Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[RNR]

I think it should be up to the owner, and would even be willing to have it up to the owner if you have to be 21 to enter. City wide is bullshit IMO

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Here's an idea. Let's pass a law making it illegal to take your kids to restaurants and movie theatres. It's annoying as hell, and business owners don't have the balls to disallow it.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally Posted by milkman Jr

Right. So now they've impeded on our rights, but not yours. Way to open the door for you to be next. Rausch once said this, and it rings true. "How far are we willing to go as a society to avoid inconvenience?"

Thank you.

One thing that's abundantly clear in my profession is the fact that we as a society have lost all concept of the difference between "unfair" and "inconvienient."

I'm astonished at the level of entitlement in this society.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by milkman Jr

Umm. Are you serious? Here's an idea that you have said yourself, "If you don't like it, get a job somewhere else."

As pointed out previously, lots of people didn't like working with machinery that had no safety guards. Are you advocating that those guards be removed because it would certainly be cheaper for the business owner.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

We all give up certain rights every day. For example, you can't drive at any speed you want. I own my car, right? Can't I use it however I'd like?

Public welfare demands reasonable speed limits. The same argument can be made Re: smoking in bars/restaurants. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and when a smoker lights up he/she takes away the ability of those around himself/herself to breath clean air. Cigarettes themselves aren't being banned. Smokers can still buy them and use them...just not in certain enclosed spaces where others that might not want to suck down carcinogens would be exposed.

The single most reeruned argument ever made supporting these bans. Seriously. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's pathetic.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

I'd really like to see some solid numbers on the fiscal effects of these bans. I have no idea where to even start looking for information that isn't coming from one side or the other.

FWIW, a buddy of mine owns a sports bar in a town here that imposed a smoking ban 1/1/2007.

I was there Tuesday for lunch and he told me his revenue increased by over 60% and is rising since the ban took effect. Seems the smokers stayed loyal, and dealt with the ban, while a new client base emerged from people that refused to go there before because the smoke was so bad.

Considering that only 21% of Americans smoke, I'm not sure why owners are complaining. There are 4 times as many non-smokers that could refuse to visit an establishment based on smoking being allowed, versus that small 1 in 5 they MIGHT lose when a ban takes effect.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

This is where I see the difference. Smokers can't keep it to themselves. It's physically impossible.

If I really liked a certain kind of drink, but part of drinking it meant I was spitting it out all over the people at the tables around me how long do you think it would last before a smoker told me to cut it out?

Neither can children. So what do you think of my proposal to ban kids from restaurants and theatres, really all public places, say under the age of 8.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

What a croc of a response.

What about my right to enjoy a night out without putting my health at risk (asthma)?

So every smoker should not be allowed to smoke, EVERYWHERE, on the off chance that you just MIGHT go there? Boy, you must be a big deal. How about places where people can smoke and places where people can't smoke, determined by THE PEOPLE, NOT THE POLICE STATE? I'm sorry you have asthma, but at the end of the day, that's your problem, not mine.

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

What about the right of the employee to go to work and not be forced to inhale someone else's smoke?

Are they forced at gunpoint to work at these places? I know the Health Nazis will always find some poster child cancer victim who'll whine about it (OMG I worked at a bar for 20 years and now I'm dying ), but unless you're in the military, you have a choice of whether or not to work in an environment you consider unhealthy. At least you used to. Bottom line - if you worked someplace where everybody smokes, long enough for secondhand smoke to give you cancer, and you always hated it, and now you're dying, perhaps you should have made a career move a long time ago, and again, that's not my problem.

Also, how do you quantify second hand smoke? The easy answer is YOU CAN'T. The number of smokers, the size of the space, the ventilation of the space, etc. Too many wildcards, but that doesn't stop the Health Nazis from scaring the shit out of everybody, convincing them that secondhand smoke is going to kill them. Well, let me ask you this - before I quit, I smoked for 21 years. Before that, I was raised by two parents who smoked full time for 18 years. During my 21 years of smoking, I not only breathed in my smoke, but the secondhand smoke from other smokers. All that smoke - four decades worth - WHY AM I NOT DEAD? WHY DO I NOT HAVE CANCER? HMMM??? The answer is, for the vast majority of us, secondhand smoke is no big deal. The one constant, though, is that you can always smell cigarette smoke if you're a non-smoker, and if you're a non-smoker, you tend not to like the smell. I don't like it now, either. But unlike the people behind those bans, I don't feel my dislike of a particular smell is worth telling millions of other people how to live their lives.

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

What amazes me is that OSHA hasn't stepped in an forced this a long time ago. There are thousands of regulations in the work place that wouldn't have been put in place if the "owner" got to make the decision.

History has shown that in most cases "owners" do not give a shit about the workers as long as the profits are good.

I am all for the STATE wide ban in Colorado - casinos were forced to join the ban as of 1/1.

