I am 99% sure OSHA has regulations on the concentrations of "particles" in the air as it does on the concentrations of benzene in the air. I wonder how well bars and clubs stack up against these regulations. I am pretty sure most buildings are non smoking because of liability problems. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. "-Oliver Wendell Holmes. I don't have a problem with smoking in private places. I don't have a problem with people that smoke in well ventilated areas. If y'all want an air tight room to smoke go ahead. I don't want to breathe your smoke.
I believe the correct spelling is "douche bag." But hey, we all know that smoking kills brain cells, right?
To Jeff and others I say this...we can live in a world where we all can have what we want on this issue. We can live in a place (lets say Texas) where there are restaurants and clubs that have smoking, because their clients and employees smoke and/or don't mind smoke, AND where there are restaurants and clubs that are NO smoking. But not if its banned by the government. If non-smokers are a significant number AT ALL (which I don't think anyone would dispute) then they should be able to generate enough demand in the marketplace to sustain restaurants and clubs that cater to their point of view. At the same time there is definitely a market for restaurants and clubs that people want to allow smoking. There are employees that would work in those establishments. Personally, I always liked waiting tables (in college) in the smoking section because smokers drink and tip better on larger checks. Where is the harm. You don't want to play there? Don't play there. You don't want to sit next to a smoker while you eat? Don't go there. Go somewhere else. Spend your consumer dollar somewhere else. Why ban what I want 'cause you don't like it? If the non-smoking constituency is large enough to pass a LAW banning smoking, why aren't they large enough to sustain clubs and restaurants that DECIDE THEMSELVES not to allow smoking? The reason is that it's probably easier to pass a law than to get out and focus your campaign on business people who WANT the smokers dollar. You are removing my freedom because you don't like the 'smell' and while you have an easy non-infringing alternative. You don't like butts on the sidewalk? Pass a strict litter ordinance. Stop REMOVING public ashtrays. There are public trashcans for my freakin Twinkie wrapper, right? You don't have to ban an activity that is LEGAL and perfectly within the scope of what our freedoms are supposed to allow.
I don't care if you smoke and I don't care if you don't believe that second hand smoke isn't harmful. The thing is that I KNOW second hand smoke is harmful to me, which means that your HABIT interrupts my normal activities. It is easier for you to NOT smoke than it is for me to NOT breathe. That is the key difference. If your decision effects you, that's up to you. But, if your decision effects me, we share the responsibility.
I can't stand it when I am walking on campus behind some ass that finds it refreshing to smoke at 8 in the morning, all the while leaving me in his cloudy trail. Clubs and bars are different...when I want to convene somewhere and brave the smoke I will...and I don't mind since it is my choice to be there. But when I am going about my daily business and have to breathe that crap in when I am not making a conscious choice to do so, that is what ticks me off. I think they should ban cigs...I know it will never happen...but I would be a much happier person if it was like weed...you just smoke it in your home and not bother anybody else with it.
haha .. its looks like Hayes street just freaking schooled all of you!! Hail to Hayes Street... nobody even attempted to really even try to come back with anything at all .. you guys crack me up continously.... am I the only one who saw his post??!!! hilarious.. by the way : your crap music jeff is polluting the air and frankly my ears dont want to hear it.. It is easier for you to NOT play music than it is for me to NOT hear it. That is the key difference. If your decision effects you, that's up to you. But, if your decision effects me, we share the responsibility. next...
