Smoking ban in bars, restaurants ?

[VERITAS]

In my state, WI, a smoking ban is in effect in bars and restaurants in some cities, some wishing for it to cover the entire state. The referendum passed narrowly recently in Oshkosh.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...rticle&sid=609

http://static.highbeam.com/w/wiscons...artersfeelthe/

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15295

There are plenty of questions, and potential problems.

Is smoking fundamentally wrong?

Is it an infringement on rights of others to smoke in their presence?

Do business owners have the right to allow or permit smoking on their premises, or should the government legislate such privileges?

Shouldn't a such a ban be consistent state-wide, if there is to be one?

What do you think?

[ThatReallyHurt]

There's been a progressively restrictive ban where I live for over a year now. Initially there were some problems at the casinos and bars where the smoking customers stopped showing up, but I think the numbers have come back up. There are still a few holdouts who are suing, claiming banning smoking violates someone's constitutional rights, but they're still pending.

As for what I think - something I saw a while ago describes it perfectly for me:

If you take a teaspoon of wine and add it to a barrel of sewage, you have sewage. If you take a teaspoon of sewage and add it to a barrel of wine, you have... more sewage.

Now, replace the word sewage with smoke, wine with air, and barrel with room.

[Svidrigailov]

I live in new york, which also bans smoking inside bars, restaurants and pretty much any public building. I don't know why they don't just allow the bars to decide whether they want to be smoking bars or non smoking bars...it seems a little bit nazi to me to ban smoking accross the board. I am convinced second hand smoke is not as bad as they make it out to be and feel bar owners and their patrons' opinions on this regard should be taken into account.

On the other hand, my smoker friends (I personally do not smoke) meet a lot more girls and guys than they used to before the smoking ban. Perhaps I should take up smoking when I go out...

[Soldier]

Second-hand smoke is awful, and makes me really want to punch the smoker as I sit there choking on his poison. You've got smoker friends, so you're probably more used to second-hand smoke, but I can't stand it.

Aside from that, I completely agree with TRH's sewage and wine analogy. However, I think it's still a matter that places should decide for themselves, whether or not to allow smoking. Not something a state should be legislating.

And yes, smoking is fundamentally wrong.

[VERITAS]

That sewage and wine analogy is very good.

It does seem that the problem should be left up to the owners of the establishment and their customers, who will go elsewhere if they do not like the atmosphere.
The government has no business passing laws controlling what individual private behavior is allowed in homes or businesses.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

It does seem that the problem should be left up to the owners of the establishment and their customers, who will go elsewhere if they do not like the atmosphere.

I'm not so sure. Once it was impossible to find a nonsmoking venue. Hate it or not, if you wanted to eat out you endured the smoke. This gave restauranteurs the greatest possible number of potential customers, and I suspect that in their they'd like to get back to that state of affairs...either all-smoking or all-nonsmoking limits patronage and hence revenue, and to provide for both requires special accomodations and greater expense. Ideally, they would all do one thing and force one set of rules on all.

The government has no business passing laws controlling what individual private behavior is allowed in homes or businesses.

Agreed.

Though I as a despiser of the habit benefit from bans and restrictions, I do not like the idea of them and do not vote for them when offered as ballot measures. Because I probably have habits that others would like to see banned, too, and the precedent makes me uneasy.

[prototoast]

I would prefer that private establishments be able to decide for themselves, and the government ban smoking in public.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

That sewage and wine analogy is very good.

It does seem that the problem should be left up to the owners of the establishment and their customers, who will go elsewhere if they do not like the atmosphere.
The government has no business passing laws controlling what individual private behavior is allowed in homes or businesses.

As long as the businesses agree to pay a greater percentage of workmen's compensation insurance to cover the VOLUNTARY exposure of their workers to a Class A carcinogen, hey why not, let 'em choose. That way, the trial lawyers will have another big fat target once they've ridden all the gravy out of the tobacco industry's train that they can...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Is smoking fundamentally wrong?

Yes, it is self-destructive behavior. Self-destructive behavior is one of the symptoms of a pathological illness.

Is it an infringement on rights of others to smoke in their presence?

Yes. Though for some, a rude smoker lighting up in their presence may range from an annoyance to a moderate irritant, there are those who can have a near fatal incidence triggered by the presence of contaminants such as smoke.

Do business owners have the right to allow or permit smoking on their premises, or should the government legislate such privileges?

Should businesses have the "right" to voluntarily expose their workers to a known Class A carcinogen?

http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bull...995/sun10.html
http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues...n/carcinogens/

Should they be held responsible for the health conditions associated? Do some research on the effects of California's state-wide ban on smoking in public.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9851475

Shouldn't a such a ban be consistent state-wide, if there is to be one?

Yes, when bans are placed on just a city or a county, they can initally have detrimental effects as smokers (less than 25% or the population) move to restaurants outside of the ban. I suspect that after a little time passes, those effects would vanish.

When the ban was initiated in California, businesses found an increase in yearly sales, not a decrease. It's hard to remove the impact of economics from the data though, and I don't have the time to do more research.


I haven't researched this so this is pure speculation, that the 8-10% of the US population that has life-threatening asthma (can be triggered by tobaccor smoke) might help make up for any decrease from smokers that might occur.

FYI, When I waited tables, it was very rare to see more than 1 or 2 people smoking at a table of 8.

[VERITAS]

Yes, there seems to be very good arguments against smoking, for health reasons and for the obnoxious nature of the habit.

But of course if the government outlawed all immoral, imprudent, or unhealthy activities, then where would we be? Who wants some bureaucracy, or even the properly elected representatives dictating your life?

To put the health effects of smoking in perspective, alchoholic bevarages are on the list of carcinogens along with whatever elements of tobacco.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?o...CE50709CB4C932

So if one is in an establishment purveying liquor, a known carcinogen, how can one prohibit smoking on that basis?

The main difference seems to be that the smoke from a cigar/cigarette fills a room while one's drink stays neatly in the glass. At least most of the time.
Certainly, it is rude and unhealthy to impose on others by smoking. But the natural answer is to have separate rooms for smokers.

Since smokers are in the minority, and those disgusted with 2nd-hand smoke are in the majority, naturally, since there is a demand for non-smoking restaurants and bars, such businesses will arise. Hurrah for the free market!

[Bokken]

Speaking as someone who does have rather bad allergies to tobacco smoke, I'm pleased with the no-smoking in public places ban. For example, in Maryland it's a state law that forbids smoking inside any public place or restaurant. You can go outside if you really need to poison yourself that badly. For me, I love it. The ban just means I wait inside instead of outside a restaurant (much nicer in the winter) and I don't dally on train platforms.

While I don't like the government telling business owners what they can and can't allow on their property, that's pretty much been the case when there are potentially damaging effects to self or others. The alphabet-soup agencies (EPA, OSHA, BATF, etc) in both state and federal levels are very specific as to what employers are and are not allowed to do or subject their employees to.
The major difference between smoking and other "unpleasant habits" is that there is independent research proving that smoking, and secondhand smoke, is directly carcinogenic and causes irreperable (sp) physical harm to self and others.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Bokken

While I don't like the government telling business owners what they can and can't allow on their property, that's pretty much been the case when there are potentially damaging effects to self or others. The alphabet-soup agencies (EPA, OSHA, BATF, etc) in both state and federal levels are very specific as to what employers are and are not allowed to do or subject their employees to.
The major difference between smoking and other "unpleasant habits" is that there is independent research proving that smoking, and secondhand smoke, is directly carcinogenic and causes irreperable (sp) physical harm to self and others.

Yea, I hate it too when that alphabet OSHA tells my employer that he can't just leave those open chemical vats laying around my office cubicle. And that they have to close up the doors on that broken elevator shaft. And don't even get me started about that alphabet EPA. Do you know how high my profit sharing return rate would be if they weren't all over my employer and making them clean and seal up the chemical waste instead of just dumping it into the river behind the plant? Sheesh, in the old days that's where we put all our waste, now EPA is even paying us to clean up our plants and factories! I hate that too!

