no smoking in public buildings???

jeffbr

enharmonic wrote:

First of all, they are not establishments whose sole intent is to allow smoking. Smoking is permitted there, but that is not what the establishment, or my friends are there for.

Didn't say it was. That is irrelevant. If it is a laundramat or a bagel store it should still be up to the owner of the business to set policy. I'd personally never buy bagels or wash my clothes in a smoke filled environment, but if the owner of the business thinks it is good for business, that is his/her issue.

enharmonic wrote:

Second, I have no problem with it, since NYC is close enough for me to make a trip if I want to go clubbing (which is exactly what I do). If Baltimore wants to be a knuckle dragging troglodite of a city, I'm happy to let Darwin have the smokers and their shitty, stinky clubs. All I'm saying is that the solution is a lot simpler than an outright ban. Create a smoking license that public establishments can purchase annually.

Why? Why have a smoking license? Why not just let people decide for themselves? Sounds like you again are looking to the government to do something they have no business doing.

enharmonic wrote:

Smoking has been proven to be a detriment to personal and public health, but if an establishment whishes to profit from the behavior, they should have that right...at a price.

They do so at a price. The price is alienating non-smokers. If they feel that price is too high, they can change their policy. Government intervention, contrary to the beliefs of the supporters of a nanny state, is not needed here.

bookmuse

jeffbr wrote:

Nobody forces you to patronize private establishments that allow smoking. if you don't like it, don't vote with your dollars. Go to a non-smoking establishment and support the owner.

There you go, that is the main issue. Governement is mandating that private businesses are not allowed to have smoking establishments. Why should the government have a say over this? I say there should be smoking bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. Folks who choose to work at or patronize these places would know smoking is allowed - mark it at the entrances -SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT and if they did not want to work or come inside then they could go elsewhere.

I empathize for smokers since I am an ex-smoker and supposedly live in a free country. I respect the public building issue. I finally quit cold turkey 4-1/2 years ago.

Pearl Jam and toast

A smoking liscence type thing would be both fucked up, a HUGE waste of time, and meaningless.

You don't like smoke in a club go somewhere else.

enharmonic

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

A smoking liscence type thing would be both fucked up, a HUGE waste of time, and meaningless.

You don't like smoke in a club go somewhere else.

How about having the smokers go somewhere else?

See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.

I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.

When I go to places that have a smoking ban, it's noticably more crowded, people still have a great time, and I don't wake up the next day feeling like someone stuffed my nasal passages with cement.

If you buy a pack of smokes, you have to pay a pretty hefty tax, yet bar and club owners get a pass on that. What's good enough for you is good enough for them. I view the license as a way of giving businesses the oprion to choose that type of behavior for their establishment. It is also a source of revenue for government. We're 8 billion dollars in debt. The money has to come from somewhere. Instead of raising taxes for all of us, how about focusing on exracting some revenue from business owners who want to make smoking a "right" in their establishments.

Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.

jeffbr

enharmonic wrote:

How about having the smokers go somewhere else?

See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.

I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.

When I go to places that have a smoking ban, it's noticably more crowded, people still have a great time, and I don't wake up the next day feeling like someone stuffed my nasal passages with cement.

If you buy a pack of smokes, you have to pay a pretty hefty tax, yet bar and club owners get a pass on that. What's good enough for you is good enough for them. I view the license as a way of giving businesses the oprion to choose that type of behavior for their establishment. It is also a source of revenue for government. We're 8 billion dollars in debt. The money has to come from somewhere. Instead of raising taxes for all of us, how about focusing on exracting some revenue from business owners who want to make smoking a "right" in their establishments.

Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.

You again have completely missed the point. The point isn't about smokers' rights, or non-smokers' rights. It is about private property rights, and the right of self-determination.

And you talk about "extracting" revenue from business owners? It is these types of theft which have created the problems we have in government in the first place. Why is this the business of government? Why is your solution to allow the government to come in with guns and loot private business? You have completely twisted and convoluted this issue, but unforunately for those of us who value libery, you have a lot of company.

enharmonic

jeffbr wrote:

You again have completely missed the point. The point isn't about smokers' rights, or non-smokers' rights. It is about private property rights, and the right of self-determination.

And you talk about "extracting" revenue from business owners? It is these types of theft which have created the problems we have in government in the first place. Why is this the business of government? Why is your solution to allow the government to come in with guns and loot private business? You have completely twisted and convoluted this issue, but unforunately for those of us who value libery, you have a lot of company.

Private Property is a carefully constructed myth. Nothing you own is private. If the government wants it, they can and will take it, and there's not much that you can do about it.

Liberty has a price.You pay it, or you don't. It makes no difference to me. I have places where I can go and enjoy myself. It costs me double what it costs a smoker to do the same, so I'm penalized twice. First, because I can't go to places in my own home town to excercise my own liberties, and second because I have to incur additional expense to go to places that have taken everyone's health into consideration...while clubs who allow smoking only take smoker's happines into consideration in exchange for profit and everyone's health.

I pay the price, and there's not one smoker who sheds a tear for me .

My solution does not constitute looting. It constitues paying a price for creating a hazardous, unhealthy environment. Though I shouldn't be shocked that people are challenging me...Americans never want to pay the price for their actions.

Collin

enharmonic wrote:

How about having the smokers go somewhere else?

See, smokers have a choice. They don't HAVE to smoke. Non smokers don't have much of a choice. Breathing is not an optional habit.

Non smokers also have a choice, they can choose not to go to a bar where smoking is allowed and go to one where it isn't.

Smoking is not a right. Smokers treat their addiction as if it is their right to smoke. My proposal validates their misguided belief, and actually encourages it...as long as the people who facilitate the behavior are held accountable. How do you do that? Make 'em put their money where their mouth is. You want to smoke...you pay to smoke...unless you have your own tobacco field. Same should hold true for public entities. They want smoking in their establishments, they should pay to have it.

You want people to pay if they want smoking in their establishments just because you want a smoke-free enviroment? That's absurd.

cincybearcat

Collin wrote:

Non smokers also have a choice, they can choose not to go to a bar where smoking is allowed and go to one where it isn't.



You want people to pay if they want smoking in their establishments just because you want a smoke-free enviroment? That's absurd.

Very solid point. The question I struggle with is whether or not it is ok for the servers etc in restaurants to be exposed to this smoke. Other companies have to provide a safe workplace for the employees...why not restaurant owners?

fanch75

enharmonic wrote:

I went to a show in Baltimore lst night. My ability to enjoy the show was markedly impacted by the smoking. I woke up this morning and felt like shit from breathing that SHIT all night...had not one drink, so it wasn't a hangover.

Yes, but the building that the show was in, it belongs to somebody. That somebody, who owns that building, apparently has okayed smoking it it. The building is theirs, not yours. Just like your house.

Personally I don't smoke and i abhor the smell of it. I went out last night and all my clothes are smokey. It's nasty. My or your personal feelings about smoking have nothing to do with this. A building belongs to somebody and it's up to them. You and I, we can go there or don't go there. That's it.

cincybearcat

fanch75 wrote:

Yes, but the building that the show was in, it belongs to somebody. That somebody, who owns that building, apparently has okayed smoking it it. The building is theirs, not yours. Just like your house.

Personally I don't smoke and i abhor the smell of it. I went out last night and all my clothes are smokey. It's nasty. My or your personal feelings about smoking have nothing to do with this. A building belongs to somebody and it's up to them. You and I, we can go there or don't go there. That's it.

But people work in that building and have the right to breathe clean air.

jeffbr

cincybearcat wrote:

But people work in that building and have the right to breathe clean air.

Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.

I agree with this.

suns rival

im cool with smoking ban. i think its fair.

know1

These smoking bans are just another example of a situation where the government shouldn't have to step in, but because people are too inconsiderate to not smoke where others are present, it has to.

cincybearcat

jeffbr wrote:

Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.

So, then every company can do this? Any company that has a dangerous product (working with lead, chromium, paint spraying, etc.) they can all just not provide their employees any protection and say 'Go elsewhere to work if you don't like it'?

Slippery slope my friend.

cincybearcat

Collin wrote:

I agree with this.

I don't think you've thought it through.

Ericastrada

cincybearcat wrote:

So, then every company can do this? Any company that has a dangerous product (working with lead, chromium, paint spraying, etc.) they can all just not provide their employees any protection and say 'Go elsewhere to work if you don't like it'?

Slippery slope my friend.

Slippery slope, Huh? What about allowing government getting involved like this? Isn't the smoking ban a slippery slope? Everybody wants to use the excuse of smokers have no rights because it puts my health at risk. What about New York banning trans fat? If I want to eat trans fats, how does that effect you? It doesn't. But the government once again decided to step in a tell people what they can and cannot do.

Collin

cincybearcat wrote:

I don't think you've thought it through.

You're probably right:)

I just think forcing people to make their bars, restaurants... smoke free isn't a very good solution. It would be better, in my opinion, to reward the ones who make their establishments smoke free instead of punishing the ones who don't mind smoking in their establishments without forcing anybody.

fanch75

Ericastrada wrote:

Slippery slope, Huh? What about allowing government getting involved like this? Isn't the smoking ban a slippery slope? Everybody wants to use the excuse of smokers have no rights because it puts my health at risk. What about New York banning trans fat? If I want to eat trans fats, how does that effect you? It doesn't. But the government once again decided to step in a tell people what they can and cannot do.

I agree. If I want to open a restaurant that serves chicken tenders triple-fried in lard, served up with a cigar, then hey, it's my restaurant. You don't have to come to it.

cincybearcat

Collin wrote:

You're probably right:)

I just think forcing people to make their bars, restaurants... smoke free isn't a very good solution. It would be better, in my opinion, to reward the ones who make their establishments smoke free instead of punishing the ones who don't mind smoking in their establishments without forcing anybody.

I agree...forcing them to be non-smoking is a terrible thing.

However, establishing safe air requirements associated with cigarrette smoke...requiring a certain level of ventilation etc is what should happen in it;s place.