Public Smoking Ban

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,221
28,920
136
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.

Workplace safety rules don't apply at home, that's why they are called "workplace" safety rules. OSHA and similar state agencies only regulate employee safety. They don't concern themselves with customer safety. If all the non-smokers stayed home it wouldn't affect the requirement to protect workers from smoke, even if the rules are protecting workers from their own smoke. The basic rule is very simple: Employers are required to provide a safe working environment. Allowing employees to be exposed to tobacco smoke (even if the employee is the one smoking) violates that requirement.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
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.

Can I walk into a restaurant and spray ant killer? Don't like it? Leave. Work there? Get a new job. It's about public health, you have no rights to smoke and the government can regulate public health, especially when we have to care for smokers with tax dollars.

 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: 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...

Fine. Make the bar private then. When this went through in california a bar owner in SF declared his place to be a private club. Cost of lifeftime membership? $1. I dont smoke, or like it, but should it be banned? Definately makes going out more pleasant, but no.
 

Trikat

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,384
0
86
I think that is a great idea. I don't smoke so that makes me a little biased, but I also believe 2nd hand smoking isn't good for health. (Duh)
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
It's hypocritical of anyone whom is for freedoms we are suppose to enjoy here to be for this ban.............I believe it's total BS and I've NEVER smoked!
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,221
28,920
136
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: 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...

Fine. Make the bar private then. When this went through in california a bar owner in SF declared his place to be a private club. Cost of lifeftime membership? $1. I dont smoke, or like it, but should it be banned? Definately makes going out more pleasant, but no.

This idea doesn't address the basic issue of workplace safety. The employer would still be failing to provide a safe workplace.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
Originally posted by: Todd33
Ban it. Smokers should be free to kill themselves in their homes and no where else. You have no rights to poison others.

:thumbsup:
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It's hypocritical of anyone whom is for freedoms we are suppose to enjoy here to be for this ban.............I believe it's total BS and I've NEVER smoked!

I'm for all kinds of freedoms, but one I feel is especially important is freedom from involuntary poisoning.
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: Todd33
Ban it. Smokers should be free to kill themselves in their homes and no where else. You have no rights to poison others.

:thumbsup:

Coca Cola is bad for you, so is coffee, the preservatives in most foods cause cancer, alcohol is definately bad............where shall it stop then?

 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It's hypocritical of anyone whom is for freedoms we are suppose to enjoy here to be for this ban.............I believe it's total BS and I've NEVER smoked!

I'm for all kinds of freedoms, but one I feel is especially important is freedom from involuntary poisoning.

Then quit drinking everything except filtered water, quit eating and for goodness sakes stop breathing because the pollutants in most cities air without cig. smoke is enough to kill ya!

 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
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.

My view is coming from one that cares about the rights of business owners. If it would be so popular to go out and drink at a bar with no smoking, why doesn't someone open up a non-smoking bar? By the way, who is forcing these people to go to PRIVATELY owned businesses? That's right, nobody. Your argument holds no ground.

 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: 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...

Fine. Make the bar private then. When this went through in california a bar owner in SF declared his place to be a private club. Cost of lifeftime membership? $1. I dont smoke, or like it, but should it be banned? Definately makes going out more pleasant, but no.

This idea doesn't address the basic issue of workplace safety. The employer would still be failing to provide a safe workplace.

Youre right. I was just pointing out a way to skirt the law. A law i dont agree with, but enjoy nonetheless. I wish Philly would do the same.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It's hypocritical of anyone whom is for freedoms we are suppose to enjoy here to be for this ban.............I believe it's total BS and I've NEVER smoked!

I'm for all kinds of freedoms, but one I feel is especially important is freedom from involuntary poisoning.

Then quit drinking everything except filtered water, quit eating and for goodness sakes stop breathing because the pollutants in most cities air without cig. smoke is enough to kill ya!

What we eat or drink is a personal choice. Second hand smoke is not. I can't stand to smell cigarettes, why should I have to? You want to kill me slowly, maybe us non-smokers should do likewise but in a quicker fashion, like with a back of a shovel.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: Todd33
Ban it. Smokers should be free to kill themselves in their homes and no where else. You have no rights to poison others.

:thumbsup:

Coca Cola is bad for you, so is coffee, the preservatives in most foods cause cancer, alcohol is definately bad............where shall it stop then?

You dont understand. Second hand smoke is bad. Is there such a thing as second had caffiene? Maybe second hand alcohol? I drink--probably too much, but it only affects my health. My health, my choice. Breathing second hand smoke in a public place? My health, NOT my choice.
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
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.

