Smoking bans for private businesses

[spikespiegal]

My family owns a nightclub/bar/eatery in Michigan were the ban was recently put into place. Frankly we were lobbying for it for years, but you can't enact these type of restrictions voluntarily because of competition reasons.

Anyways, the stench and health hazards created by the smoking environment weren't exagerated. Other observations we made after the ban:

- Decrease in what we would call 'trailer trash' cliental

- Increase in higher educated and qualified job applications. The career service industry folks who smoke two packs a day and dropped out of HS at 14 are now competiting with college kids needing a part time job and now have a clean environment to work in. Who do you think gets the job?

- Increase in families and higher class customers.

Now if we could get health care groups to give realistic premiums to non smokers we'd be onto something. Also, the reason you don't get wholesale bans on tobacco as a dangerous product in general is because of tobacco lobbies and the money the crank into election funds.

 

[CLite]

I personally don't favor banning the use of materials containing asbestos in building construction. Exposure to it can be eliminated for those working with it, and exposure for those occupying the building in which it exists only occurs if the asbestos-containing material is somehow damaged or severely disturbed; an unlikely thing to happen.

Well that's the world we live in being in a civilized nation. Just because you inform your employees of all the risks doesn't mean you can continue to use dangerous *unnecessary* methods. Some industries are naturally dangerous, but it is mitigated by effective laws. Asbestos was ultimately replaced and now less people have to fear long-term deaths due to exposure. Secondhand smoke will ultimately be banned from all bars that don't cater to cigars/cigarettes, and people will eventually accept it like the Asbestos ban. Laws evolve as we evaluate long-term risks for different exposures.

It's like if I tell an employee I can pay you $5 dollars and you won't have any risk, or I could pay you $10 dollars but there is a 0.5% chance I will shoot you in the head. This is of course an exaggeration but in the civilized society that we live in you can't take risks with your employees lives if there are reasonable alternatives and methods (even if they are more expensive) that would reduce their chance of injury/harm/cancer/whatever.

 

[xj0hnx]

Does the government have the right to restrict the amount of secondhand smoke that employees breath is the point of this thread. It has nothing to do with allowing smokers to work.

thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy"

Speaking of idiocy, the thread is NOT about whether the government can restrict the amount of second hand smoke that employees breathe, it IS about ...

"Do you support absolute smoking bans forced by government upon private businesses?"

It is about whether or not you agree with the government having the power to tell private business they can not allow a legal activity.

To quote ...you ...

thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy"

 

[xj0hnx]

My family owns a nightclub/bar/eatery in Michigan were the ban was recently put into place. Frankly we were lobbying for it for years, but you can't enact these type of restrictions voluntarily because of competition reasons.

Anyways, the stench and health hazards created by the smoking environment weren't exagerated. Other observations we made after the ban:

- Decrease in what we would call 'trailer trash' cliental

- Increase in higher educated and qualified job applications. The career service industry folks who smoke two packs a day and dropped out of HS at 14 are now competiting with college kids needing a part time job and now have a clean environment to work in. Who do you think gets the job?

- Increase in families and higher class customers.

Now if we could get health care groups to give realistic premiums to non smokers we'd be onto something. Also, the reason you don't get wholesale bans on tobacco as a dangerous product in general is because of tobacco lobbies and the money the crank into election funds.

Well that's good for you and your business, glad that your own social elitism was full-filled now that you don't have to be in contact with the lesser people.

 

[zsdersw]

Well that's the world we live in being in a civilized nation. Just because you inform your employees of all the risks doesn't mean you can continue to use dangerous *unnecessary* methods. Some industries are naturally dangerous, but it is mitigated by effective laws. Asbestos was ultimately replaced and now less people have to fear long-term deaths due to exposure. Secondhand smoke will ultimately be banned from all bars that don't cater to cigars/cigarettes, and people will eventually accept it like the Asbestos ban. Laws evolve as we evaluate long-term risks for different exposures.

It's like if I tell an employee I can pay you $5 dollars and you won't have any risk, or I could pay you $10 dollars but there is a 0.5% chance I will shoot you in the head. This is of course an exaggeration but in the civilized society that we live in you can't take risks with your employees lives if there are reasonable alternatives and methods (even if they are more expensive) that would reduce their chance of injury/harm/cancer/whatever.

Asbestos would've been phased out in new construction anyway, without a ban; better materials would've been developed to address health concerns. SHS in the workplace would've come to an end without a ban too.. as people who don't want to be around it will patronize places that are smoke-free more frequently than places that are not.

Things like this are examples of situations in which government regulation is not required to bring about a desired result.

 

[xj0hnx]

Asbestos would've been phased out in new construction anyway, without a ban; better materials would've been developed to address health concerns. SHS in the workplace would've come to an end without a ban too.. as people who don't want to be around it will patronize places that are smoke-free more frequently than places that are not.