Hayes, Maybe smokers drink more because they have the more addictive personality. I don't mind banning cigarettes in Restaurants and office buildings, but not in bars. I do not mind smoking, and for your information, I belive the non smoking population out numbers the smoking population by more then 3-1, of course in Europe it is completely different. I think the reason that smoking is banned in public places is that it is proven that smoke is bad for the person using it, and the general public that is submitted to 2nd hand smoke. Smoking is bad for you, and if you choose to do it, fine, but do it in private or away from anyone else. Now about Cel phones in restaraunts.....GRRR !! DD
I enjoy a cigar about 6 times or less a year. Secondhand smoke pisses me off. But I do believe that private establishments such as restaurants have the right to decide how they will handle it. Obviously they are going to offer their patrons what they want. But I don't necessarily have a problem with regulations on smoking in true publicly owned places...smoking is something that does infringe upon the rights of others. You do have a choice as to which restaurants and other private places you choose to visit, but I believe that if a place is "publicly owned", then you do have a right not to have to put up with second hand smoke.
By the way: your worthless crap posts are polluting this bulletin board and frankly my eyes don't want to see it. It is easier for you NOT to post than it is for me NOT to read it. That is the key difference. If your decision effects you, that's up to you. But, if your decision effects me, you are just being an ass. Next. <font size=1>by the way, clubs HIRE bands to play, so blame them or don't show up</font>
Earlier in this thread, HayesStreet said I have no idea who is right on this subject, those who say "I KNOW 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to me" or those who are willing ot go study by study to show scientifically that it has not been proven. Logically, if smoking is bad for hte person doing it, it is also probably bad for those inhaling it second-hand. However, I am also inclined to side with Hayes in believing that the degree to which it is harmful to the second-hand individual is miniscule, much less so than some other harmful everyday activites. My view...out of courtesy, it is wrong to smoke in public places that aren't openly a smoke area (such as bars or clubs where it is well-known that a lot of people smoke). I personally don't want to smell like smoke when I come home. But to sincerely complain about being harmed, and at least be taken seriously, you would have to just as seriously complain about McDonald's putting too much salt on their fries, etc, etc. I smoked cigarettes for about 4 years and quit 3 years ago. Smoking is both mentally and physically addictive. When smoking, it is very difficult to understand non-smokers complaints - it really doesnt smell or taste bad to you...it is like heaven to you and you don't understand how other people could hate that.
That's probably not a good comparison because extra salt on fries is only a problem for the person eating them. The salt doesn't effect the person sitting next to you, but smoke does. I think that I should say that I honestly have no problem with people who want to smoke. I have plenty of friends who do. My only concern is when they don't care about my wishes. All I ever ask of those who smoke around me is to not blow it in my direction and to not leave their buts all over my place (or driveway as several did over the weekend after a recording session). I just think that stuff is common courtesy. It's like the old Steve Martin joke: Someone asked me, "Do you mind if I smoke?" I said, "No, do you mind if I fart?" I know it is a tough habit to kick. My father smoked for years and years and had a tough time giving it up. And I'm not naive enough to believe that smoking in clubs is going to ever end. Smoking and drinking, for whatever reason, will continue. I don't drink either but I don't begrudge people if they want to as long as when they are drunk they don't get right up in my face and spit all over me telling me something (which, sadly, often happens after gigs). I just think that arguing to me that second hand smoke isn't dangerous is like arguing to me that I should eat meat. I don't tell you not to smoke because it is dangerous or not to eat meat, so I would expect you to respect my wishes as well.
Good point, and I agree with you about the fart comparison...I was actually thinking of using that. Anyway, the reason I used the salt thing was because it seems even more odd for a person to complainabout something that is only slightly detrimental to their health (in smoking) than something that may be more obviously so. But, it is your perogative to kill yourself, and not someone else's, so a better analogy should have been used!
