Easy for you to say... unless you happen to depend on your job to pay for your food and rent, or if you happen to have a family depending on the fact that you're employed. :roll:
Easy for you to say... unless you happen to depend on your job to pay for your food and rent, or if you happen to have a family depending on the fact that you're employed. :roll:Originally posted by: BlancoNino
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.
Originally posted by: Meuge
No one is forcing coffee, coca-cola, food preservatives, or alcohol down my throat. Smoke on the other hand...
And the last time you were in WA state? Keep in mind that I grew up in WA state and currently live within 10 miles of the Oregon/Washington border. Smoking was already banned in all work places except in establishments where alcohol was served (so, for example, smoking would not be allowed in the restaurant but would in the separate bar). If you were familiar with the full text of the law, you would know that this was amending the previous law to include bars. Very few restaurants and bowling alleys still allowed smoking (except in separate bar areas) and of course the non-tribal casinos in La Center, WA still allowed smoking but only in the casinos not the restaurants.Originally posted by: homercles337
Roll all you want. Here is a quote from the OP:
Now, what was that you said? I see "workplaces, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and non-tribal casinos" in the OP. Where do you get "drinking establishments only?" Please share, oh wise dumba$$ (i included this because youre wrong and you insulted me first)."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."
LOL!Originally posted by: homercles337
Again read the OP. You look pretty foolish now, eh?Originally posted by: Vic
Which is the point of this thread. The Washington state law bans smoking in bars and taverns. That was the entire point of the law. Smoking was already banned in every other public place in WA state prior to this law. If you go to Seattle, and want to smoke a cigar, you are not going to be doing it in a bar, not even within 25 feet of the freakin' door.Originally posted by: alchemize
I hate cigarette smoke. But I also smoke cigars (outside, never around my kids).
I think it's reasonable to ban it everywhere except bars, *or* create ventilation requirements for anywhere that permits smoking. If I want to smoke a cigar, I go to a bar, or I go on my porch. It would be rude for me to do it anywhere else.
Originally posted by: Meuge
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?
No one is forcing coffee, coca-cola, food preservatives, or alcohol down my throat. Smoke on the other hand...
Deaths?Originally posted by: desy
Helloooooo Its not about the patrons or the owners its about the H&S of employees.
Its not about choice if you work somewhere rules and regulations dicatate what a employer can expect of you. They can't make you work more than Xhrs without paying OT for example. In this case they have to proved a SAFE workplace its like saying to the coal miners we aren't going to supply you with any safety equipment cause its our mine. Rules and regulations have been set up to protect employees not the patrons.
If a waitress is serving drinks how on earth are they supposed to avoid second hand smoke?
What the gov't is saying is that based on study the exposure to secondhnad smoke for an EMPLOYEE is unreasonable its called due diligence legislation. IT has nothing to do with freedom of the smoker or the owner to their right to run or patronize whatever kinds of buisinesses they choose.
/yawnOriginally posted by: SMOKE20
Yes, but you're not smart enough to know better so the gubberment better step in and enforce their will dontcha' think? Along those lines also, unless you buy everything from roganic grocery stores and butcher your own meats...........preservatives are borced on you daily! Do a little research, there are papers which state preservatives in foods may be at least as lethal as smoking and much more than second hand smoke...........
Originally posted by: Meuge
I know someone who died of lung cancer at 23. It came out of nowhere and killed him. He never lit a cigarette in his life, but happened to enjoy bars and the night scene.
When Bloomberg banned smoking in NYC bars I was extatic. And I have certainly done my part for the economy since - I am pretty sure I go to bars at lease twice as often now.
Originally posted by: desy
Helloooooo Its not about the patrons or the owners its about the H&S of employees.
Its not about choice if you work somewhere rules and regulations dicatate what a employer can expect of you. They can't make you work more than Xhrs without paying OT for example. In this case they have to proved a SAFE workplace its like saying to the coal miners we aren't going to supply you with any safety equipment cause its our mine. Rules and regulations have been set up to protect employees not the patrons.
If a watress is serving drinks how on earth are they supposed to avoid second hand smoke?
What the gov't is saying is that based on study the exposure to secondhnad smoke for an EMPLOYEE is unreasonable its called due diligence legislation. IT has nothing to do with freedom of the smoker or the owner to their right to run or patronize whatever kinds of buisinesses they choose.
With all due respect, your story is not believable. You are implying that less than 2 years exposure to ETS while enjoying "bars and the night scene" caused a person to die from lung cancer. That is not medically possible. In fact, no smoker has ever died from lung cancer after less than 20 years of smoking.Originally posted by: Meuge
I know someone who died of lung cancer at 23. It came out of nowhere and killed him. He never lit a cigarette in his life, but happened to enjoy bars and the night scene.
When Bloomberg banned smoking in NYC bars I was extatic. And I have certainly done my part for the economy since - I am pretty sure I go to bars at lease twice as often now.
You've been here for almost 4 years and you still have to ask this question?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you guys really this dumb?
Can you say lying, two faced mofos, boys and girls? :|Marketing Excellence and Innovation
Philip Morris International?s brand portfolio includes seven of the top 20 international brands, including Marlboro, which has been the best-selling international cigarette brand since 1972, and L&M, which is now the No. 3 brand in the world over the last decade. Other brands include Philip Morris, Chesterfield, Bond Street, Lark and Parliament.
Originally posted by: Vic
With all due respect, your story is not believable. You are implying that less than 2 years exposure to ETS while enjoying "bars and the night scene" caused a person to die from lung cancer. That is not medically possible. In fact, no smoker has ever died from lung cancer after less than 20 years of smoking.Originally posted by: Meuge
I know someone who died of lung cancer at 23. It came out of nowhere and killed him. He never lit a cigarette in his life, but happened to enjoy bars and the night scene.
When Bloomberg banned smoking in NYC bars I was extatic. And I have certainly done my part for the economy since - I am pretty sure I go to bars at lease twice as often now.
And you were estatic about what? That a law was passed forcing something that could just as easily have been done voluntarily by public pressure?
I gave you facts and links in my first post in this thread, directly replying to your first post. Try reading before criticizing. :roll:Originally posted by: Vic
I ask for facts, I get rhetoric and agenda... :roll:
Democracy is the willful violation of property rights? Democracy is the trumping of the capitalist system? Tyranny of the majority democracy perhaps, but not the fair and impartial rule of law. You see, you trap yourself here. If business owners would be more successful by banning smoking on their own, then the law is not necessary now is it?Originally posted by: Meuge
The law IS public pressure. It's democracy at work.
With regards to the young man's death, it was more than 2 years... and your medical claims are outrageous.
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.
Originally posted by: Harvey
I gave you facts and links in my first post in this thread, directly replying to your first post. Try reading before criticizing. :roll:Originally posted by: Vic
I ask for facts, I get rhetoric and agenda... :roll:
My most recent post also contains facts and links, along with my "agenda," which happens to be one of the only effective actions any of us can take against the tobacco killers. :|
Don't like it? Tough!
Originally posted by: Vic
Deaths?
C'mon, Harv... 100k people die every year from alcohol abuse in the US alone. Surely you can link me the figures backing up these claims (and not just "positions").
Doesn't matter that it's a privately owned establishment if it is also a public establishment. Just because it is privately owned does not mean laws and rules don't apply. The owner of the establishment still cannot permit things to go on in there that are against the law. It is touchy though because I do feel that most people who go to bars to drink do so knowing full well they are going to be subjected to second hand smoke as well and they make the decision. But the fact of the matter is, the non-smoker should not feel afraid to go into a public establishment or have to miss out on it because of air pollution that can be avoided or prevented. Time will tell. . .we'll see if patronage picks up or drops off or remains about the same in bars as more and more places adopt smoking bans. My bet is that the smokers who still want to drink will continue to patronize bars and just take their smoking outside.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Harvey
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)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.
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.
Deaths?
C'mon, Harv... 100k people die every year from alcohol abuse in the US alone. Surely you can link me the figures backing up these claims (and not just "positions").