Smoke'em if you got'em...for now

[crazy_scar_man]

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.

[Phishfan]

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

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Frimp]

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.

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?

[ADeadSmitty]

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.

[Frimp]

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.

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.

[CF DolFan]

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

[Brian Fein]

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.

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.

[JVides]

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

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.

[JVides]

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?

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.

[Frimp]

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.

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

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[TonyB0D]

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).

[Philly Fin Fan]

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.