Jeff, The problem is that you are simply in an extremely SMALL minority. Although non-smokers outnumber smokers 3 to 1 (as DaDakota has stated - unconfirmed but reasonable), those who are nonsmokers and get 'physically sick' from smoke are statistically insignificant. Meaning that the percentage of non-smokers who get physically sick is so small that it is unreasonable to base government policy around your position. Its entirely possible that you are allergic to smoke/tobacco. That does not prove anything about ETS being harmful to the general populace. For example, some people with asthma can't go into places where they burn heavy incense. The smoke is too strong. My wife gets migraines from heavy incense. Should the government BAN incense inside restaurants and bars? No, and its not because it has no adverse effect on ANY of the population, its because it doesn't have an adverse effect on ENOUGH of the population. And again, you ignore the fact that you either CHOOSE to frequent these places or not, no one is forcing you to go. Yet you would FORCE your choice on others. And the McDonalds analogy, while slightly off center is more applicable than you think. You can CHOOSE to eat those salty fries (I do I admit) or you can CHOOSE not to. Just like you can CHOOSE to frequent a smoking place or NOT to. But like many non-smokers, its easier for you to pass an ordinance banning smoking (who cares, its not YOUR right to choose you're stripping) than to demand non smoking establishments from the proprietors themselves. As for the butts, again you've ignored my first post, where I propose we could increase the penalty for littering, stop the removal of public ashtrays, and you could even speak up when you see someone doing it. Maybe they really aren't conscious of it as a problem. One other post sticks out in my mind, the 'I got stuck behind someone walking across campus smoking post.' Why don't you get a grip. You could NOT WALK directly behind that person. You could step to the side. You could take a different route. You could stop for five seconds and let space open up between you and that person. You could speed up and pass the person (smokers generally don't walk too quickly). You could JOG TO CLASS, mr healthy man. Your's is such a minor complaint, that for you to think smoking should be banned to ameliorate it is completely FACIST. Me no like, Me Ban.
Irrelevant. I merely pointed this out to show that there are employees who don't mind working in smoking establishments. Smokers drink alcohol, have larger checks, give larger tips. I can understand offices, although I believe you still choose where to work, and that the company should make the policy, not the government. But what is the difference between a restaurant and a bar? You can CHOOSE to frequent those you like (it could be the food or the atmosphere OR their smoking policy) and avoid those you don't. It is proven to be bad for a smoker. It is simply false that second hand smoke has a 'health' related effect on non-smokers around it. That doesn't mean there aren't people like Jeff, who might be allergic to a specific substance, but there is not a health related danger to the general populace from second hand smoke. As I posted earlier, the effect is best comparable (when you are in a REALLY smokey place) to standing around your barbeque. Now what kinda Texan is gonna ban Barbeque?
Which would go directly to my point that non-smoking restaurants (as designated by their OWNERS and their CLIENTS) shouldn't have any trouble sustaining business. By the same token, neither should restaurants that ALLOW smoking. I just find this 'smokers don't have consideration' argument totally ridiculous. You have a choice whether you are a smoker or not, to eat and drink, where you want. If you don't like Mexican food, do you go to a Mexican restaurant and demand Bratwurst? NO. If you don't like loud music because it causes your head to hurt, do you go to loud clubs and demand they play a New Age 'natural sounds' CD? NO. If you don't like smoke, avoid places that allow it (or WOULD allow it if it wasn't banned). How about this: I want to open a restaurant in Austin. I'm gonna call it EAT AND SMOKE. I smoke and I advertise for new employees that either smoke or don't care about the smoke. I serve food and drinks and every table has an ashtray. I even hire someone to pick up the butts in the parking lot and on the sidewalk around my restaurant. I have ashtrays outside. Guess what. I can't open this restaurant. Your position is that it would be 'inconsiderate' of me. I think you're wacked, and that your inclination to FORCE me to abide by what you consider 'common courtesy' smacks of the worst form of majority domination of a minority. It is oppression at its worst.
I don't care <b>if</b> you smoke, I do care tremendously <b>when</b> your smoking irritates me. Since it irritates me, I imagine it is not good for me (that's the way the body works) and it may even be seriously damaging to me. But that it bothers me should be <b>enough of a consideration</b> in a civilized society, shouldn't it? It's not the 40s or 50s anymore when few people had the kind of serious objection to smoking that people have today. BTW, what is this BS about second-hand smoke not being bad for you? It's the same sh*t that is sucked through the other end (without a filter) and is causing cancer there. What kind of idiot would believe that second-hand smoke is not dangerous? Who give a cr*p what manipulated studies show or that there is no "proof." Haven't we seen that tactic from tobacco companies before? Use your head. Since this is a public health issue, there should be no doubt smoking should be banned in enclosed public places. Just as we have greenways, we should have "clean airways!" I could see "smokers restaurants" or "bars" being allowed since they aren't strictly public places, but the default position should be smokeless not smoky.......
I don't care if you don't like smoking, I do care tremendously WHERE you can decide I smoke. Especially when you can GO SOMEPLACE ELSE where smoking is not allowed. Yes, that is your imagination. Its not seriously damaging to you. You are just wrong unless you are talking about your eyes being irritated. And again you can go someplace else that does not allow smoking. Uh, no. We are not alike. In a civilized 'democratic' society we try to balance differing points of view, not ban them. Then you should have no problem finding a restaurant or bar or workplace that is not smoking. Again you can go someplace else that is non-smoking. There is no need to take away my rights to congregate and eat and drink and work with other smokers. Your logic is flawed (if any is present). The fact that the tobacco companies lied about one fact does not mean they lie about everything. The US government that has championed the non-smokers cause has lied about MANY things to the American public. So can we not trust what they say? The smoke that I breathe into my lungs is NOT the same that you breathe as a bystander. The concentrations are not the same. The composition is not the same. But very clever to preclude any reference to science by dismissing any 'proof' out of hand. Doctors lie. Read about all the procedures that are unnecessary every year. Do you think the AMA is some 'pure' organization that only has your best interests in mind? They make their living off you being SICK, not well. We have to evaluate each claim on their own merits. In this case your common man logic has been proven to be INCORRECT. In the case of public places that are not indoors or well ventilated, there is not even an argument from any side. Its not a public health issue so ban it is an irresponsible revocation of my rights. You have the right to congregate in a place that does not allow smoking. I've got no problem with that. I've got the right to congregate in a place that ALLOWS smoking. No, protecting our rights should be the default position. To remove someone's rights you should be able to advance a conclusive argument WHY the government would take such an action and WHY the result is more important to society. In public spaces that are enclosed, it might be reasonable to restrict smoking in libraries and schools. But I'm sorry, 'I don't like the smell' and 'It irritates my eyes when I'm out at 2 in the morning' is not something that justifies removing this right.
Hayes: One smoker can effect dozens of people in a small space by the act of smoking. Smoking sections in restaurants are growing smaller and smaller for a reason. Fewer people are doing it and it has grown increasingly bothersome to those who don't. While I'm not sure I'd want a government ban, I think that, eventually, smoking will disappear in public places. On second hand smoke, Hayes, I assume you are not a tobacco researcher and I also assume you don't work for a cigarette company. I may be wrong. The thing is that it is very logical to draw the conclusion that if you inhale smoke through a filter into your lungs and that has been conclusively shown to cause cancer (among other things) that drawing that same smoke into your lungs as a result of the smoke being in the air would pose an inherent risk to you. You are right that incence can be an irritant. That is why you shouldn't inhale the smoke from it directly. The general rule is that it is in an open place with decent ventilation. I burn incence (or my wife does) fairly often and it bugs me too if I am in close contact but not if it is in a big open room. The problem with smoking is that it is rarely in a big open room OR rarely just one person smoking. The combination of multiple smokers in a smaller enclosed space is awful for anyone. The carcinogens in that smoke cannot be GOOD for you even if you think they aren't necessarily harmful. I don't know a single person that walks through a smoke-filled room breathing deeply going, "Ahhhhh, smell that air!" That should be enough to clue you in that something isn't right. By the way, you mentioned citing study upon study showing second hand smoke isn't harmful. Are chance any of those studies NOT sponsored by tobacco companies? We're probably just going to have to agree to disagree on this one or we'll just keep going round and round.
