Smokers = Whiney Bitches

[Keevan_Colton]

Banning smoking from public places can be a nightmare to enforce. Also i was down in Dublin a few weeks ago where they banned smoking in the pubs and clubs, what did it breed, drunk assholes outside bars argueingover matches and lighters.

As someone who's worked as a bouncer, that to be honest beats drunk assholes inside bars arguing over matches and lighters.

[Darth Wong]

No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.

Interesting logic. No one forces anyone to work in an auto parts factory either, so let's get rid of health regulations in auto parts factories. No one forces anyone to work in a company which has ridiculously long hours, so let's get rid of labour laws limiting the number of hours the company can force you to work. No one forces anyone to work in a company which doesn't give you a lunch break, so let's get rid of legislated work stoppages for lunch breaks. Why, this logic is a corporate scumbag's dream! It's pretty fucking ironic to hear it from you, a union rep.

[Aaron]

I've found that no one objects to me smoking a pipe. In fact people have stated that they love the smell, my prof even stated that he'd pay me to smoke next to him all day.

So why not ban cigarettes and smokers can all smoke pipes. Problem solved!


No I'm not serious

[Darth Wong]

I think I should back my car into a bar and blow exhaust gas into the interior. After all, if I want to do that, it's my right as an exhauster, and people who don't like it can leave.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think I should back my car into a bar and blow exhaust gas into the interior. After all, if I want to do that, it's my right as an exhauster, and people who don't like it can leave.

Mmm, can't get enough of that trippy CO though.

[Kuroneko]

I think I should back my car into a bar and blow exhaust gas into the interior. After all, if I want to do that, it's my right as an exhauster, and people who don't like it can leave.

I'd pay you to exhaust next to me all day.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well that depends on if its the government who pays the medical bills for those who get cancer from passive smoking.

You generally find that the smokers have paid so much in taxes through their habit they've covered the cost of their bypass operation by the time they need it.

As has already been mentioned, about 3/4 of the price of a ciggy goes into the government's pockets.

I wouldn't want a ban on smoking, especially not in pubs, because whilst I myself don't smoke, most of the people I drink with, and who I enjoy drinking with in pubs, do.

Not an issue here, the NZ Government ban on smoking in public places and private establishments open to the public, comes into force here next month Irrc. Smokers can go screw themselves.
I also point out that no one has suggested banning smoking here, however.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Well then we to the..If they die early from smoking they wont collect thier old age pensions... You dont want to use a what the best use of our money argument here. I dont smoke but I dont see why a private business cant allow smoking if it wants. If the public really doesnt like it they can stay away and the business will go under. I am so tired of this whole PC new puritan ideology taking hold in the country. If people want to fuck up there own lives let them.

Bollocks on that. The NZ governmet has used the 'best use of money' argument and it has a majority in the House, the ban goes in next month.
As for you whining about this PC stuff, how about depriving people of their right to choose? as smokers do every time they light up. They deprive people of the choice of establishment they with to patronise, as smoking is so prevalent and addictive a bussiness would be suicidal to ban it.
People can do what they want with their own lives, but not at the expence of others.

[Glocksman]

No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.

Interesting logic. No one forces anyone to work in an auto parts factory either, so let's get rid of health regulations in auto parts factories. No one forces anyone to work in a company which has ridiculously long hours, so let's get rid of labour laws limiting the number of hours the company can force you to work. No one forces anyone to work in a company which doesn't give you a lunch break, so let's get rid of legislated work stoppages for lunch breaks. Why, this logic is a corporate scumbag's dream! It's pretty fucking ironic to hear it from you, a union rep.

Nice reductio ad absurdium there.

The difference is that the use and sale of tobacco products is legal and there is a (now shrinking) consensus that the use of tobacco products is tolerable in certain settings.

Despite the efforts of the health fascists, there is no societal consensus to make tobacco illegal.
There is such a consensus on the regulation of working conditions, hours, terms of employment, etc.
That's why we have OSHA and the rest of the employment laws.

I've always said that I lean libertarian on social issues and drug (yes, tobacco is a drug) use is one of the issues that I lean that way on.

If the business owner wants to allow smoking in his bar that's his concern, not the governments.

If you don't like the smoking, you have the right to lobby him to make it a nonsmoking establishment. He may do so, or he may decide that he'd lose too many customers to establishments that do allow smoking.

