No Smoking in Bars.....

jlew24asu

jeffbr wrote:

Are the employees there against their will, or did they chose to work in the environment?

that doesnt matter. its like an employer (construction company) requiring their construction workers to wear hard hats on site, for their protection.

floyd1975

pirlo21 wrote:

Sorry if this has already been said, it's a pretty long post!

Isn't the law there mainly to protect employees?
Every employer has a duty to protect the health & safety of it's employees.

That's what people say but what about the bars where only the owners work? Then there are no employees. I have been to a few bars like this that are covered under the ban in places as well. The bans are actually becoming a reason for a roving band of anti-smoking lobbyists to feel good about themselves.

jlew24asu

pirlo21 wrote:

What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?

There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.

ha thats funny, we use the same example.

chromiam

pirlo21 wrote:

What about a construction worker, working on a tall building without scaffolding or a harness?

There are health & safety laws attached to every job. It's standard practice these days.
I'm not saying I agree with all of them, it's just the way things are these days.

They are OSHA (government) regulations, not something that is decided on a case by case, state by state, city by city basis.

pirlo21

jlew24asu wrote:

ha thats funny, we use the same example.

Yeah, noticed that. Great minds think alike. Or is it fools never differ?!!!

Derrick

jeffbr wrote:

I assume you're also fine with the government regulating the use of trans fats. I also wonder if you would be OK with the government restricting calories or fat% and requiring a certain level of fiber in the food they prepare. After all, it is public health we're talking about. Perhaps they should regulate portion size, and restrict customers to 1 entree per day before cutting them off.

There ARE food regulations in restaurants similar to what you've described. By being in the restaurant I am forced to breath the air they provide, but I'm not forced to order fatty foods. I could order a salad. There is a difference between food ingestion and breathing air. Please don't forget that.

At least you are honest enough to recognize that this law has and will cause hardship to businesses. Some people try to claim that businesses are more profitable after the ban. If that were the case, why wouldn't a smart business person have freely chosen that path? The fact that these businesses need to be coerced should highlight the anti-business nature of the law.

Hardship only in relative terms. Once all restaurants are on the same playing field, none has an advantage over another on this particular topic. I guarantee you restaurants in my area (where smoking has been banned for over 7 years) are flourishing...even shitty-run restaurants are doing well. I'm not kidding. Dance bars have taken a hit, but pub bars and restaurants have done amazing business.

What if others voluntarily put themselves in the presence of smokers? Hasn't the non-smoker just infringed on the freedom of the smoker by voluntarily associating with the smoker, and then making demands that the smoker change behavior?

I think you're splitting hairs a bit here. If you make an effort to distance yourself from me while smoking, and I follow you, I've waived my right to clean air. Normal people will allow you the time to finish your smoke before starting up a discussion again.


Is it weird that I think they should make Marijuana 100percent legal and ban smoking cigarettes altogether? Ii have my reasons...they are long and boring, but those are my thoughts.

Derrick

zstillings wrote:

That's what people say but what about the bars where only the owners work? Then there are no employees. I have been to a few bars like this that are covered under the ban in places as well. The bans are actually becoming a reason for a roving band of anti-smoking lobbyists to feel good about themselves.

In this situation, it provides unfair competition, so the bar-owner with no employees would be given an unfair advantage over restaurants with employees. That wouldn't last.

floyd1975

Derrick wrote:

In this situation, it provides unfair competition, so the bar-owner with no employees would be given an unfair advantage over restaurants with employees. That wouldn't last.

Once again, I thought this was good for business.

Derrick

zstillings wrote:

Once again, I thought this was good for business.

The best for overall business is an even playing field.

PaperPlates

dunkman wrote:

just as a smoker is free to leave the bar and have a smoke outside

He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.

jeffbr

PaperPlates wrote:

He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.

Nice post. I tried the choice argument, but people are less interested in choice than control.

mammasan

jeffbr wrote:

Nice post. I tried the choice argument, but people are less interested in choice than control.

That's because a lot of people what their government to hold their hand from craddle to grave.

chromiam

mammasan wrote:

That's because a lot of people what their government to hold their hand from craddle to grave.

SO that they can blame the government instead of blaming themselves for making bad choices.

Derrick

PaperPlates wrote:

He's not free to, he's forced to. By govt law. THATS the difference. Freedom is supposed to mean having the right to choose. A bar owner can choose to disallow smoking. Then a smoker can choose whether to be a patron at said bar. Just as an owner could choose to allow smoking, then the non smoker can choose in the same way. A potential employee can choose whether he wants to work in a smoking bar or a non. Key word. CHOOSE.

the owner could choose to piss in the cooking oil too, but I'm glad there are regulations against that.

jlew24asu

jeffbr wrote:

Nice post. I tried the choice argument, but people are less interested in choice than control.

again, this is 100% true. but we are talking about smoking. not having this around anywhere is just good for everyone.

Derrick

I'm sorry but a lot of you folks are seriously delusional. Basically you won't be happy until there is complete anarchy and then you will call it true freedom...because you can choose to do whatever the hell you want.

If freedom were only about choice, then I could choose to shoot you in the head, and that would be ok, because I had the freedom to do it. I was just exercising my freedom to point the barrel at your cranium and squeeze the trigger.

As I said earlier, Freedom should be the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

even flow? wrote:

Funny if the stuff isn't made it can't be used.

What is your excuse on why there shouldn't be a smokers bar? Everybody in the place would know of the health hazard and would be in their at their own will. As a nonsmoker this would somehow offend you or any other person who dosen't smoke? You would feel compeled to see what you are missing, just to whine about your clothes smelling? I don't get why you people can't fathom a smoking bar for smokers.

Forgive me for "whining" about dying, tumors, and cancer because of someone else's uncontrollable addiction.

clothes...lol... you said clothes...

as an Ex smoker I can assure you I am missing nothing... I'm free of that curse... perhaps smokers should be the jealous ones...

farfromglorified

Derrick wrote:

I'm sorry but a lot of you folks are seriously delusional. Basically you won't be happy until there is complete anarchy and then you will call it true freedom...because you can choose to do whatever the hell you want.

What do you think is going on now, friend? When you can just make a bar owner change his practices based on your whims and desires, suggesting in the process that you own him and his establishment, you are the one championing violent anarchy. Try selling the anarchy crap to people who aren't defending property rights.

If freedom were only about choice, then I could choose to shoot you in the head, and that would be ok, because I had the freedom to do it. I was just exercising my freedom to point the barrel at your cranium and squeeze the trigger.

No. You don't understand the philosophical meanings or roots of freedom. Please read some philosophy on the subject. I don't care if it's Rand or if it's Marx or whatever, but "freedom to kill someone" is a contradiction.

As I said earlier, Freedom should be the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom.

Then your law is invalid since it infringes on everyone's freedom.

Derrick

farfromglorified wrote:

Then your law is invalid since it infringes on everyone's freedom.

Second hand smoke kills. The government promotes safe workplaces. All workplaces should be subjected to the same rules. End of story. Good luck with your crusade.

mammasan

Derrick wrote:

Second hand smoke kills. The government promotes safe workplaces. All workplaces should be subjected to the same rules. End of story. Good luck with your crusade.

So does working on a fishing boat in the Bering Strait should that be outlawed.