Well, it looks like you'll get your wish. But these fuckers are just getting warmed up. When they finally get around to taking something away that you do care about, remember this moment. Depriving Americans of their rights is like eating potato chips to the Health Nazis - they won't stop at just one.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

What a croc of a response.

What about my right to enjoy a night out without putting my health at risk (asthma)?

What about the right of the employee to go to work and not be forced to inhale someone else's smoke?

What amazes me is that OSHA hasn't stepped in an forced this a long time ago. There are thousands of regulations in the work place that wouldn't have been put in place if the "owner" got to make the decision.

History has shown that in most cases "owners" do not give a shit about the workers as long as the profits are good.

I am all for the STATE wide ban in Colorado - casinos were forced to join the ban as of 1/1.

Here is the 2nd most reeruned argument. Are you seriously suggesting that you didn't have options for non smoking establishments before said bans were in place? Don't be foolish, you want what you want, and **** anyone who it steps on. When it affects you, just .

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

As pointed out previously, lots of people didn't like working with machinery that had no safety guards. Are you advocating that those guards be removed because it would certainly be cheaper for the business owner.

Not closely relevant. There are non smoking establishments everywhere. If you have that big of a problem with it, go work for them.

[Mr. Laz]

the problem is is that the smoke goes everywhere ... even to all the people who don't smoke.

you snort coke ... as long as you aren't driving, i don't really give a rip.

you drink .... it's on you

you smoke, it's on everyone in the same building.



maybe they could create some kind of oxygen "smoker's" mask so they can "huff" that shit and not have it **** with everyone else.

[1ChiefsDan]

Originally Posted by frazod

So every smoker should not be allowed to smoke, EVERYWHERE, on the off chance that you just MIGHT go there? Boy, you must be a big deal. How about places where people can smoke and places where people can't smoke, determined by THE PEOPLE, NOT THE POLICE STATE? I'm sorry you have asthma, but at the end of the day, that's your problem, not mine.



Are they forced at gunpoint to work at these places? I know the Health Nazis will always find some poster child cancer victim who'll whine about it (OMG I worked at a bar for 20 years and now I'm dying ), but unless you're in the military, you have a choice of whether or not to work in an environment you consider unhealthy. At least you used to. Bottom line - if you worked someplace where everybody smokes, long enough for secondhand smoke to give you cancer, and you always hated it, and now you're dying, perhaps you should have made a career move a long time ago, and again, that's not my problem.

Also, how do you quantify second hand smoke? The easy answer is YOU CAN'T. The number of smokers, the size of the space, the ventilation of the space, etc. Too many wildcards, but that doesn't stop the Health Nazis from scaring the shit out of everybody, convincing them that secondhand smoke is going to kill them. Well, let me ask you this - before I quit, I smoked for 21 years. Before that, I was raised by two parents who smoked full time for 18 years. During my 21 years of smoking, I not only breathed in my smoke, but the secondhand smoke from other smokers. All that smoke - four decades worth - WHY AM I NOT DEAD? WHY DO I NOT HAVE CANCER? HMMM??? The answer is, for the vast majority of us, secondhand smoke is no big deal. The one constant, though, is that you can always smell cigarette smoke if you're a non-smoker, and if you're a non-smoker, you tend not to like the smell. I don't like it now, either. But unlike the people behind those bans, I don't feel my dislike of a particular smell is worth telling millions of other people how to live their lives.



Well, it looks like you'll get your wish. But these fuckers are just getting warmed up. When they finally get around to taking something away that you do care about, remember this moment. Depriving Americans of their rights is like eating potato chips to the Health Nazis - they won't stop at just one.

I love the dumb ****ers like you that always come back to "their not forced to work there".

**** you - some choose that lifestyle - many it is the only job they can get.

If it was up to assholes like you children would still be working in coal mines.

Go douse yourself in gas and light up.

[OnTheWarpath15]

What neither side of the fence seems to realize is that no mater what, somebody loses.

A non-smoker is inconvenienced by either having to choose a smoke-free establishment, or inhaling and smelling like smoke, as well as a health hazard they didn't sign up for.

A smoker is inconvenienced by either having to choose an establishment that allows smoking, or being asked to step outside the building to smoke.

[KC2004]

Being a manager of a bar in NE Missouri I can tell you if they do ban smoking in bars we will be out of business in 6 months of the ban. 95% of our business is
smokers and the other 5% don't seem to mind it. The only thing we can do is go private and charge our patrons a fee to get in if they have the ban and thats not the answer.

[HemiEd]

I haven't read this thread, but I am getting real sick of the government getting more involved in what people can and cannot do.


Less government is better government, pretty simple.

[1ChiefsDan]

Originally Posted by milkman Jr

Not closely relevant. There are non smoking establishments everywhere. If you have that big of a problem with it, go work for them.

It is completely relevant. There were places that had safety guards on machinery - but if jobs weren't available there you had to work for the greedy bastards that didn't want to spend the money to make it safe. How is working in a toxic environment any different?