My problem isn't with nonsmoking establishments, it's with using the power of government to force all bars to be nonsmoking.

[Glocksman]

As for you whining about this PC stuff, how about depriving people of their right to choose? as smokers do every time they light up. They deprive people of the choice of establishment they with to patronise, as smoking is so prevalent and addictive a bussiness would be suicidal to ban it.
People can do what they want with their own lives, but not at the expence of others.

We aren't discussing prohibiting smoking in all businesses, we're discussing prohibiting in in bars.
In most areas (I don't know what it's like in NZ), a bar is one of the few public places where you can light up without breaking a rule or regulation.

Even as 'Middle America' as Evansville is, most eating establishments either have separate smoking sections or prohibit it altogether. You know why they do this? Customer demand, not city or state law. Most customers prefer to eat without smelling stale cigarette smoke and have come to expect a smoke free environment. Thus the businesses have responded.

Except for a few whiney bitches, no one here expects a smoke free barroom, and the city council is deaf to their whining.

If nonsmokers want a smokefree bar, why don't nonsmoking bars open up as an alternative? Use your dollars to dictate, not government.

[Stuart Mackey]

As for you whining about this PC stuff, how about depriving people of their right to choose? as smokers do every time they light up. They deprive people of the choice of establishment they with to patronise, as smoking is so prevalent and addictive a bussiness would be suicidal to ban it.
People can do what they want with their own lives, but not at the expence of others.

We aren't discussing prohibiting smoking in all businesses, we're discussing prohibiting in in bars.
In most areas (I don't know what it's like in NZ), a bar is one of the few public places where you can light up without breaking a rule or regulation.

It was like that here, till the government decided to change it.

Even as 'Middle America' as Evansville is, most eating establishments either have separate smoking sections or prohibit it altogether. You know why they do this? Customer demand, not city or state law. Most customers prefer to eat without smelling stale cigarette smoke and have come to expect a smoke free environment. Thus the businesses have responded.

Indeed..same over here as it happens.

Except for a few whiney bitches, no one here expects a smoke free barroom, and the city council is deaf to their whining.

If nonsmokers want a smokefree bar, why don't nonsmoking bars open up as an alternative? Use your dollars to dictate, not government.

Given the prevalence of smoking and how society works it was decided that this was unsustainable and unrealistic.

[Keevan_Colton]

Nice reductio ad absurdium there.

You or Mike?

The difference is that the use and sale of tobacco products is legal and there is a (now shrinking) consensus that the use of tobacco products is tolerable in certain settings.

And now that list of settings is being altered, not the status of tobacco products as legal.

Despite the efforts of the health fascists, there is no societal consensus to make tobacco illegal.
There is such a consensus on the regulation of working conditions, hours, terms of employment, etc.
That's why we have OSHA and the rest of the employment laws.

Except, this is not about making tobacco illegal, it's about making it so you cant go around damaging other peoples health in public. If you want to smoke do it at home you shithead.

This is also a working conditions issues as there are people, suprise suprise, as I already said WORKING in bars.

I've always said that I lean libertarian on social issues and drug (yes, tobacco is a drug) use is one of the issues that I lean that way on.

Libertarianism, the dumbest school of thought since before communism.

If the business owner wants to allow smoking in his bar that's his concern, not the governments.

Except for your faulty logic...

After all, if it werent for the government it would be legal to expose people to for example, aspestos and other lovely chemicals recklessly in pursuit of a profit.

Remember businesses have no morality, just a cloying need for their next fix of cash. Something they have in common with addicts everywhere.

If you don't like the smoking, you have the right to lobby him to make it a nonsmoking establishment. He may do so, or he may decide that he'd lose too many customers to establishments that do allow smoking.

And people could just lobby individual companies to use safe practices...

My problem isn't with nonsmoking establishments, it's with using the power of government to force all bars to be nonsmoking.

Yes, but as a you said you subscribe to some libertarian logic whereby government is just an evil evil thing out to get us all...I take it you oppose its use in all the examples Mike posted?
They are after all, people using the government to force private businesses to behave in a manner other than that which they might choose left to their own devices....

[The Third Man]

I think I should back my car into a bar and blow exhaust gas into the interior. After all, if I want to do that, it's my right as an exhauster, and people who don't like it can leave.

I know you aren't being entirely serious, but this argument is unreasonable: by this logic <insert your favourite troll here> could back the relevant orifice up to SD.net and start spewing away - the people who don't like it could leave.

Just as you as the owner can rightly enforce anti-troll policy here as it offends the consensus of the majority of members, so could a bar owner enforce anti-exhauster policy.

To make the argument valid, you need to demonstrate that the consensus amongst bar patrons against breathing car exhaust is as strong as their consensus against cigarette smoke. Presumably the fact that non-smoking bars don't exist in large numbers indicates that they would fail commercially (without legislation to remove smoking bars.) This indicates that the consensus amongst bar patrons is to tolerate a smoke-filled environment, although this could be about to change in the near future.

[The Third Man]

Interesting logic. No one forces anyone to work in an auto parts factory either, so let's get rid of health regulations in auto parts factories. No one forces anyone to work in a company which has ridiculously long hours, so let's get rid of labour laws limiting the number of hours the company can force you to work. No one forces anyone to work in a company which doesn't give you a lunch break, so let's get rid of legislated work stoppages for lunch breaks. Why, this logic is a corporate scumbag's dream! It's pretty fucking ironic to hear it from you, a union rep.

But there is no movement to insist that all business activities are made totally 100 percent safe. In many it is accepted that there is an inherent risk to health (eg deep-sea trawler fishing) that can never be entirely removed. Even in auto parts factories 100% safety and a totally risk-free environment is an unattainable ideal.

The debate is therefore about whether second-hand smoking falls into a tolerable risk category for the relevant industry, and what can be done to mitigate the risk (eg smoke-free areas, adequate ventilation at bar areas)

[The Third Man]

Remember businesses have no morality, just a cloying need for their next fix of cash.

Just out of interest, how do you arrive at this statement?

[Glocksman]

And now that list of settings is being altered, not the status of tobacco products as legal.

Did I say tobacco was being made illegal, shit for brains?

Except, this is not about making tobacco illegal, it's about making it so you cant go around damaging other peoples health in public. If you want to smoke do it at home you shithead.

It's about banning smoking in bars. Unless Britain is radically different than the US, there are plenty of places where smoking is restricted in public.

Barrooms are one of the few places smokers can socialize and 'enjoy' their habit. I don't care about smoking bans in other places because children can be affected by smoke. You don't have this concern in barrrooms.

Again, if nonsmoking bars are needed, why haven't they opened up or converted over due to the overwhelming demand?

Answer: there *is* no overwhelming demand for nonsmoking bars.

As far as the working conditions issue goes, if you started working in a bar without realizing that you'd be exposed to secondhand smoke, then frankly you're an idiot.

To take the 'workplace hazard' theory of secondhand smoke to its logical extreme, we'd have to ban barbecued meat because of the chemicals in it that are carcinogenic and the smoke emitted throughout the area around the barbecue pit that also contains carcinogens that could affect the neighbors.

Libertarianism, the dumbest school of thought since before communism.

You *do* know the difference between social Libertarians and economic Libertarians, don't you?

Remember businesses have no morality, just a cloying need for their next fix of cash. Something they have in common with addicts everywhere

Really? And here I thought that it was philanthropy that motivated them.

Yes, but as a you said you subscribe to some libertarian logic whereby government is just an evil evil thing out to get us all...I take it you oppose its use in all the examples Mike posted?
They are after all, people using the government to force private businesses to behave in a manner other than that which they might choose left to their own devices....

You did notice that I said I *lean* libertarian, not that I *am* a libertarian. It's my libertarian leanings that forced me to realize that I should support the right of gays to marry whereas I'd opposed it reflexively before I'd thought the issue through. It's also my lib leanings that lead to my support for gun rights and the right of free speech, even for assholes such as the idiots at International ANSWER.

If I were a full fledged libertarian, I'd also believe in the horseshit that is libertarian economic theory.

There's a damn sight difference between workplace safety regulations and smoking in a barroom where everyone present has made the conscious choice to be there and either put up with, or conribute to, the smoke in the air.

But I'm willing to compromise a little.

Allow bars to be either posted 'smoking' bars that only retain smokers* as employees, thus eliminating the working conditions argument, or as 'nonsmoking bars' that allow all customers, but no smoking on the premises.

As for the nonsmokers who'd whine about all of their friends going to the 'smoking' bar, I say tough shit. Find other friends or learn to put up with the smoky environment.



*smokers, or those nonsmokers who are willing to sign a liability waiver.

[White Haven]

Smoking sections in restaurants. One of the less well-thought-out ideas I've run across. The /entire/ problem with cig smoke is that it drifts around and gets where it doesn't belong. As in, drifts /through the atmosphere/. Unless you're prepared to have separate atmospheres for each section, it simply does not word all too well, mm?

[Batman]

Smoking sections in restaurants. One of the less well-thought-out ideas I've run across. The /entire/ problem with cig smoke is that it drifts around and gets where it doesn't belong. As in, drifts /through the atmosphere/. Unless you're prepared to have separate atmospheres for each section, it simply does not word all too well, mm?

Partitioning smoking and non-smoking sections by simply hanging up signs designating them obviously doesn't work. However, unless cigarette smoke is made up largely of neutrinos I seriously doubt its capability to penetrate actual walls. I fail to see why physically partitioned- i.e. a different fricking room- can't work. In fact, I know it does.
If you were talking about the abysmally stupid 'making sections by labeling' method, by all means disregard.

All of this was moderately off-topic, though.
While I'm all for allowing bars to remain smoking areas (surprise) there IS an undeniable health risk for people in there. The smokers obviously don't mind but what about the employees? Glocksman's 'they chose the job, they accept the risk' approach IMHO doesn't work because while there are lots of jobs with inherent dangers in virtually all of them the employer is required to minimize the risk as much as reasonably possible.
Somehow, I doubt that is true for bar owners...

[Jetfire]

I think I said something like this the last time the Smoking discussion came up, but I'll repeat again.

About smoking in bars, it seems to me that unless all bars are forced to ban it, very few would willingly do it. Bar Owners have the perception that Bars == Smoking place instilled from decades of them going hand in hand, so if a new Bar Owner goes to open a new place, he has to get over both his own impression that his bar has to allow smoking, and the public's perception that "It's a bar, I can smoke there.", and I don't see many, if any owners doing that.

Thus very few owners would be willing to take the first step and ban it, for fear of the bar down the street getting all the smoker business he might be losing, thus very few bars would go smoke free. This also means people who's skills are in the bar industry (tenders, bouncers, waiters/waitresses, etc...) do not have the choice about working in a smoking business because there isn't another choice. (Unless they want to get out of the industry completely).

What a blanket smoking ban (which I fully support BTW) does is it forces all bar owners to go smoke free at once, so no one bar takes the hit all at once, and it lets the workers be able to work in an environment where their lungs won't be at risk.

That all said, once a blanket public place ban has been in force for a few years (5-10 years should suffice), I would have no problem at all with a business being able to apply for a "Smokers License" to make the business a place to smoke indoors. Local governments would hand them out, probably limiting the number of places in the area etc,... basically like current alcohol licensing works. By the time that happens, I would think the perception between bars and smoking (or any location + smoking) NEEDING to be together will be broken, and fewer businesses would leap to get a puff license, and workers in those industries would have more options if they want to stay in the industry and work in a smoking or nonsmoking estabilishment.

All IMO of course, and I doubt 'puffing licenses' will ever come out, but you never know.

[Glocksman]

Glocksman's 'they chose the job, they accept the risk' approach IMHO doesn't work because while there are lots of jobs with inherent dangers in virtually all of them the employer is required to minimize the risk as much as reasonably possible.

It's anecdotal, but when I worked in a bar almost all of the employees were smokers and could have cared less about secondhand smoke.

However, a reasonable action to minimize the risk would be to require adequate ventilation and/or the installation of 'smoke eater' devices.

I'm sure an HVAC engineer can come up with a formula to determine the number and type of devices needed for a given bar area.

Alternatively, we could just impose my suggestion from my previous post and allow 'smoking' bars that either hire only smokers or nonsmokers who are willing to put up with the smoke.

Either one is reasonable.
A total ban on barroom smoking is not, given the nature of the business and the majority of the patrons.

[Batman]

It's anecdotal, but when I worked in a bar almost all of the employees were smokers and could have cared less about secondhand smoke.

One might argue that that is because smokers don't care about second-hand smoke and thus are more likely to take such a job.

However, a reasonable action to minimize the risk would be to require adequate ventilation and/or the installation of 'smoke eater' devices.
I'm sure an HVAC engineer can come up with a formula to determine the number and type of devices needed for a given bar area.

Absolutely, and I'm all for forcing smoking bars to install such. My complaint was that unlike other dangerous enterprises, bars are NOT required to do that (at least to my knowledge).

Alternatively, we could just impose my suggestion from my previous post and allow 'smoking' bars that either hire only smokers or nonsmokers who are willing to put up with the smoke.

I don't like that. The smokers bit I don't mind too much but the waiver?
'You can have a job providing you'll sign you don't mind that we'll slowly poison you' in an economy where getting ANY job is a fricking nightmare doesn't feel entirely ethical. Yes, I know that's not the most convincing of arguments.

Either one is reasonable.
A total ban on barroom smoking is not, given the nature of the business and the majority of the patrons.

Absolutely, and I did not intend to imply so. Smoking is going to be around for a long time, and as the prohibition (and the US' current drug problems) showed outlawing it is not exactly going to work.
I was just disagreeing with your 'their job choice, their risk' argument which, at least as of right now, IMHO, doesn't work.

[His Divine Shadow]

I think we have a pretty good system in Finland, roughly half the place has to be a smoke free section, the other hasn't, both people can go in and go sit where ever they please.

[Keevan_Colton]

But there is no movement to insist that all business activities are made totally 100 percent safe. In many it is accepted that there is an inherent risk to health (eg deep-sea trawler fishing) that can never be entirely removed. Even in auto parts factories 100% safety and a totally risk-free environment is an unattainable ideal.

The debate is therefore about whether second-hand smoking falls into a tolerable risk category for the relevant industry, and what can be done to mitigate the risk (eg smoke-free areas, adequate ventilation at bar areas)

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?

[Darth Wong]

No one forces nonsmokers to patronize or work in bars.

Interesting logic. No one forces anyone to work in an auto parts factory either, so let's get rid of health regulations in auto parts factories. No one forces anyone to work in a company which has ridiculously long hours, so let's get rid of labour laws limiting the number of hours the company can force you to work. No one forces anyone to work in a company which doesn't give you a lunch break, so let's get rid of legislated work stoppages for lunch breaks. Why, this logic is a corporate scumbag's dream! It's pretty fucking ironic to hear it from you, a union rep.

Nice reductio ad absurdium there.

Why is it fallacious to point out that your logic, when applied exactly as-is to other situations, produces absurd results?

The difference is that the use and sale of tobacco products is legal and there is a (now shrinking) consensus that the use of tobacco products is tolerable in certain settings.

Hey guess what: these by-laws are also legal. If you're going to use legality to justify something, then guess what: all of these new rules are completely legal, so you have no case to argue.

Despite the efforts of the health fascists, there is no societal consensus to make tobacco illegal.

The continued passage of these new laws obviously proves you wrong, since politicians don't do these things unless they think they'll get votes for it.

There is such a consensus on the regulation of working conditions, hours, terms of employment, etc.

That's why we have OSHA and the rest of the employment laws.

And workers in bars don't count? Why not?

I've always said that I lean libertarian on social issues and drug (yes, tobacco is a drug) use is one of the issues that I lean that way on.

In other words, "ho-hum, it's my opinion."

If the business owner wants to allow smoking in his bar that's his concern, not the governments.

False. The business owner has employees, so the working conditions in his bar are the government's concern. And with recent data indicating that carcinogen levels in a smoky bar exceed EPA standards for an open-air highway, it is very much a government concern.

If you don't like the smoking, you have the right to lobby him to make it a nonsmoking establishment. He may do so, or he may decide that he'd lose too many customers to establishments that do allow smoking.

We already lobbied the government. They answered. Boo hoo for the tobacco junkies.

My problem isn't with nonsmoking establishments, it's with using the power of government to force all bars to be nonsmoking.

And you have provided nothing in the way of a self-consistent rationale for your position. This "if they don't like it, they can work elsewhere" logic of yours is utterly absurd, and you seem to be capable of seeing that only when it's applied to other industries, yet you reject the analogy to this particular industry. Why? They're not real employees? These aren't real jobs? They don't deserve workplace protection?

[HemlockGrey]

Instead of banning tobacco use in bars, why not mandate that they be properly ventilated?