My view is coming from one that cares about the rights of business owners. If it would be so popular to go out and drink at a bar with no smoking, why doesn't someone open up a non-smoking bar? By the way, who is forcing these people to go to PRIVATELY owned businesses? That's right, nobody. Your argument holds no ground.

Not sure where you live...............didn't look but, there are several non-smoking bars, clubs, restaurants already around here and it's no big deal..........if smokers want to lay off, they go in, if not, they don't. Same way the other way around.if non-smokers want to put up with it, they go in the smoking places...if not, they don't! What's the problem?
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
This idea doesn't address the basic issue of workplace safety. The employer would still be failing to provide a safe workplace.

Work somewhere else. The bottom line is that this so-called "safety" regulation is not in coordinance with customer satisfaction. If customers were free to spray rat poison around the restaurant, nobody would eat there. If customers were allowed to smoke, people would still eat there.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
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.

My view is coming from one that cares about the rights of business owners. If it would be so popular to go out and drink at a bar with no smoking, why doesn't someone open up a non-smoking bar? By the way, who is forcing these people to go to PRIVATELY owned businesses? That's right, nobody. Your argument holds no ground.

Cracks house would be really popular but the goverment made them illegal, what is wrong with making smoking bars illegal???
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: Todd33
Ban it. Smokers should be free to kill themselves in their homes and no where else. You have no rights to poison others.

:thumbsup:

Coca Cola is bad for you, so is coffee, the preservatives in most foods cause cancer, alcohol is definately bad............where shall it stop then?

You dont understand. Second hand smoke is bad. Is there such a thing as second had caffiene? Maybe second hand alcohol? I drink--probably too much, but it only affects my health. My health, my choice. Breathing second hand smoke in a public place? My health, NOT my choice.

No, YOU don't underatnd....if they find reasoning to ban this, give it time and they'll find reasoning for the rest.

 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Cracks house would be really popular but the goverment made them illegal, what is wrong with making smoking bars illegal???

Cigarettes are legal. Bars are legal. People who smoke have no problem coming together. People who don't smoke generally tolerate second-hand smoke. Bars are privately owned companies and nobody forces ANYONE to go there or work there.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: Todd33
Ban it. Smokers should be free to kill themselves in their homes and no where else. You have no rights to poison others.

:thumbsup:

Coca Cola is bad for you, so is coffee, the preservatives in most foods cause cancer, alcohol is definately bad............where shall it stop then?

I guess you missed the bolded point. Ooh but I forget, us Coca Cola drinkers make sure to force a full 2 liter down non drinkers throats whenever we find them--cuz we're such EVIL people.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
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.
That argument has been made many times, but it's not true for the service employees, such as waiters, bartenders, etc. who spend their entire work day in a closed environment with smoke from many customers. The American Lung Association says this about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) (Canada) says in their position paper on second-hand smoke:
Restaurants and bars, which are both worksites and enclosed public places, have not been regulated in any significant manner in Ontario in order to protect non-smoking employees and non-smoking customers from second-hand smoke exposure. Recent studies indicate that levels of exposure to second-hand smoke are higher in restaurants and bars than in office workplaces or other businesses. Workers in restaurants and bars must be given the same public health protection as federal and provincial employees, especially due to the formers' increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease because of the higher level of exposure to second-hand smoke.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
No, YOU don't underatnd....if they find reasoning to ban this, give it time and they'll find reasoning for the rest.

Again, because youre a bit dim. My choice to poison my body is MY CHOICE. YOU choose to poison my body in a PUBLIC place? NOT my choice. You should read the thread--i dont support legislation of this nature, but i understand the argument. Do you?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Cracks house would be really popular but the goverment made them illegal, what is wrong with making smoking bars illegal???

Cigarettes are legal. Bars are legal. People who smoke have no problem coming together. People who don't smoke generally tolerate second-hand smoke. Bars are privately owned companies and nobody forces ANYONE to go there or work there.

Something beging legal is no justification for keeping it legal and something beging illegal is no justification for keeping it illegal. Everything else you said could apply equally well to crack house.

Something beging a privately owned has never a test to determine the validity of a regulation so come up with a real reason to lift the ban.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
No, YOU don't underatnd....if they find reasoning to ban this, give it time and they'll find reasoning for the rest.

Ya, the old slippery slope. Let them ticket you for jaywalking, pretty soon they will ticket you for walking on the sidewalk. Don't be stupid, laws are made from public support for the public good. It's not a conspiracy to ban stuff randomly for fun. You like to smoke? Do it in a private place, at home like the outcast you are.

You want "smoke" bars? Fine, just don't smoke outside of it and have a fumigation room that clears the air going to the street.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |