The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001124_pf.html

I don't remember if we've discussed smoking bans before.  This is a tough issue for me.  On the one hand, I'm not a smoker and one thing I don't like about some of my favorite DC bars is all the smoke.  On the other hand, it's perfectly legal for any adult to smoke and I think that if I owned a bar or restaurant, I should be able to decide whether to allow smoking.  If the customers don't like it, they can drink somewhere else.

We have smokers and non-smokers on this board and most of us enjoy an afternoon/evening at the bar downing brews and watching football.  What do you think?

I think bars and restaurants should ban smoking, but have outdoor areas designated for smoking.  This would be fair to all. 

They passed the no smoking indoors law here a few years ago.  Best law ever.  

Now I don't smell like an ash tray when I go to bars, or the bowling alley.  Its freakin' phenomenal.  Not to mention I don't get to die of lung cancer thanks to everyone else.

Yes, I'm a selfish prick on this topic.  I can't stand smoke!

If you want to engage in your nasty habit, fine, have a good time, but don't force me to live in it.  Its not too much to ask you to go outside for 5 minutes...

I quit Smoking,So I see both sides..Resturants...ok,ban it...Bars Nope..smoke away.

They passed it here a couple of years ago...no smoking in restruants,unless you sell a certain amount of liquor.

I agree here. As a smoker I have no problem not being able to smoke in a resturant. A bar....different story. They passed the law here quite a few years back but establishments with a class A liquor license had the option. Most bars allow the smoking because it is too damn hot in June, July, and August to go outside and smoke so most people were avoiding the bars that did not allow it.

I'm falling right in line with Lil_B and AZ here. In a restaurant, forget about it. I usually leave them in the car. When I go to a sports bar or club, I like to be able to smoke.

The choice about smoking in resturants should be left up to the business owner. The government needs to focus on protecting private property, and US citizens. Not to decide how we live our lives.

They passed a smiliar law here in Georgia.  If you allowed people that were under 18 inside your establishment, you had to ban smoking. 

Chain restuarants and local family friendly cafes had to comply with the law, but there are a few sports pubs and nightclubs in town that chose to become 18 or older in order to allow smoking inside.

I was torn between this as well, at first.  I don't like to take rights away from the business owners, however, I think that smoking is a health concern...not just a personal preference.

Think of it this way (and I'm being totally serious)...

There are codes for bathrooms.  You have to keep certain things in designated areas.  For example, you can't have urinals in the dining area in a public restaurant.  For health concerns, there is a code that restricts this.  I feel that smoking is much the same.  People "NEED" to smoke, like they do need to urinate, but they don't have to do it in the common areas.  

However, where you smoke (or urinate for that matter) in your home, is no concen of mine.

I personally dont have a problem with having to wait to have a smoke. There are a few resturants here where the owner decided not to have it. If I did have a problem with it, I simply wouldnt go there. The same would apply to non smokers.

The owner decides, and then the market decides.

On a similar note, I absolutely hate it when someone takes one last drag, walks inside, and releases a blast of cancer in the building/room/restaurante/etc...

That should also count as "smoking" in a non-smoking area...

If someone actually saw them do what you just described, it definitely would constitute smoking in a non-smoking area. If it were a restaurant, that person should be forced to eat outside, sitting indian-legged on the sidewalk, while all the non-smokers walk past, laughing at him.  ;)

I do that. Its awesome.

Isn't keeping second hand smoke away from a non-smoker a form of protecting the citizens?

Nope. If its that big of a deal to you, stay away from it. There doesnt need to be a law on it.

I agree that if people don't like smoke they should go somewhere else... however, the people most effected by this are the waiters and bartenders. Those people need to work and often can't choose where. It's a work place hazard really.

Here's what I find stupid though. In Ohio, you can still have a smoking establishment as long as you don't allow anyone under the age of 18 in the place. This to me negates all the things that make sense about the smoking ban.

Here in Florida, you can still have a smoking establishment as long as food doesn't account for more than like 10 percent of your profit. This solves the waiter issue, but not the bartender issue.

Having outside smoking areas are much easier to get away with down here without losing clientele, but up north where it's cold as shit, it becomes more of a risk to business owners.

Not protecting citizens? OK, I know you had some real conservative views but that is just blindness. Let's see, keeping a carcinogen out of a public place does not protect citizens in any way shape or form. I am at a loss of words, no I'm not. It may not be the military protection you intended with your statement, but it is definitely a form of protection.

Realistically, you can't have the market decide...then every place would be a smoking establishment, because places couldn't afford not to.

Frimp, can you comment on my health risk scenerio, with urinals?  Should it be the restaurant's decision where to have their toilets?  The fact is that health inspection is a big thing for restaurants.  ...clearly, second-hand smoke is a health issue -- for patrons, as well as employees.

I am not for the government outlawing things simply "becasue they're bad", but I feel that smoking in enclosed public areas puts the population at risk.

Like it or not, tobacco is legal. I'm allergic to most perfumes. They make me sneeze like crazy, and I can break out in a rash if it touches me. Perfume is legal, yet harmful to me. Should we ban perfume for me and others like me?

I agree with Frimp. Sure, restaurants should be allowed to have urinals out in the middle of the place if they want. No one would go there because that's disgusting, but hey, that's their prerogative. The market won't support non-smoking bars without this law? Sure it would, if people really cared about being at a non-smoking place. There's no reason non-smoking bars can't start up. But it should be the restaurant owner's decision.

You say it's no problem for people to step outside to smoke. Not in Florida, maybe. But it is up north in the winter, when being outside in the cold is itself a health hazard.

My baseline is simply this: If I want to start up my own business on my own property with my own money, how about I'll decide what goes on in there, and let's leave the government out of it?

By the way, laws that hurt smokers hurt minorities and the poor disproportionately, since they are more likely to be smokers on average.

Dave, I see your point. But, does there really need to be a law about where to put a bathroom? Do you think that if there wasnt regulation that owners would put bathrooms in the dining area? That would not be a good business move.

I don't spit my Copenhagen in your face. Don't let your smoke get in mine. I think that's only fair.  ;D

OK, great -

Now, imagine EVERY SINGLE RESTAURANT IN THE WORLD had urinals right next there in the dining room.

Every single one.

Its not simple enough to say "if you don't like my smoke, go somewhere else" because without this law in place, there IS NO PLACE ELSE that is smoke free.

It's a big deal to whomever has to pay that emphysema treatment bill.  That's the real impetus behind these laws.  Lung cancer's expensive, smokers are easy targets because it's "a filthy habit."  This makes dollars and sense to me.

Nope.  Your allergy to perfume is, what, statistically negligible at best?  Perhaps statistically insignificant (in terms of percentage of population)?  Lung cancer is far from insignificant, and the health care costs associated with its treatment are astronomical.  Can't you see health care companies (health insurance) lining up to lobby for these laws?  I surely can.

That is not true. There are quite a few smoke free resturants in SC.

By the way, this was an issue on which I was torn, when I initially voted.  I do think that (for the most part) that businesses should be able to do whatever they want, and the market should decide whether those choices fit.

However, there are overlaping rules regarding health and employee safety.  In this case,  think that those rules win out.

It's worth pointing out that the medical link between secondhand smoke and health problems is spotty at best.

The most frequently cited study on secondhand smoke (produced by the World Health Organization) and the first major study on secondhand smoke of any kind actually said (paraphrased) "there is no statistically significant correlation between secondhand smoke and health problems," yet the summary of the report loudly proclaims the danger of secondhand smoke.

There's an episode of the TV show "Bullshit!" (one of my favorite shows, BTW) that details this situation.  It's hard to believe, but a lot of the flack that secondhand smoke has gotten is undeserved.

That being said, tobacco stinks and I don't like it, so while I wouldn't push for this kind of legislation, I'm not crying over it, either.  I do, however, think it's completely idiotic to ban smoking in bars.

i dont smoke, except the occasional weekend at the bar cigarette, maybe like 3 or 4 a month.  smoking & drinking goes hand in hand.  it should be allowed at the typical local bar, but not at a place where food (besides bar food) is sold...anyplace that has a seating area in it just for eating.  i live on the river in jersey across from NYC, and i experience both the smoking ban on EVERYTHING in NYC, and the allowed smoking indoors in NJ (which ends on April 15th).

I am all for the smoking ban. Like Dave said, what you want to do in your own home is fine, but in a public place, where I am going, I don't want to choke on your smoke (especially considering I quit 7 years ago).
They were trying to get this passed in Philly. I was all for it. Some politicians said it "would hurt business". Yet there was a report published about how business in New York went UP after they banned smoking.

That situation is noted in the Washington Post article I linked to at the beginning of this thread. Also, a friend of mine's family owns a restaurant and bar in Philly.  We had this conversation last year (as he was chain smoking in a DC bar) and he told me their business did just fine after the ban.  Apparently, there was a little dip in business at first, but it rebounded very quickly.

I don't think there is a strong economic argument against banning smoking in bars and restaurants.  My problem has more to do with the priniciple.   Like Frimp and Smitty, I think proprietors should be able to decide whether smoking is allowed and then let the market decide. 

Also, I don't buy Dave's comparison to public sanitation and hygiene laws.  Those laws exist to protect city residents from highly communicable diseases like typhoid and cholera which killed countless thousands in cities during outbreaks between the 15th and 19th centuries.  While second hand smoke is associated with lung cancer, there is no danger that someone who didn't choose to sit in the smoke will get cancer.  Obviously, there is a public health issue here, however, in this case I do not believe it's strong enough to require government regulation.

Your friend must've been really drunk when you guys had this conversation. The law never passed in Philly, so how could it have affected their business in any way?

Jesus I can't believe people still cry over this. It has been law in California for almost 10 years, and guess what, no bar has gone out of business. It may have atually saved lives as the pathetic people who never smoke, yet can't keep one out of their mouth when they drink now don't smoke at all. Also it was passed as a worker protection as not all people who work in bars and restaraunts smoke. You will never get all smokers to work in every bar, plus it wouldn't work as smokers rarely follow the rules on he number of cigarette breaks they get. They are addicts, and addicts are always thinking about their next fix. Also you can't claim government interference when the whole cigarette industry is heavily subsidized by the Feds. You can't ave you cake and eat it too.

As a reformed smoker I would have to say ban it. Now that I quit I hate the smell. When you are in a room where people are smoking it makes you smell like ass too.

When I was stationed in NC you could smoke almost anywere.

It can't be left up to the business owner, because its not.  It has to be banned or not banned.  There is no in between.

A restaurant that disallows smoking while others allow it stands to lose business from smokers.  However, if all places disallow smoking, there will be no economic loss.  If Ruby Tuesdays says "No smoking" but Friday's, Chili's, and Applebee's all allow smoking, which one is going to get the smokers' business?

The "let the business owner decide" argument is silly, since no business owner will choose to turn customers away due to their own habits.  Its all about the $$$$$$$!

It coudl be that I was the one who had too much to drink  ;D

At any rate, the point is he wasn't concerned about the ban. 

You are actually comparing an allergy with cancer? Let's see Benadryl costs a couple dollars while cancer treatment is impossible to afford without insurance. Good analogy.

Comparing standing outside for 15 minutes to cancer. Another great analogy.

Ok, forget about my allergy. Some people are allergic to peanuts. It can kill them if they come into contact with it. Lets ban peanuts!

keep up the good work Frimp. They are still trying to rationalize the difference....LOL

Not quite - since someone who's allergic to peanuts has the ability to stay away from them.

If there were people going around praying peanut dust in the air all over the place, I'd say yes - ban that crap!  Its not like I have the choice to stay away from your smoke in a bar, do I?

(before you say "don't go to that bar", let me know which bar I CAN go to that doesn't have smoke?)

Stop your whining... Jesus... alot of you are pussies.

Not really, its just about the debate.

You're really good at killing the discussion, though...

You are thinking about your health when you go to a bar?

Also, your arguement about smoke free resturants losing business is invalid. As I said earlier, there are plenty of smoke free resturants in SC that do very well.

No, I'm thinking I don't want to smell like an ash tray when I walk out.  Smoke also plays hell on my eyes with my contact lenses and I can't stand in a smoke-filled room for more than 30 minutes without serious attention to them.

PUSSY.... PUSSY... PUSSY

Do you bitch as much when you get rained on, or scrape your hand working outside etc. etc. etc.

So, its about you then. You dont like it because it hurts your eyes. How is this different from my allergy to perfume?

I was hoping it wouldn't reach page four when I made that post... but later I replied and killed my own attempt.

That's MY personal reason, yes.  I also don't want cancer.  If I wanted cancer, I'd smoke myself.

And, you can call me a pussy all you want, but if it was something YOU were against, you'd have no problem arguing yourself.

I just love when a group debate turns into me against the world...

It's not you against the world, Brian.

I think that you have more support, but for different reasons.

As much as I hate the smell of smoke (it physically makes me sick...my nose starts running, and stuff), that's not what this is about.  I believe in fair laws, whether they benefit me or not.  I think that even thought smoking is a personal choice, that it overlaps with employee health concerns and health issues, in general.