Public Smoking Ban

[BlancoNino]

Coudn't find any related threads with a search nor any up to date articles, but I found this in Wikipedia.

"Washington, 8 December 2005 banned in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and non-tribal casinos. Also bans smoking while standing within 25 feet of a door or window that can open. Currently it is the strictest smoking ban by state in the country."

So you can own a business but the you have absolutely no right to let people smoke in your own building on your own property.

 

[Vic]

Non-smokers who go to bars are far more likely to die from the alcohol they drink there than from second-hand smoke.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic
Non-smokers who go to bars are far more likely to die from the alcohol they drink there than from second-hand smoke.

And nobody is forcing them to go there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Vic
Non-smokers who go to bars are far more likely to die from the alcohol they drink there than from second-hand smoke.

And nobody is forcing them to go there.

And most of them don't. Think about it. Of all the people who voted in this election, what percentage do you suppose actually patronage a bar or tavern on even a semi-regular basis? Less than 20% I would say. Most voters are not 20-something youths at the bar or club every weekend, but older folks who probably haven't been inside a bar in decades. This is yet another example where direct democracy is actually unrepresentative and results in a tyranny. In this case, the revocation of the inherent property rights of the business owner. And for what? So people can get their alcohol poisoning on without fear of second-hand smoke (or was that just coming home from the bar smelling like smoke? ).

 

[ntdz]

I don't agree with smoking bans...I think places should be able to apply for a permit or something to allow people to smoke in their building...

 

[IronWing]

Good. It is about time workplace safety rules that cover every other kind of worker exposure to toxic chemicals were extended to cover exposure to tobacco smoke.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think it's a great idea, I don't need to walk out of a store and get enveloped in a gagging mass of cigarette smoke. I don't need to smell it or taste it in my food either. What would you rather smell? A freshly baked pizza or acrid cigarette smoke wafting out of some dumb schmucks pie hole?

 

[40Hands]

We have this kind of ban for the city I live in and I think it's great.

If you want to smoke then do it outside.

 

[desy]

Smokers bans aren't about patrons rights, its about Health and Safety and workers comp.
We have a ban, I quite enjoy going out now and go to a lot of places I didn't bother with before.

 

[cker]

That's why there's a 25 foot buffer zone around doors and openable windows. That doesn't sound bad; even when I smoked I never liked walking out a door and being hit with a load of smoke. And service staff at smoking-allowed bars and restaurants are in it the whole time they're at work. If they were in a chemical factory, the same exposure to cancer risk would probably get OSHA on the business owner. Mind, almost every waiter/waitress, busser and short order cook I've ever met smoked, but I'm sure not all food service staff do.

A permit system would probably be a good compromise. Smokers would rather drink where they can smoke, so a smoking bar would have a certain guaranteed clientele. I don't smoke anymore but I can dig that others may want to -- that way if I didn't mind smoke I could go to a smoking bar/restaurant, and if I just didn't want to deal with it, I could go to a nonsmoking bar/restaurant.

 

[Darkhawk28]

No easy answer to this.

I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Coudn't find any related threads with a search nor any up to date articles, but I found this in Wikipedia.

"Washington, 8 December 2005 banned in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and non-tribal casinos. Also bans smoking while standing within 25 feet of a door or window that can open. Currently it is the strictest smoking ban by state in the country."

So you can own a business but the you have absolutely no right to let people smoke in your own building on your own property.

Also if you own a business you have absolutely no right to let people smoke crack or pot in your own building on your own property.

 

[Strk]

I like smoking bans, they make places much nicer.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No easy answer to this.

I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.

Sounds fair and reasonable. :thumbsup: to that.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Strk
I like smoking bans, they make places much nicer.

Not much nicer for smokers, though. Not that I don't agree with smoking bans in some situations, but I think your rationale has to be better than that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I think the 25 foot buffer zone is excessive. I like the idea of 'smokers go outside', even if it does mean I have to go outside to smoke.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Strk
I like smoking bans, they make places much nicer.

Not much nicer for smokers, though. Not that I don't agree with smoking bans in some situations, but I think your rationale has to be better than that.

Why does it have to be better than smokers can't fill other people's lungs full of crap? (Including those working there)

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Strk
I like smoking bans, they make places much nicer.

Not much nicer for smokers, though. Not that I don't agree with smoking bans in some situations, but I think your rationale has to be better than that.

Why does it have to be better than smokers can't fill other people's lungs full of crap? (Including those working there)

Because that's not what you said the first time. "Nicer" wasn't clearly defined and is highly subjective.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Strk
I like smoking bans, they make places much nicer.

Not much nicer for smokers, though. Not that I don't agree with smoking bans in some situations, but I think your rationale has to be better than that.

Why does it have to be better than smokers can't fill other people's lungs full of crap? (Including those working there)

Because that's not what you said the first time. "Nicer" wasn't clearly defined and is highly subjective.

What else would I mean? That it improves the feng shui? I said it would make places nicer and that's pretty limited when it comes to smoking on what that would be.

 

[Todd33]

Ban it. Smokers should be free to kill themselves in their homes and no where else. You have no rights to poison others.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: desy
Smokers bans aren't about patrons rights, its about Health and Safety and workers comp.
We have a ban, I quite enjoy going out now and go to a lot of places I didn't bother with before.

If it's about health and safety they'd ban it at home where people REALLY don't have a choice whether to inhale it or not. The bottom line is that nobody forces anyone to go to public places where there is smoke. Work there? Get a different job. Shop there? Shop somewhere else. Plain and simple.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Coudn't find any related threads with a search nor any up to date articles, but I found this in Wikipedia.

"Washington, 8 December 2005 banned in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and non-tribal casinos. Also bans smoking while standing within 25 feet of a door or window that can open. Currently it is the strictest smoking ban by state in the country."

So you can own a business but the you have absolutely no right to let people smoke in your own building on your own property.

Also if you own a business you have absolutely no right to let people smoke crack or pot in your own building on your own property.

The local / state government has the right to enforce heath regulations.

For example, nobody says that business owners should be able to tell employees not to wash their hands after using the bathroom.

IMHO, smoking is the same thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

I believe all smokers should be executed.

With a lethal injection of nicotine

 

[Zambien]

That's fine by me. I wish they would do the same thing in MD. I hate going to the bar and smelling smoke. I also hate having to smell like smoke when coming home. Do I still go out? Yes. Would I enjoy myself more if there wasn't smoking allowed? Yes.

Also, I would think that this would help people who are trying to quit. I know a few people that can quit on the weekdays but can't make it through a night out at the bar.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: desy
Smokers bans aren't about patrons rights, its about Health and Safety and workers comp.
We have a ban, I quite enjoy going out now and go to a lot of places I didn't bother with before.

If it's about health and safety they'd ban it at home where people REALLY don't have a choice whether to inhale it or not. The bottom line is that nobody forces anyone to go to public places where there is smoke. Work there? Get a different job. Shop there? Shop somewhere else. Plain and simple.

It is the smoker who introduces a toxin into what would otherwise be clean (relatively speaking) air. Your view is an extremely egocentric one that puts your right to pollute the clean air over the right of people not to have to breathe it. EVERYONE HAS TO BREATHE WHEREVER THEY GO! It is the SMOKER who introduces the the foreign toxin into the air thereby altering the normal environment. When somebody goes to a bar and drinks, it intoxicates only that person. Not all the people around them. Smoking, by its nature, is intrusive and inconsiderate of the rights of others when done in an enclosed space. YOU are introducing the toxin to the air. Not the non-smoker. Not everybody who goes to a bar will always drink, but if there are smokers there they will always have to breathe that smoke. It is perfectly reasonable for people to expect to breath smoke-free air when in a public establishment because smoke is not there naturally. Smokers introduce the foreign element into the air. I smoke myself from time to time and if it's allowed in an establishment I will do it. But I think its a fine idea if they want to ban it indoors in public establishments because I am intelligent enough to realize that it is ME introducing the objectionable substance into the environment. In truth, I can't believe that as long as we've known of the hazards of smoking it hasn't been banned in public establishments long before now. But I've seen it coming a long time.