Things like this are examples of situations in which government regulation is not required to bring about a desired result.

Don't you know? It's easier to assume that things wouldn't have changed if it fits your views. Obviously the fact that many restaurants eliminated smoking sections LONG before any ban came about is a sign of this ...oh wait.

 

[zsdersw]

but you can't enact these type of restrictions voluntarily because of competition reasons.

For your business/locale perhaps, but that is not the norm. Cities and communities in which patrons are vocal about their desire for a smoke-free environment started to see establishments go smoke-free on their own.

 

[CLite]

Speaking of idiocy, the thread is NOT about whether the government can restrict the amount of second hand smoke that employees breathe, it IS about ...

"Do you support absolute smoking bans forced by government upon private businesses?"

It is about whether or not you agree with the government having the power to tell private business they can not allow a legal activity.

To quote ...you ...

thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy"

Indoor smoking bans for private businesses directly control the amount of second hand smoke that employees in those private businesses breathe.

If you are implying that we are discussing a generic smoking ban that includes outdoor smoking then I can't believe this thread exists, because such a law would never be drafted.


thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy"

 

[JSt0rm]

Don't you know? It's easier to assume that things wouldn't have changed if it fits your views.

and its easier for you to assume they would have. you prove nothing with that statement.

Obviously the fact that many restaurants eliminated smoking sections LONG before any ban came about is a sign of this ...oh wait.

Proof or GTFO

 

[CLite]

Asbestos would've been phased out in new construction anyway, without a ban; better materials would've been developed to address health concerns. SHS in the workplace would've come to an end without a ban too.. as people who don't want to be around it will patronize places that are smoke-free more frequently than places that are not.

Things like this are examples of situations in which government regulation is not required to bring about a desired result.

Asbestos would not have been phased out in new construction, it's fire resistance is hard to match considering how cheap it is. Please link me the materials that are as cheap and as fire retardant as Asbestos.

 

[JSt0rm]

If you are implying that we are discussing a generic smoking ban that includes outdoor smoking then I can't believe this thread exists, because such a law would never be drafted.

Actually we are pushing for a ban on smoking on patios here in Beverly hills. You cant sit on a patio if you dont want to be subjected to smoke.

 

[zsdersw]

and its easier for you to assume they would have. you prove nothing with that statement.



Proof or GTFO

http://www.wapt.com/r/23170891/detail.html

Madison, MS had a voluntary smoking ban that they were pleased with... before businesses whined to their government to make the ban mandatory (an action I don't at all support, btw).

 

[CLite]

Actually we are pushing for a ban on smoking on patios here in Beverly hills. You cant sit on a patio if you dont want to be subjected to smoke.

Well this is about to create a 10 page tangent I am quite sure.

I personally am a proponent of indoor smoking bans on businesses as a means to protect employees from working environments that have a heavy presence of SHS. There is a measurably increase in cancerous particulate concentration in heavy smoking environments that are well above EPA recommended limits.

I can't see outside smoking leading to a heavy increase in inhalation of cancerous particulates, but that's really another discussion.

 

[zsdersw]

Asbestos would not have been phased out in new construction, it's fire resistance is hard to match considering how cheap it is. Please link me the materials that are as cheap and as fire retardant as Asbestos.

How do you know it wouldn't have been? Where there's a need, the market directs its resources to provide for that need. We've seen this point demonstrated countless times throughout history; new products replace inferior or less desirable products at the same or lower price all the time.

 

[CLite]

How do you know it wouldn't have been? Where there's a need, the market directs its resources to provide for that need. We've seen this point demonstrated countless times throughout history; new products replace inferior or less desirable products at the same or lower price all the time.

In this case the new product is not replacing Asbestos at the same or lower price, it is more expensive and not as fire retardant. I have stated this about three times now but you seem to have a knack for completely ignoring it. If Asbestos was not banned refineries would still use it for insulation on pipes.

It's like how ASME was originally formed, boilers were blowing the fuck up and killing tons of people on steamships. Until there was a uniform method for regulating people would just gravitate to the lowest common denominator. That is what regulations provide, they make the playing field even so that people looking to cut corners and save money by endangering employees lives don't get ahead. [Specifically this is about Asbestos].

As applied to bars what you have is bars that are consciousness of their employees health but fearful of competition from bars that are less consciousness of employee health. Therefore by instituting a regulation the playing field is made fair and people who are less concerned about safety do not get ahead.

 

[xj0hnx]

Indoor smoking bans for private businesses directly control the amount of second hand smoke that employees in those private businesses breathe.

If you are implying that we are discussing a generic smoking ban that includes outdoor smoking then I can't believe this thread exists, because such a law would never be drafted.


thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy"

Your interpretation of the thread title doesn't make it so. The thread is about whether the government should have the power to ban smoking in private businesses. Where do you get that we are discussing a generic ban that includes outdoor smoking (which as jst0rm pointed out has happened)? Stop making stuff up.

I guess i get to quote you again ...

"thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy""

and its easier for you to assume they would have. you prove nothing with that statement.



Proof or GTFO

Pretty much most major chain restaurants removed smoking LONG before any ban. You must not get out much.

 

[CLite]

Your interpretation of the thread title doesn't make it so. The thread is about whether the government should have the power to ban smoking in private businesses. Where do you get that we are discussing a generic ban that includes outdoor smoking (which as jst0rm pointed out has happened)? Stop making stuff up.

I guess i get to quote you again ...

"thank you for stepping up to the plate to provide a shining example of "idiocy""

I didn't say we are discussing a generic ban that includes outdoor smoking.

I said the thread is about "Does the government have the right to restrict the amount of secondhand smoke that employees breath is the point of this thread. It has nothing to do with allowing smokers to work."

You said no the thread is about "Do you support absolute smoking bans forced by government upon private businesses?"

I said "Indoor smoking bans for private businesses directly control the amount of second hand smoke that employees in those private businesses breathe."

Which is how we connect an absolute smoking ban to control of SHS inside buildings.

I did not claim we were talking about outdoor smoking, I only stated that outdoor smoking is the only way you would not connect a smoking ban to controlling SHS levels inside buildings.

How is this thread not about controlling SHS levels in the building? That is the reasons there are bans.

 

[Scotteq]

I didn't say we are discussing a generic ban that includes outdoor smoking.

I said the thread is about "Does the government have the right to restrict the amount of secondhand smoke that employees breath is the point of this thread. It has nothing to do with allowing smokers to work."

You said no the thread is about "Do you support absolute smoking bans forced by government upon private businesses?"

I said "Indoor smoking bans for private businesses directly control the amount of second hand smoke that employees in those private businesses breathe."

Which is how we connect an absolute smoking ban to control of SHS inside buildings.

I did not claim we were talking about outdoor smoking, I only stated that outdoor smoking is the only way you would not connect a smoking ban to controlling SHS levels inside buildings.

How is this thread not about controlling SHS levels in the building? That is the reasons there are bans.

Let's check with the OP:

Do you think the government, at any level.. whether federal, state, or local.. should be able to enact/enforce absolute smoking bans on private businesses?

The rights involved here are ones of property ownership and the right of association, not to mention the more general right of personal liberty....

Looks like you're wrong, CLite.

 

[Cogman]

A business should have the right to determine if smoking is allowed or not. This isn't the governments responsibility.

 

[zsdersw]

In this case the new product is not replacing Asbestos at the same or lower price, it is more expensive and not as fire retardant. I have stated this about three times now but you seem to have a knack for completely ignoring it. If Asbestos was not banned refineries would still use it for insulation on pipes.

In time it will be less expensive and, if the consumer demands, more fire retardant.

As applied to bars what you have is bars that are consciousness of their employees health but fearful of competition from bars that are less consciousness of employee health. Therefore by instituting a regulation the playing field is made fair and people who are less concerned about safety do not get ahead.

Fearful of competition? If a business is in fear of competition they shouldn't be in business. Business is all about competition. Afraid Bar X's no-smoking policy will take customers away? Make your business smoke-free too... and to sweeten the deal, add a few more drink specials that Bar X doesn't have.

Places/people who are less concerned about safety are not necessarily going to get ahead. This is almost always true, and it is especially true about smoking in bars.

 

[CLite]

Let's check with the OP:

Looks like you're wrong, CLite.

You do realize the reason for the absolute bans is the elimination of SHS from the working environment right? This is completely reasonable and analogous to Asbestos.

 

[CLite]

In time it will be less expensive and, if the consumer demands, more fire retardant.

What fantasy world do you live in? Materials don't suddenly become less expensive. The replacement materials require more manufacturing and are more expensive than Asbestos this was not and would not have been driven by some magical market force.

 

[zsdersw]

You do realize the reason for the absolute bans is the elimination of SHS from the working environment right? This is completely reasonable and analogous to Asbestos.

Reasonable? It's not at all reasonable, considering that most businesses have already voluntarily banned smoking indoors, and consumers can force the issue on any that remain by spending their money in places that offer what they want.

 

[zsdersw]

What fantasy world do you live in? Materials don't suddenly become less expensive. The replacement materials require more manufacturing and are more expensive than Asbestos this was not and would not have been driven by some magical market force.

Things become less expensive when supply exceeds demand. When supply is not sufficient to meet demand, manufacturing grows.

 

[CLite]

Things become less expensive when supply exceeds demand. When supply is not sufficient to meet demand, manufacturing grows.

No the process to create the replacement to Asbestos is more expensive and will always be more expensive period. It's like saying if we forced people to replace steel pipes with gold pipes that the gold pipes would suddenly become less expensive because market forces always work. Asbestos was and will always be the cheaper option however it was phased out by law because it had large long-term cancer risks.