being edited...you can vote now. :)
I'm between these two.
I like the idea that bars could be smoking allowed but think we are better off with all restaurants smoke free.Quote:
Allow people to smoke in their homes and cars, ban them everywhere else
Allow bars & restaurants to apply for a smoking license, ban them everywhere else
I live in a New Jersey though where the ban is for all indoor public spaces and arenas. No smoking in bars or anywhere else.
What Cluricaun said. Although if one bar can have a licence, they all should be allowed. Speaking as a non-smoker, I think it is the most balanced approach.
I don't smoke anymore, but I still think that the trend of trying to regulate smoking away is oppressive to our freedoms to coat our lungs with whatever we might like. I understand that non-smokers don't want to have to endure smoke when they go out to eat or whatever, but as far as I've seen restaurants are mostly going all non-smoking anyway; I don't think there's any general right to be able to enjoy every single restaurant that exists, so I don't really have any particular sympathy when tobacco sensitive people whine about the few restaurants that still allow smoking and don't sufficiently isolate the smoking section.
Bars, I guess, are kind of another matter. I'm coming around to seeing that there really was a market failure in the pre-smoking-ban world, in which almost all bars permitted smoking even though most customers prefer non-smoking bars. I will agree that it's fair for the government, in a case like that, to act to fix it. I just think that regulation well short of out-and-out banning in bars and restaurants would be sufficient.
I think it would be plenty for governments to, say, enact some sort of tax incentive to encourage restaurants and bars to go non-smoking. The remaining smoking places will pick up the revenues of all the smokers, non-smokers can breathe easier, we all win. I see no compelling reason why every business should be forced to be smoke-free (and thus why smokers shouldn't be able to find any bars or restaurants to accommodate them.)
Smoking bars are fine. Non-smokers don't have to go there.
Plenty of smoke free-places to get lubed at.
I'm a non-smoker, and as someone who's lost multiple family members to lung cancer and COPD, I dislike it, but I think private business owners should be able to allow or disallow smoking in their establishments as they see fit. With the exception of something like a mall, where it would be absurd for one store to have smoking and the store next door to prohibit it. But in general, if I hate smoking that bad, I can vote with my wallet by not going there.
I pretty much agree with Exy, although I go back and forth on whether or not smoking in bars was a market failure. For whatever reason, a lot of non-smokers were willing to go to bars, even if they didn't like the smoke. Sure, a lot of them are really happy now that the smoke's been banned where they live, but they obviously didn't care enough to boycott and force the change that way. I'm not totally sure that using the government as a substitute for consumer choice is the right approach, but if you are going to take that route, I agree that tax incentives or licensing bars is the better way to do it.
Non smokers were never prevented from opening establishments during the smoking era that didn't allow smoking so that their fellow pink lungs could sit around and not know what to do with their hands while talking. That would have been totally possible, but the surge in bar goings that's been seen since the bans is a temporary spike. They go into a place once or twice to see what all the hubbub was about, and then leave unsatisfied because the bans gutted a good gin joint of the very thing that made it a place to be - the regulars. Without a good crowd full of rowdy drunk nicotine fiends, a dive bar is just a shitty bar with bad food and low ambiance and a soon to be out of business one at that.
I haven't really checked into this real closely, but it's at least routinely been claimed that business at bars went up a bunch after banning smoking. Which means apparently the market wasn't making the optimal decision (due, I guess, to bar owners not having the requisite information -- that is, that lots of people were doing their drinking at home rather than braving the clouds of smoke.) I actually am not really sure if that conforms to the definition of "market failure" but it seems like it probably would. It's been a long time since economics class.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
I picked the first option although I don't know if I'd be that strident about it. I think Minnesota went smoke free a few years ago. At any rate I haven't been to any bars that were full of smoke so I don't know if I would go anyway. But I'm a nonsmoker and I think smoking is ridiculously stupid so while I'm probably not going to advocate bannings via protest marches or whatever, I have no problem supporting politicians who want to ban it because really you shouldn't be smoking anyway. I'm sure this makes me some sort of oppressive hypocrite but really smoking? It's not like its dangers are still being debated or that it's a new health threat.
