Smokers = Whiney Bitches

[sketerpot]

This will become increasingly less important. Smoking is becoming less popular, and it has been doing this for decades. In the UK, for example, the percent of people who smoke went down from 45% to 26% in just 28 years---almost a 58% reduction.

Entirely anecdotal: there's a restaurant in Lincoln, Nebraska where there used to be a smoking section and a non-smoking section. It all seemed pretty ridiculous to me to have a restaurant partitioned in half to deal with slightly about 23% of people. The non-smoking section would be packed, and the nasty stinky smoking section would have a few people smoking there among all the empty tables. After Lincoln passed a smoking ban, the whole place was packed. Sooner or later, restaurant and bar owners are going to wake up and realize that they won't go out of business from turning non-smoking, and when they do, this discussion will become moot. And not a moment too soon, either---I hate the stench, even when I'm in a non-smoking section.

[The Third Man]

LMAO

That's so fucking stupid it's funny, inherent dangers, such as those imposed by the nature of something, such as the fucking sea compared to totally artifical controlable ones such as man made smoke...do we have awards for hugely faulty logic going on?

Deep-sea trawling is just as artificial as cigarette smoking. Neither occurs in nature.

But if you really don't like the analogy, lets try music instead.

Would you ban loud music in bars because of the potential to damage the hearing of staff? Loud music is inherent to some bars, just as cigarette smoke is to others. Both are inherent hazards to some types of bar work.

[Keevan_Colton]

Deep-sea trawling is just as artificial as cigarette smoking. Neither occurs in nature.

I referred to an artifical hazard, one that is not an integral part of the activity. So, to make this comperable, it would be like deep sea trawling where you had the captain allowed to snort coke.

But if you really don't like the analogy, lets try music instead.

Would you ban loud music in bars because of the potential to damage the hearing of staff? Loud music is inherent to some bars, just as cigarette smoke is to others. Both are inherent hazards to some types of bar work.

You will find there are laws governing how loud the music can be and legal requirements to provide ear protection to staff if requested. We've already got legislation to protect the hearing of barstaff.

[The Third Man]

I referred to an artifical hazard, one that is not an integral part of the activity.

Fair enough. But smoking does appear to be an integral part of what the customers expect from a bar - we can see this from the number of non-smoking bars that exist. I can name an alarming high number of bars within a 25-mile radius of where I am now. I can name bars that are commercially successful by catering to all manner of different niche markets - niches for different music tastes, beer tastes, nationalities, sexual orientations, ages, but I can't name one that targets a non-smoking niche.

As someone who works in the trade,how many exclusively non-smoking bars do you know of, compared to the number of smoking ones?

You will find there are laws governing how loud the music can be and legal requirements to provide ear protection to staff if requested. We've already got legislation to protect the hearing of barstaff.

That's quite correct. The risk is accepted, analysed and suitable measures to mitigate it are put in place. However, there isn't a blanket ban on loud music in bars, nor an attempt to totally eliminate all risk from the workplace.

[jcow79]

I begin to wonder about the potential liability of bar owners in regards to smoking related illnesses in non smokers who frequent their establishments. Considering the multitude of illnesses that can be linked to smoking it seems like it would only take one non smoker who were to contract such an illness (even if it wasn't caused by second hand smoke, but not able to be proved otherwise) that would sue an establishment for creating a hazardous environment.
I would liken this to lawsuits of people slipping on ice in parking lots or other such injuries that occur on private property where the owner is held accountable. With lawsuits abound against the tobacco industry where the the plaintiffs are smokers who have decided themselves to smoke and are still winning, I would think a non-smoker would have an even stronger case in this matter. And I would think that bars that actually sell cigarettes would be at even higher risk considering that at that point they are also willfully providing the dangerous materials.
I would think rather than an outright ban of smoking in bars, which tends to just make people feel their rights are being trampled (i.e.. prohibition), why not pass legislation that requires the bars to minimize the exposure by installing expensive ventilation equipment? It seems to me at that point many more bars would just opt out of allowing smoking and would become voluntarily smoke-free establishments? Those that insisted on allowing smoking could install the equipment and over time weigh whether it was worth it or not.
Lastly I would like to comment on those of you who argue that they work in a dangerous environment and liken it to smoky bars. The difference is that there are policies in place to minimize your danger. Whether your wearing a hardhat, safety harness or back brace there is a difference between inherent risk and unnecessary risks. How many bars require their employees to wear ventilators or gasmask? Hell, every bar that I've ever been in doesn't even have an open window or door.

[Glocksman]

I begin to wonder about the potential liability of bar owners in regards to smoking related illnesses in non smokers who frequent their establishments. Considering the multitude of illnesses that can be linked to smoking it seems like it would only take one non smoker who were to contract such an illness (even if it wasn't caused by second hand smoke, but not able to be proved otherwise) that would sue an establishment for creating a hazardous environment.

I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that the defense would be that the customer voluntarily assumed the risk by patronizing the business despite knowing of both the hazards of ETS and that the business allowed smoking on the premises.

If it can be proved that the plaintiff knew of both facts and went in anyway, the Judge should call him an idiot and throw the case out of court.

[jcow79]

I begin to wonder about the potential liability of bar owners in regards to smoking related illnesses in non smokers who frequent their establishments. Considering the multitude of illnesses that can be linked to smoking it seems like it would only take one non smoker who were to contract such an illness (even if it wasn't caused by second hand smoke, but not able to be proved otherwise) that would sue an establishment for creating a hazardous environment.

I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that the defense would be that the customer voluntarily assumed the risk by patronizing the business despite knowing of both the hazards of ETS and that the business allowed smoking on the premises.

If it can be proved that the plaintiff knew of both facts and went in anyway, the Judge should call him an idiot and throw the case out of court.

I'm not going to say you're wrong because like you I am no lawyer but couldn't the same argument be applied to people who go shopping in the winter? It is well known that ice accumulates in the winter and that walking across an icy parking lot is dangerous however there is still liability on the side of the business and is why they take precaution to deice their lots and knock down icesickles. These are NATURAL hazards. Smoking is completely willful.
Now one could argue the need for tort reform and the problems of frivolous lawsuits but that's not the issue. Right now we DO have a legal system that allows frivolous suits and high punitive damages and I see these as risk towards businesses that allow smoking.

[Sothis]

I enjoy going to a nightclub or pub, but it always has a major downside- the smell of cigarette smoke, and the way it clings to my clothes and to me. It's bad enough if I'm sitting with a mate who smokes four or five of the things, let alone in a busy club where there are a great many more smokers.

Lets face it, if cigarettes were invented tomorrow, and people studied them and found out what the effects of smoking them are, they'd be banned. They'd never stand a chance of becoming a legitimate business (alcohol would most likely be in the same boat actually). However, cigarettes are here and people have to deal with them.

That doesn't mean that I have to deal with them when I go out for an evening. People on this thread have spoken of the rights of smokers to do whatever they want to their bodies- fine. But in a crowded bar, their actions also impact others, and I fail to see why it's the non-smokers who should go somewhere else for the benefit of a minority of smokers. What they do to themselves in their own homes is their business- but smokers have no right to expose me to cigarette smoke when I go out to a bar.

[Darth Wong]

Would you ban loud music in bars because of the potential to damage the hearing of staff? Loud music is inherent to some bars, just as cigarette smoke is to others. Both are inherent hazards to some types of bar work.

Actually, I believe there are decibel limits in bars. And if there aren't such limits in your municipality, there certainly should be.

[The Third Man]

Actually, I believe there are decibel limits in bars. And if there aren't such limits in your municipality, there certainly should be.

There are indeed. Ear defenders are made available to staff, management has a duty to keep staff informed of the risks, etc, etc as per the usual routine for workplace safety. I believe there have been prosecutions and compensation pay-outs.

But the point is, no-one seriously advocates an outright ban in all bars of loud music, it's just deemed one of the hazards to be mitigated as far as possible, along with all the others that plague the industry such as violent drunks, unhygenic toilets and beer-flooded working areas.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I believe there are decibel limits in bars. And if there aren't such limits in your municipality, there certainly should be.

There are indeed. Ear defenders are made available to staff, management has a duty to keep staff informed of the risks, etc, etc as per the usual routine for workplace safety. I believe there have been prosecutions and compensation pay-outs.

But the point is, no-one seriously advocates an outright ban in all bars of loud music, it's just deemed one of the hazards to be mitigated as far as possible, along with all the others that plague the industry such as violent drunks, unhygenic toilets and beer-flooded working areas.

Actualy, a decibel limit is an outright ban on loud music. They determine a certain decibel level which is deemed to be "loud", and ban SPLs in excess of that level. In the case of smoking, carcinogen levels in smoky bars handily exceed EPA limits for an open-air highway, hence the activities which cause these levels should be banned.

[The Third Man]

Actualy, a decibel limit is an outright ban on loud music. They determine a certain decibel level which is deemed to be "loud", and ban SPLs in excess of that level. In the case of smoking, carcinogen levels in smoky bars handily exceed EPA limits for an open-air highway, hence the activities which cause these levels should be banned.

OK, but why condone a limitation of levels in one case, and advocate an outright ban for the other? A total smoking ban is like saying that because some levels of music are too loud then no music at all should be permitted.

[Darth Wong]

Actualy, a decibel limit is an outright ban on loud music. They determine a certain decibel level which is deemed to be "loud", and ban SPLs in excess of that level. In the case of smoking, carcinogen levels in smoky bars handily exceed EPA limits for an open-air highway, hence the activities which cause these levels should be banned.

OK, but why condone a limitation of levels in one case, and advocate an outright ban for the other?

Because you can control one but not the other. Duh. But if you think you can devise a practical means through which you can guarantee that you'll keep the carcinogen levels below a safe limit while still allowing people to pollute themselves with tobacco, be my guest.

[The Third Man]

But if you think you can devise a practical means through which you can guarantee that you'll keep the carcinogen levels below a safe limit while still allowing people to pollute themselves with tobacco, be my guest.

The guy quoted in the OP with the fancy job title seems to think he has a working method - (I'm guessing ventilation and segregation) but I don't so I'll concede. I don't even have a way to determine what would be an acceptable safe limit - that's probably best left to the professionals of the Health and Safety Exec (or local equivalent). It is worth noting though, that the HSE won't get their chance, because the forthcoming ban in Scotland is not driven by a concern for employees safety (which would no doubt involve determining safe levels, methods of risk reduction and monitoring etc), rather it is driven by a governmental desire to improve the health of the population by striking a blow against smoking in general. Of which I quite approve - it's nice to see a government with such care for the well-being of its citizens.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Bleh...to much bloody philosophical bs in this thread now...Smokers be dammned, the NZ government had decided that no one gets to smoke in public places or workplaces as of December 10. Same in Ireland iirc.
I for one will be buggered if any bastard is going to deprive me of miy right to fresh air to satify their drug addiction and the law here agrees with me.
As to strip bars, get real. Hot girls are a job reqirement, smoking is not

[Glocksman]

So to sum it up, you're opposed to 'licensed smoking' bars on the basis that hiring only people who either smoke themselves or are willing to risk the long term consequences of ETS exposure to work in this bar constitutes discrimination?

I would point out that in the US, not all discrimination is illegal.
Discrimination based on race, color, religion, etc. is illegal.
There are employers who refuse to hire smokers, and this is generally held to be legal. If it's legal to do that, then I submit it's legal to refuse to hire nonsmokers to work in a smoking environment.

[Darth Wong]

There are employers who refuse to hire smokers, and this is generally held to be legal. If it's legal to do that, then I submit it's legal to refuse to hire nonsmokers to work in a smoking environment.

Yes, if it is impossible for the company to function without that smoking environment. This is obviously the case for a warehouse job and the hazards of forklift trucks. But it is simply not the case for bars and smoking; bars can function just fine without permitting smoking. This has been demonstrated in numerous municipalities.

[Stuart Mackey]

So to sum it up, you're opposed to 'licensed smoking' bars on the basis that hiring only people who either smoke themselves or are willing to risk the long term consequences of ETS exposure to work in this bar constitutes discrimination?

More or less.

I would point out that in the US, not all discrimination is illegal.
Discrimination based on race, color, religion, etc. is illegal.

same over here.

There are employers who refuse to hire smokers, and this is generally held to be legal. If it's legal to do that, then I submit it's legal to refuse to hire nonsmokers to work in a smoking environment.

Hmm different systems. Here you cannot refuse to hire a smoker, one reason is that habit is legal.

[Glocksman]

Why the resistance to 'smokers only' bars that employ only smokers?

Smoking is a destructive habit and it's one that wasn't all that easy for me to kick, but Goddamn, let the poor bastards have at least one place they can meet and contract their emphysema and cancer together.

[Glocksman]

Hmm different systems. Here you cannot refuse to hire a smoker, one reason is that habit is legal.

It doesn't fall under what's known as a 'protected category' under US Federal laws.

However, I do believe there are a few states that have made discrimination against smokers illegal.

[Darth Wong]

Why the resistance to 'smokers only' bars that employ only smokers?

Because workplace hazardous material laws do not actually make exemptions for people who are willing to accept the risks, otherwise those laws would be useless; you simply make everyone agree to accept the risks.

Smoking is a destructive habit and it's one that wasn't all that easy for me to kick, but Goddamn, let the poor bastards have at least one place they can meet and contract their emphysema and cancer together.

Why?

[Glocksman]

Because workplace hazardous material laws do not actually make exemptions for people who are willing to accept the risks, otherwise those laws would be useless; you simply make everyone agree to accept the risks

The problem here is that workplace hazmat laws in the US don't cover tobacco use. The EPA has been urged to come out with a standard and regulations, but they haven't yet.

Most of the local laws banning smoking in places such as bars are motivated more by a desire to make the smokers quit rather than a desire to protect the employees of such places.

Why?

Frankly, it's my libertarian social leanings. If the idiots want to do it, let them. It's not my place to try and stop them as long as no one is forcing me to be in the same room with them.

[Darth Wong]

Because workplace hazardous material laws do not actually make exemptions for people who are willing to accept the risks, otherwise those laws would be useless; you simply make everyone agree to accept the risks

The problem here is that workplace hazmat laws in the US don't cover tobacco use. The EPA has been urged to come out with a standard and regulations, but they haven't yet.

So? The rationale behind those hazmat laws is the same as the rationale for this: workers must be protected against harmful substances, and it doesn't matter if they agree to accept that exposure.

Most of the local laws banning smoking in places such as bars are motivated more by a desire to make the smokers quit rather than a desire to protect the employees of such places.

Um, no. They are motivated chiefly by a desire for non-smokers to be able to go to bars without being exposed to hazardous and noxious chemicals. Smokers can still smoke when they go out; they just have to go outside when they do it. A non-smoker in a smoking bar has no option to escape the smoke if he wants to ever go inside.

Why?

Frankly, it's my libertarian social leanings. If the idiots want to do it, let them. It's not my place to try and stop them as long as no one is forcing me to be in the same room with them.

Just saying that you lean that way does not explain why.

[Glocksman]

I thought you were asking why I felt that way, not why they should have a smoking bar. My bad.

[Glocksman]

Um, no. They are motivated chiefly by a desire for non-smokers to be able to go to bars without being exposed to hazardous and noxious chemicals. Smokers can still smoke when they go out; they just have to go outside when they do it. A non-smoker in a smoking bar has no option to escape the smoke if he wants to ever go inside.

In Ashes to Ashes, Richard Kluger quotes several antitobacco activists as stating one of the main reasons behind pushing such bans is to stigmatize the activity to a point that smokers would seriously consider quitting.

I really recommend reading the book. It's an eyeopener on the history of tobacco and the controversy surrounding it.
If nothing else, it makes me regret that my parents didn't invest $1000 in Philip Morris stock back in 1961.