Printable View
If there weren't several million other jobs out there with similar requirements it'd make perfect sense. Or if most of the smokey bar maids I've met didn't smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrider
I can't wait to hear some of the anti-smokers ranting and raving about things closed in the name of "public safety"
It would make a lot more sense if the second-hand-smoke data wasn't merely extrapolated BS - which all the data I've seen is. Here's The American Lung Association's data on second-hand smoke. It's all extrapolation and estimates, there's no real data there. And they don't even attempt overall morbidity estimates, because that would be reaching, even for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
The second-hand smoke craze is very similar to the Radon craze of a few years back. Billions of dollars have been spent in remediation of a threat that has never been proven to have caused a single death. People who live in areas with rocky soil (particularly if the rock is granite) have always been exposed to Radon, yet no one has ever shown a connection between this exposure and life expectancy and/or overall morbidity.
Really it's more like the Day-Care scares of a few years ago, such as the McMartin preschool incident, or perhaps the Salem witch trials provide a more apt example of the effects hysteria gone wild.
OSHA should be concerned that the roof doesn't cave in. They should make sure that rubber mats are used on backbar floors that get wet. They should make sure that the hot water's not more than 120 degrees. They shouldn't be concerned about nebulous claims from extremists with an agenda.
They're just trying to be more Canadian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Huh, I haven't heard anything about second-hand drinking yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I think YetiMan's point about "we've been living in smoke for thousands of years" is absolutely ludicrous. I suspect men have been beating the crap out of woman for thousands of years, too, I guess that shouldn't be illegal either.
I'm all for the ban. Why is the 25' rule such a big deal? People don't have to fucking smoke. Smoke in your god damn house if you have to.
Ice is right. The risk of second hang smoke has been totally overblown. Too much of it is bad, but with proper ventilation it won't really hurt anything other than your clothes. The choice should belong to the owner of the bar, not the government.
That being said, I actually liked smoking outside way more than I ever did inside. Your clothes smell less and you aren't stuck in a smokey room.
Drunk driving, loss of productivity at work, "binge drinking" dangers, "noise pollution" from people leaving bars late at night, ......Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
just for the sake of argument, what about the guy in seattle that rides his bike to and from work? Does he have a right not to breath all the damaging exhaust from the countless fossil fuel burning autos? Does he have a right to demand that everyone else ride their bike because their bad habit damages his health?
I agree with an indoor smoking ban, but until all forms of air pollution are addressed I don't think I'm going to get too bent out of shape because I pass some dude on the sidewalk taking a few puffs.
P.S. If you smoke bud you might wan't to check some of the chemicals your taking into your lungs, a lot of them look real similar to the ones tobacco smokers are taking in.
I don't see how spending time in a smoke-filled room doesn't lead to inhaling smoke. And since there's really no debate over whether cigarette smoke is toxic or not...
A smoke filled room is one thing, but with decent ventilation, which many bars, especially bigger bars, are required to have, the smoke doesn't linger. You aren't breathing in enough smoke to cause any damage, unless you are sticking your face in someones exhale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
Well then, Mr Smoker, Whats so bad about a smoky room? Shouldn't you be enjoying that? its like puffing on nice cig all dinner long.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSucks
Thanks for helping prove the non-smoking point
maybe if you don't want to be in a place where smoking is going on you should just leave.
You obviously haven't been to the good Seattle bars, or seen my boogers the following day.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSucks
too bad you can't post boogers on the internet, that would make this debate real interesting. And since commonlaw started this mess he could have the job of inspecting said boogers for traces of dangerous chemicals.
An argument definitely exists that the bike rider has a right not to breath auto exhaust. Political pressure has just not yet risen to the occasion because of our nation's dependance on fossil fuels. But emissions restricitions on factorys are pervasive nation wide--mostly a product of citizen complaints over thier right to breathe clean air. And in CA and other states, vehicle emissions limitations are in play. I think we will continue to see regulations spring up on auto-emissions in the future, as we move toward independence from fossil fuels. That is if we move that way, given Bush's love of making money for his boyz while he is in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by element1
The non-smoking point is that they have a right to breathe non-polluted air and that by smoking, the smoker is taking away that right. That may be true, but if you are going to legislate that, then it should be across the board, and factories and cars must be included too, or else you are discriminating against smokers.Quote:
Originally Posted by XtrPickels
I was just saying that when I smoked, it was much more enjoyable outdoors or in a well ventilated room, and that I would actually enjoy being forced to smoke outside, but I don't think it should be the government that decides how people run their businesses.
And I don't smoke.
I believe this to be untrue, at least here in NYC. I don't know why it would be different in Boston. All the bars were whining about this beforehand, but most found business did not decline or improved (for some there may have been an initial drop).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Dogg
Have to say it's much nicer now to go out without having to completely fumigate your clothes, and waking up the next morning without a pile of really smelly clothes in your room is a plus, too.
Kinda weird now when I'm somewhere smoking is allowed.
There are plenty of things you're not allowed to do in public places, I don't know why smoking should be different from, say, spitting.
And it's hard to believe that smoking for the smoker can be, without a doubt, very harmful, but standing all night in a room full of the same smoke would be OK. Simply because it's difficult to conclusively prove this doesn't mean workers (and patrons) should be exposed to it.
I like the Steve Martin line, in response to 'Mind if I smoke?'--'No, mind if I fart?'
And people used to die from influenza pretty regularly too. We're not so stupid anymore. No need for you to be (I might step back from all that campfire smoke if I were you--too much can't make you think too good).Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
You're not allowed to spit in a public place? I never heard that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
Definitely not allowed, at least not in most cities. Nor are you allowed to shit or piss wherever you want--I wonder if this constitutes an infringement of our freedom of choice and furthers the pussification of our society. Really, it's the same thing in its effect as smoking, and you could use the same arguments being advanced against the smoking ban in favor of being allowed to urinate everywhere. And no one's going to get cancer from a little public urination, so it's actually preferable to public smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSucks
You could argue that it's your right to carry a ghetto blaster around wherever you go (as some people used to do), but really you're screwing everyone around by doing so, and so we have laws that govern that sort of behavior. Same with smoking, since it affects the well-being of others.
People may say you can choose not go to a smokey bar, but it's just as easy for a smoker to decide to smoke at home--they can still go to the bar without any adverse consequences, but that's not true for someone who would like to go to that place but doesn't want to deal with the smoke.
Dexter, not to come off as a jerk, but are you pulling these beliefs out of your ass or do you have something to back it up? In my case I know a few bar owners in the area that have experienced the losses I'm referring to. Perhaps the loss of some bars has been the gain of others...and it likely is dependent on the clientele that a particular bar catered to before the ban. I am amused that people aren't willing to believe that it has hurt business for some bars (I obviously can't speak for every bar across the board). If one had the opportunity to see the a comparison of revenue before & after the ban I'd be willing to bet you would change your tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
eh, it's not necessarily about patron choice, it's about the business owners choice. If they, and their employees, choose to run a bar where smoking is allowed, why the fuck can't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
Curious how many of the "smoking is horrible" people speed on roads and endanger others? That, like alcohol abuse, drug abuse and secondhand smoke, has a quanitifiable effect on the lives and life expectancy of others - which is the root of the no smoking argument.
Because it's unhealthy. To return to the coal mine analogy, we could say, well, if mine owners don't want to put in safety measures, why the fuck can't they? And the answer is that people who go to work there because it's the best job they can get will get killed if we don't require safeguards. Maybe coal miners don't care if they get killed or not, but the rest of society does because having people get injured and sick on the job is bad for productivity and efficiency. If inhaling secondhand smoke makes you sick, as evidently legislatures believe it does, man-hours are lost, more strain is put on health care providers, then that's bad for business and there's something we can do about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I can agree with this…which is why I suggested designated smoking shops/bars.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Good point on speeding too.
Here's the first thing I got from a search:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Dogg
May 2005
All legitimate economic impact studies on business show either no economic effect or a positive one after a smokefree law goes into effect. When the issue of smokefree air arises, the tobacco industry will work hard to create dissent and fear. Their goal is to convince business owners and residents that the sky will fall if a smokefree law passes. Since 1987, the tobacco industry and smokefree opponents have consistently claimed that smokefree laws lead to a decrease in business in restaurants, bars, bingo halls, and billiard halls, usually by 20-50%, with an accompanying decrease in employment. These claims are totally unfounded. On the contrary, the number of peer-reviewed economic studies showing that smokefree laws have either no economic effect, or a positive one, continues to mount as more communities pass and implement strong smokefree laws. Going smokefree is good for health and good for business. Period.
State
* Florida: An analysis by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, released in June 2004, found that restaurant sales were up 7 percent one year after state's the smokefree law that made all public places and restaurants 100% smokefree took effect on July 1, 2003.1
* NewYork: Contrary to arguments of smokefree opponents that smokefree air puts bars and pubs out of business, there was no reported sharp decline in the number of bars following the law's implementation. In fact, the number of bars in the state increased by 3.5%, from April 2002 to May 2004. New York's comprehensive law took effect on June 23, 2003.2
* California: According to the California Board of Equalization, the Golden State's hospitality sector continues to grow since the California Clean Indoor Air Act was enacted in 1994. Sales tax data show an increase in annual sales from $7.16 billion in 1997 for establishments selling beer and wine to $9.6 billion in 2002. For establishments selling all kinds of alcohol, sales increased from $8.64 billion in 1997 to $11.3 billion in 2002. In 2003, the Board's Employment Development Department reported that the number of individuals employed in California's bars and restaurants had about 200,500 more employees than they did in 1995, before the smokefree policy took effect.3
* Delaware: An economic impact study presented at the 2004 American Public Health Association's Public Health and the Environment Conference found that, one year after implementation, Delaware's comprehensive smokefree law "increased state revenue from gaming by $5.7 million. The $5.7 million is equivalent to a 3% increase in state revenue from gaming."4 One year after the state's smokefree law became effective, data showed the number of restaurant, tavern, and taproom licenses in Delaware had increased from 3,291in November 2002 to 3,323 in October of 2003. Employment within the hospitality industry increased, as well, from 27,900 individuals employed in food service and drinking establishments in September 2002 to 28,100 in September 2003.5
* Massachusetts: A Harvard School of Public Health report found that the Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law that made all workplaces, including restaurants and bars, 100% smokefree, has not adversely affected statewide meals and alcoholic beverage excise tax collection. In addition, the law has not affected keno sales or the number of those working in hospitality since the law went into effect on July 5, 2004.6
#1 Dai, C., et al, "The Economic Impact of Florida's Smoke-free Workplace Law," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, June 25, 2004. Download at http://www.smokefreeforhealth.org/pd...ic%20study.pdf.
#2 RTI International, "First Annual Independent Evaluation of New York's Tobacco Control Program," New York State Department of Health, November 2004. Accessed on November 29, 2004. Download at http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh...l_11-19-04.pdf.
#3 California State Board of Equalization: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2002; State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Force Statistics, November 2003.
#4 Alamar, B., et al., "Effects of a smokefree ordinance on Delaware gaming revenue," American Public Health Association, November 9, 2004. Download at http://apha.confex.com/apha/132am/te...aper_82919.htm.
#5 [n.a.], "Delaware's Clean Indoor Air Act: The 1st Anniversary Story," Delaware Division of Public Health and Delaware Division of Revenue, 2004.
#6 Connolly, G.N.; Carpenter, C.; Alpert, H.R.; Skeer, M.; Travers, M., "Evaluation of the Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law: a preliminary report," Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Tobacco Research Program, April 4, 2005. Download at to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/php/pri/..._Workplace.pdf.
And to CJ, there are laws against endangering others, so I don't see how that argument works at all in favor of smoking in public places. If there were truly a way to guarantee that all employees wanted to subject themselves to smoking, then I guess that would be fine, but being protected in the workplace is not a bad thing (how about a mine where all the miners agreed to work without safety protections? Would that be OK if the workers 'agreed' to it?).
Well, at least they don't smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrider
Let's talk about the speed limit- As the speed limit goes up, so do road deaths. So if we wanted no road deaths, lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would go a long way- but would be horribly inefficient. We make a tradeoff and say that a certain number of deaths each year is acceptable for the efficiency we gain in transporting people and goods. Here, the idea is that smoking causes some amount of illness per year among people who don't smoke. But what is the positive effect from smoking that allows us to rationally say that jeopardizing the health of restaurant or bar workers is worth it? People like smoking, that's fine, but nobody's saying they can't do it in a place where a minimum of others won't be affected by it.