Gay sex is, statistically, also a pretty big health threat. HIV rates are rising again. In Chicago, it seems that over one in six gay men is infected.
It's time for the law to get involved!
Yeah, I'm really quite hesitant to use the legislature to train people into healthy behavior. Ultimately, we need to make our own choices in life in terms of the risks we want to take (don't get me started on transfats!)
When it comes to habits can harm others (such as smoking and automobile operation), I think regulations are good, but I can't get behind these kinds of sweeping bans.
I can't believe I'm about to say this with a straight face, but get your laws off my body. :Shake:Quote:
Originally posted by Inner Stickler
Don't worry, I won't *make* you quit. But you know, you really should. :(Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
Aww, baby, don't let him get to you. Come on, we'll down to the clinic and get some abortions, then you'll feel better.Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
Nothing like a good uterine scraping to make you feel ready to face the day.
I recommend everyone have their uteruses scraped daily, just in case.
Living in California, I'm actually hard pressed to remember a time when smoking was allowed in most establishments. I've never been to a bar that allowed smoking, and frankly? I like it. I've watched a few family members waste away to what could have been a preventable cancer, have several more family members who have chronic issues brought on by smoking, and as a kid with allergies and asthma, smoke was a big trigger. These days I'm past it and I can generally be around cigarette smoke without issue, but I like the idea that I don't have to worry about my future kidlets being exposed to smoke just because we wanted to go grab a (admittedly unhealthy it it's own right) burger.
I've been to bars in San Francisco where it was totally legit to light up a joint, but if you wanted a cigarette they made you go to, I believe, Nevada. California is kind of an odd place.
And not that this thread is about me and my various self destructive behaviors, but I know from a health standpoint that I should quit smoking and stop drinking Evan Williams straight from the bottle and doing other recreational substances. However when I die it's going to be because of something I did, not eventually anyway because of I everything I didn't. Death, as life will be on my terms.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
Life is too short not to look death in the eye and laugh maniacally. I'm totally in on the joke, it's cool. Sometimes it's not that bad to have too many drinks in scary bars or fuck strangers without a condom on or ride motorcycles too fast in the dark around blind curves. That shit reminds you that you're alive. Life is about living it, not preciously preserving it until you're so old that you hate it anyway and your dick stops working and all you have is more time and no idea what to do with it.
The Purpose Driven Life, Cluricaun style. :dumbo:
Here there is no smoking in restaurants but it is allowed in bars. I don't mind smoke so much when I'm drinking, hell I'm already putting up with drunks. But I'm very glad to be able to eat without it. I allow frends to smoke in my home and in my car. That's what air freshiner is for.
The move to outlaw tobbacco is a bad move we don't need another black market in this country.
:dubious: Your rationalization is showing.Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
I chose the first option. Very biased I know but I have very bad reactions to cigarette smoke (among other things).My wife is a heavy smoker but fortunately lives elsewhere now.
Since the banning of smoking in- just about anywhere and her leaving the sensitivity has actually increased and I find that coming out of a supermarket etc. I can be doubled up, vomit and occasionally black out. I have to rush past them coughing and choking at the best of times, and have had to abandon my shopping and leave the store on occasions when the smoke from outside comes rolling in to the checkouts.
My daughter's current boyfriend smokes (outside) and when he comes in the smoke in his lungs and on his clothes has the same effect as above, I can't occupy the same room as him.
I appreciate that people should be allowed to do what they want, just do it somewhere else please-Zanzibar perhaps :)
Seriously, tobacco costs a huge amount of many people's income and is often to the detriment of a healthy diet, and costs the country in lost work time (illness) and in medical resources, all for nothing IMO.
Not that what I think and say is going to make a blind bit of difference of course.
It should be all up to the owner. If you want to allow smoking, it's fine. If not, it's not fine. Simple as that.
People should be allowed to smoke wherever and whenever they like: wearing the little Smoking Suit that I am presently inventing. It retains all the smoke within itself so the smoker and the smoker alone enjoys it. I would put it on the market now but I have a sorta big decision to make: should potential buyers be told that it is truly a closed system and that once they have used up all the oxygen they will choke and cough to death within 15 minutes? A tough dilemma . . .
Personally, I am all for people having the right to choose and enjoy their own behaviours, especially when they are legal. I have no problem with people choosing to kill themselves with cancer -- in fact, I encourage folks to take themselves out of the gene pool with their personal choices. However, as the great Oliver Wendell Holmes once pointed out, a person's rights end precisely where the next person's begin. I would rather not ingest a bunch of Class A carcinogens and I should not have to be exposed to them because someone else has chosen to expose him/herself to them.
From an occupational safety and health standpoint, smoking is significantly more carcinogenic than the equivalent amount of asbestos exposure. Asbestos exposure in the workplace is aggressively regulated, so I see no reason why smoking wouldn't also be regulated in a similar fashion. To me, it's less about the rights of the customers to smoke in a place of business and more about the business' employees being exposed to a toxic substance -- unless bars and restaurants are prepared to outfit their staff with respirators, disposable coveralls, and require them to shower in and out of the "containment" of the workplace, they should not be permitted to have that substance floating around in their air. To do otherwise would be to willfully put your employees at risk, which is a severe OSHA violation in any jurisdiction, with almost endless potential for fines and lawsuits.
Actually, our local mall used to have a tobacco shop that allowed smoking inside the store. It also had no door, so you had to swing wide when you walked past it, if you didn't want to inhale the fumes.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
Well, that certainly qualifies for filing under "absurd." :sci:Quote:
Originally posted by Marsilia
I think the option to ban smoking should be up to the business owners. I am a smoker but don't like inhaling it while I'm eating so I can see banning it in restaurants and other eateries. But a bar is for adults to go do adult things. When I go to one I want to drink,smoke and carouse. If you want to have a beer and remain smoke free, go to a non-smoking bar, don't take the option away simply because you don't like it.
They have a smoking ban here in Florida, but there is a loophole that allows smoking in bars that do less than 10% of their business in serving food. It seems to be working out pretty good. The bars that don't serve food often have take out menus for near by restaurants so patrons can have a beer & eat, and still have a ciggy afterwards.
What if the business wants to only hire smokers? Or what if it's a family-owned business, and they have no employees except for members of the family? Given that smoking isn't illegal, doesn't he have the right to run the business the way he wants to?Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
From an OSHA standpoint, an employer is obliged to provide a safe working environment to its employees, irrespective of the workers' personal habits or relationships. If a worker becomes seriously ill or dies as a result of an occupational exposure, the company that allowed that exposure is liable for damages. That applies whether the exposure is an 50-foot fall, a vat of benzene, exposed live wires, or a myriad of other possibilities, many of which are perfectly legal either in the business world or outside of it. It is illegal to allow workers to be exposed to such risks and, in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, it is also illegal for a worker to willingly expose him/herself to those risks. So, while a worker might happily choose to engage in perfectly legal, but risky, behaviours outside of the workplace, many of those behaviours are simply not permitted in the workplace. In short, an employer's right to run his business how he wants is limited and governed by safety legislation which put restrictions and prohibitions on lots of things which are legal outside of the workplace.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
Here in CA if a business has less than X employees (it's a small number, but I can't remember what) and they all agree, smoking can be allowed inside the business.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
The one business I know that did this was the feed store up the road. They'd smoke inside with the many animals they had for sale and outside around the feed bags and hay bales. Totally legal, but kind of stupid.
Don't you think it would be pretty hard to establish that the secondhand smoke in the workplace was what killed someone, if they'd also been a smoker for 40 or 50 years? And what if the worker chooses to work there based on the fact that he or she is allowed to smoke there, and that makes it a pleasant work environment for them? At what point is it a matter of them deciding to take the risk, vs. the risk being thrust upon them?Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
Hard to establish? Yes. Impossible to establish? No. Given that OSHA down in the States has a pretty well deserved reputation for Draconian rulings and punishments, it seems to me that that's a risk many or most companies would be reluctant to take.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
In many cases (as I noted above), it is not a matter of a worker deciding to accept the risk -- accepting risk is illegal. For example, in my province, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (part 35) specifically states that no worker shall perform any task that presents imminent danger to the worker or his/her coworkers. Workers are obliged by law to refuse unsafe work here and do not have the option of taking on risk they deem acceptable. Punishment for non-compliance for any OHS violation in Alberta carries with it a possible maximum fine of $500,000 and/or six months in prison for a first offence.
OK, but you're just telling me about the rules as they exist. I'm trying to discuss what the ethics are. What is unethical about giving workers the option of working at a place with an atmosphere they prefer, even if there is a health or safety risk, as long as they know what that risk is? There are a lot of jobs that have inherent safety risks, and people choose to do them for whatever reason. Where is the ethical failure in offering them that opportunity (that they are free to decline)?Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
Jimbo, one thing you aren't taking into consideration is that while smoking(and exposure to second hand smoke) can lead to health issues, doesn't mean that 100% of people who do smoke or are exposed to smoke are going to develop any. Yes, smoking is potentially dangerous. Swinging a hammer on a job site is potentially dangerous too. Sucking exhaust fumes while working at an auto repair shop is probably worse than any level of second hand smoke encountered while at work.
So long as cigarettes and other tobacco products are legal to purchase and use in the US, there are going to be establishments that cater to smokers. These establishments require people to work in them. Crying wolf to OSHA involved isn't going to change a thing.
As far as the ethics go, I've already said I'm all for smokers enjoying their addiction right up to the point where it might start exposing me. But that's also kind of the crux of the smoking laws that are cropping up more and more -- unless a company can guarantee that every person entering the business a) has signed a waiver indicating that they're OK with inhaling a Grade A carcinogen or b) will be 100% protected from exposure, the company's hands are tied in terms of the requirement to provide a safe working environment. Jobs which have inherent risk are meticulously regulated and require extensive hazard assessment and mitigation programs to ensure that workers are exposed as little as is reasonably practicable to any sort of risk. When it comes to an airbourne contaminant, such as smoke, the costs associated with building an HVAC system adequate to completely ventilate the area are prohibitive, compared to just imposing a ban, above and beyond the simple fact that 70-80% of all workers and guests are non-smokers, meaning these heroic efforts are designed to allow the vast minority to engage in a habit that can adversely effect everyone.Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
Ultimately, I would argue that business ethics are all about what is and is not legal and have nothing to do with morality. So whether or not I believe businesses should be allowed to choose for themselves is irrelevant -- they'll do what they believe is most expedient and what will generate the most profit and (usually) what is permitted by law, not what is the "right" thing.
Whether exhaust fumes are worse than second hand smoke is besides the point; Ive already mentioned that smoking is a significantly higher health risk than the equivalent level of asbestos exposure, but one is legal and one isn't. I will, however, concede that exposure to smoke does not automatically doom a person to health issues. But by the same token, roughly 50% of all occupational falls from 11' or higher don't result in fatalities, so is it reasonable to just let people choose whether they'll use fall arrest, since you might actually survive that fall off a 20-storey building?Quote:
Originally posted by Revs
So long as cigarettes and other tobacco products are legal to purchase and use in the US, people are going to buy them and use them. But that does not mean there will continue to be establishments that allow it -- if the laws continue to change in response to studies such as this, establishments will no longer be given that option because the risk is considered to be too great. You're right that crying wolf to OSHA won't change anything, but providing hard, measurable evidence to them certainly will.
Minnesota passed their no smoking laws in 1975 with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, which made smoking in most public places unlawful and then expanded it with the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007, which made smoking in bars and restaurants illegal. An additional point I'd like to mention is that smoking is banned from within 15' of any main entrance.
On campus, there are not many who smoke. Personally, I do not smoke and probably won't, partly because of the health risk and partly because of the way I was raised.
However, I am in favor of these bans because they secure my choice to partake of tobacco products or not. I do not appreciate being in smoke filled rooms when they are the only ones available to me for whatever reason.
That is not to say I am against smoking altogether. I respect the choice of others to do as they will, but I draw the line when their actions have a negative effect on my wellbeing. The same argument holds for the general case as well.
Right now, Governor Perdue (Georgia)is suggesting an additional $1 tax per pack of cigarettes to help to balance the budget.
I don't understand telling me to quit but relying on my tax to balance the state budget. I think this approach lacks foresight.
If we all quit, what happens to the budget?
