After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

One of the big worries/complaints back when this was all going down was how these bar owners would suffer immeasurably by the smoking ban. How people would just not come around anymore and how the owners would go broke becasue of it.

Three years later it's safe to say that was nothing but a bunch of panicked chicken little thinking. The bar scene around town doesn't seem to be hurting for business.

It doesn't hurt business significantly, people and businesses adjuster. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not it is right for one group (anti-smoking) to FORCE private business owners to cater to them.

Let's say you don't like live music. Is it ok to write a law banning live music from bars so that YOU are more comfortable when you go out?

And don;t bring up the "health" issue. You're at a ****ing BAR. AND don't bring up the worker's health issue... they choose to work there, there are hundreds of jobs with far far far worse health conditions that we don't ban.

It's simple. Anti-smoking BULLIES used the force of government to impose their will upon private business owners. Period.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It doesn't hurt business significantly, people and businesses adjuster. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not it is right for one group (anti-smoking) to FORCE private business owners to cater to them.

Let's say you don't like live music. Is it ok to write a law banning live music from bars so that YOU are more comfortable when you go out?

And don;t bring up the "health" issue. You're at a ****ing BAR. AND don't bring up the worker's health issue... they choose to work there, there are hundreds of jobs with far far far worse health conditions that we don't ban.

It's simple. Anti-smoking BULLIES used the force of government to impose their will upon private business owners. Period.

I have argued this before, those who support it could care less. People gleefully give away other people's rights not seeing a trend. The same bullshit is going on with guns. People cheering more rights being taken away~

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

You a fan of zoning laws?

In many cases, no. But don't try to draw a comparison, it doesn't work. Having a smoking vs a smoke-free bar doesn't change the nature of a particular area of a city.

The proper argument for that side is to say "Are you against health codes?"

Which I will answer... yes I am for many health codes. But this would be akin to a health code that outlawed all fatty foods being on the menu. It's not like a smoke filled bar is a "hidden" danger like bacteria in food can be. It's a choice.

[Bowser]

But who is being hurt here? The smoker, or the bar owner? I would say neither, since the bar owner is still making a living becasue people decided to go out in spite of the ban, and smokers can generally go outside to the patio area for their smoke, which many owners now have. On top of it all, nobody has to bitch about the smell or the environment inside of the bar itself now. Everyone wins.

I just don't see a "victim" here.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

In many cases, no. But don't try to draw a comparison, it doesn't work. Having a smoking vs a smoke-free bar doesn't change the nature of a particular area of a city.

The proper argument for that side is to say "Are you against health codes?"

Which I will answer... yes I am for many health codes. But this would be akin to a health code that outlawed all fatty foods being on the menu. It's not like a smoke filled bar is a "hidden" danger like bacteria in food can be. It's a choice.

OK, and the employees that work at bars?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

But who is being hurt here? The smoker, or the bar owner? I would say neither, since the bar owner is still making a living becasue people decided to go out in spite of the ban, and smokers can generally go outside to the patio area for their smoke, which many owners now have. On top of it all, nobody has to bitch about the smell or the environment inside of the bar itself now. Everyone wins.

I just don't see a "victim" here.

The bar owner. Just because YOU don't think he is hurt by it doesn't mean he isn't. Who the hell gives you or me the right to determine what is good for him in regard to his PRIVATE PROPERTY. I'm a Chiefs fan who lives in Texas. Let's imagine I opened a bar here. Would it HURT me if the law required that I only put up Cowboys gear in my bar? It certainly would be good for business. By your criteria, it would be ok for Texas to make that law.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

OK, and the employees that work at bars?

I can name you hundreds if not thousands of jobs that have REAL health dangers. That argument hold no water, ESPECIALLY since the health risks for ETS have never been proven to be statistically significant. Not once.

[Prison Bitch]

At first I opposed them as an affront to personal liberties. But now, I see they worked out fine in protecting the liberties of those who don't like smoke. It bled into a public health issue which made the decision easier to justify - sorta like speeding laws.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I can name you hundreds if not thousands of jobs that have REAL health dangers. That argument hold no water, ESPECIALLY since the health risks for ETS have never been proven to be statistically significant. Not once.

And those dangers are likely inherent to the jobs. You don't have to breath ETS to serve a drink. And if you want to say second hand smoke is in no way harmful...well...good luck with that.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

And those dangers are likely inherent to the jobs. You don't have to breath ETS to serve a drink. And if you want to say second hand smoke is in no way harmful...well...good luck with that.

So, if I open a Bar-slash-SmokingLounge that sells high end cigars and cigarettes... THEN is the smoke inherent in the job? Who the **** are you to determine what is or isn't inherent in the job? That's yet another thing that is up to the PRIVATE business owner, not YOU to decide.

As to the health effects of ETS. If you think there are SIGNIFICANT health effects than you have obviously never done a lick of research on the subject. Do you make a habit out of arguing things you are completely ignorant of?

Let's go back to my live music analogy. There is more evidence of loud noise being a health issue than there is for ETS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise Do you support a live music ban? You don't have to hear music to serve a drink!!!!

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

So, if I open a Bar-slash-SmokingLounge that sells high end cigars and cigarettes... THEN is the smoke inherent in the job? Who the **** are you to determine what is or isn't inherent in the job? That's yet another thing that is up to the PRIVATE business owner, not YOU to decide.

As to the health effects of ETS. If you think there are SIGNIFICANT health effects than you have obviously never done a lick of research on the subject. Do you make a habit out of arguing things you are completely ignorant of?

Let's go back to my live music analogy. There is more evidence of loud noise being a health issue than there is for ETS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise Do you support a live music ban? You don't have to hear music to serve a drink!!!!

I support restrictions on volume, yes...or providing employees with earbuds. Good luck asking an employee to not breath.

Here...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...condhand-smoke

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

I support restrictions on volume, yes...or providing employees with earbuds. Good luck asking an employee to not breath.
Here...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...condhand-smoke

Damn unions. Once management gave in on the exhaling, you just knew labor was going to push for inhaling as well.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

I support restrictions on volume, yes...or providing employees with earbuds. Good luck asking an employee to not breath.

Here...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...condhand-smoke

Don't even try. You're wading into the deep end here. I've been researching and debating this topic for over a decade now. You'll find a bunch of propaganda on the subject but very little hard science. The dose makes the poison and ETS doesn't come in high enough doses to pose a significant health risk. It gets even more interesting when you take the studies "supporting" your view at face value (stupid) and look deeper into what the conclusions really say. You'll find that a study will be touted as proving that ETS increases XYZ risk by 20 times!! Look closer and you'll see that your risk went from one in a 200 million to 1 in 10 million.

This is a crude oversimplification of things but I am not investing any real time into the specifics of the debate when it's obvious you don't have any solid understanding of the fundamentals involved.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Don't even try. You're wading into the deep end here. I've been researching and debating this topic for over a decade now. You'll find a bunch of propaganda on the subject but very little hard science. The dose makes the poison and ETS doesn't come in high enough doses to pose a significant health risk. It gets even more interesting when you take the studies "supporting" your view at face value (stupid) and look deeper into what the conclusions really say. You'll find that a study will be touted as proving that ETS increases XYZ risk by 20 times!! Look closer and you'll see that your risk went from one in a 200 million to 1 in 10 million.

This is a crude oversimplification of things but I am not investing any real time into the specifics of the debate when it's obvious you don't have any solid understanding of the fundamentals involved.

He's got the MSM behind him so in his eyes you're ****ed on the argument.

[AustinChief]

I'll add one more thing... OSHA puts out standards for air quality in the workplace. ETS in a fully confined packed bar doesn't even come CLOSE to violating the permissible exposure limits for the various chemicals involved.