[Bokken]

And don't even get me started about that alphabet EPA. Do you know how high my profit sharing return rate would be if they weren't all over my employer and making them clean and seal up the chemical waste instead of just dumping it into the river behind the plant? Sheesh, in the old days that's where we put all our waste, now EPA is even paying us to clean up our plants and factories! I hate that too!

Obnoxious bunch of treehugging hippies, they are. The rivers were so much prettier when they caught on fire from all the "toxics" dumped in there. After all, we all know that things like mercury, lead, antifreeze, and carbon monoxide aren't REALLY poisonous...really!

In seriousness...
Actually, EPA doesn't pay hazard sites to clean their messes up. The Superfund was created to pay for the clean up of hazard sites where the owners were either unable to be located or were unable to pay for the complete cleanup themselves.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Bokken

Obnoxious bunch of treehugging hippies, they are. The rivers were so much prettier when they caught on fire from all the "toxics" dumped in there. After all, we all know that things like mercury, lead, antifreeze, and carbon monoxide aren't REALLY poisonous...really!

In seriousness...
Actually, EPA doesn't pay hazard sites to clean their messes up. The Superfund was created to pay for the clean up of hazard sites where the owners were either unable to be located or were unable to pay for the complete cleanup themselves.

Just think of how much more fun the smokers would have had then, behind the building, and tossing their still lit butts into the "company pond!!" Pvvvvst... boom!

Turns out though... there are still federal clean-up programs and in many of them, the contractor is the very same company that polluted the environment that now needs to be cleaned. Could be for a number of reasons - experience in handling that type of hazard, but these contracts have often been awarded back to the offender.

[Bokken]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Just think of how much more fun the smokers would have had then, behind the building, and tossing their still lit butts into the "company pond!!" Pvvvvst... boom!

Turns out though... there are still federal clean-up programs and in many of them, the contractor is the very same company that polluted the environment that now needs to be cleaned. Could be for a number of reasons - experience in handling that type of hazard, but these contracts have often been awarded back to the offender.

That would be pretty cool. Then again, I suspect the desire to enjoy pyrotechnics may be hardwired into humanity's genetic code. I'll have to post the grenade-in-washing-machine video I found online...

I'd believe it. That's also a pretty massive oversight on someone's part...though I could easily see it happening.

[esskreemr]

I used to play in orange,noxious-smelling creeks when I was just a kid

OK, we were smart enough not to play in them...but how about when the toxins are undetectable?

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Yea, I hate it too when that alphabet OSHA tells my employer that he can't just leave those open chemical vats laying around my office cubicle. And that they have to close up the doors on that broken elevator shaft. And don't even get me started about that alphabet EPA. Do you know how high my profit sharing return rate would be if they weren't all over my employer and making them clean and seal up the chemical waste instead of just dumping it into the river behind the plant? Sheesh, in the old days that's where we put all our waste, now EPA is even paying us to clean up our plants and factories! I hate that too!

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Bokken

That would be pretty cool. Then again, I suspect the desire to enjoy pyrotechnics may be hardwired into humanity's genetic code. I'll have to post the grenade-in-washing-machine video I found online...

I'd believe it. That's also a pretty massive oversight on someone's part...though I could easily see it happening.

Post it. Those are always fun to watch in a "man, that was stupid" kind of way!

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I used to play in orange,noxious-smelling creeks when I was just a kid

OK, we were smart enough not to play in them...but how about when the toxins are undetectable?

Not all that uncommon. Look at the fish coming out of some of our rivers, lakes, and bays, then remember we eat fish that come out of the very same waters! And these waters aren't even orange!

http://www.consciouschoice.com/1995-...6/note116.html

[Bokken]

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17646

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

That sewage and wine analogy is very good.

It does seem that the problem should be left up to the owners of the establishment and their custom