I've reduced my habit to 3 packs per week. I buy ciggies on Fridays only and have to make them last. A security officer I see in the morning bums 1 or two every weekday, so I smoke about 50 or so cigarettes per week.
I was smoking a pack per day a year ago, so this is big for me.
Once I quit, I wonder how the Governor plans to make up for my missing taxes.
Off on a mild rant so stop reading if you want to stay on topic.
I don't mind going outside to smoke, but I really get annoyed by strangers stopping to tell me that I'm killing myself. Really? Whaddaya know!
I would never tell someone not to eat that double bacon cheeseburger supersized meal or stop someone's grocery purchase to insist they buy foods with less sodium and that they should be eating more fiber.
I'm an adult and I understand the possible consequences but I'm a nicotine addict as well as still caught in this habit. Smoking is comforting to me at times - hard to explain to a non smoker, but at times of stress it makes a difference. Seriously.
Okay, I'll shut the hell up now.
Smoker hacking and spluttering his way in here - it's all about consideration, and that for the smoker is being whittled away every year, it seems.
Nobody is going to die from the "passive smoking" encountered in normal day to day meetings, if you are otherwise leading a "healthy" lifestyle. Okay, it might be annoying, or sickly, or whatever, but I might think the same about that aftershave or perfume you are wearing. Even so, I'm not going to demand you get the fuck away from me, because I have some tolerance for others "failings" and realise there are far more important negative things I could be focusing my ire on.
But this is patently untrue. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Having an otherwise healthy lifestyle is protective, of course, but certainly not a guarantee. There are genetic factors that predispose some people to cancer, people may be immunocompromised, etc. There is overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke is risky, and that neoplasias occur in people whose lifestyles do not pose obvious risks.Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Additionally, I submit that it isn't fair to require me to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle (particularly with regard to practices that affect only my own body) in order to allow you the freedom to poison my environment.
Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Your avatar is hilarious!
Yeah, they're big on that here in Illinois, too. I personally think that it's a lot less about getting people to quit, and a lot more about finding a group no one sympathizes with that they can tax the hell out of (and I'm saying this as a non-smoker).Quote:
Originally posted by jali
One of the more enjoyable tasks in my career was drafting a no-smoking by law for a municipality. It was nice to do something that would actually save lives.
Carcinogenic air pollution is carcinogenic air pollution. People should be able to go about their lives without having to suffer it, whether it comes out of a an industrial smokestack, or another person's cigarette.
Well, that's what the government says, anyway. I don't know of any evidence that those numbers are well proven. From what I've read the seemingly huge numbers of people who die from "passive smoking" come from reports with little scientific basis, and a lot of people have raised really legitimate questions about the validity of those claims.Quote:
Originally posted by artifex
I turned forty-nine a couple of months ago. That gives me ten more months until my dick falls off.Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
I never thought I would make it to forty (wilderness wild water, backcountry skiing, etc.), so every day is a bonus.
Actually, the American Cancer Society isn't tied to government agencies. It's one reason we use them a lot as a resource in our oncology lectures.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
Food is necessary for life. Alcohol in moderate amounts provides tangible physical benefits. Smoking is not necessary and it has no healthful benefits. Anyone who was born after what? 1950 has seen those surgeon general's warnings on the pack. I really don't have any sympathy for smokers. Yeah, it sucks that there are a lot of taxes. Yeah, it sucks that people get all lectury about it. Yeah, it sucks that people who are living unhealthy lives in various ways are picking on you for smoking. But there really isn't an excuse for getting the habit in the first place. And believe it or not, but secondhand smoke is physically hard on some of us. It's not the same as someone wearing a lot of perfume or aftershave. I once went to a casino before Minnesota passed antismoking laws and I had to leave because I could not handle the smoke. I didn't reprimand the smokers. I just left. Now that there is no smoking pretty much anywhere in the state, I have much more pleasant experiences in restaurants, bars, and whatnot. I don't mean to proselytize or harangue. But I truly don't understand this.
Ignorance fought. I still bear an (in my opinion well-founded) skepticism for these high figures for deaths from secondhand smoke, though.Quote:
Originally posted by artifex
Oh, I'm not trying to argue against that. I'm just saying: I think it's nonsense to say that it cannot and will not hurt you, if you just eat right and get exercise.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy