Fact is ...and someone posted this earlier and it was sort of swept under the rug...the ordinance was put in place in NY to protect the workers...had nothing to do with the patrons.
If this happens I am going to move to somewhere like Clute or Cleveland or Alvin or Crockett. Somehwere with some effin sense. If you do not like smoke in a bar then by God do not go there. Make your point by not giving them money. You do not however have the right to mandate what goes on in a place where entrance is purely voluntary. This is preposterous. What about copenhagen? Can I put a dip in in these Nazi Bars?
And, the argument about other pollutants in the air isn't very strong either. I'm sure we'd all like to have cleaner air in Houston, and none of us wants to breathe in the heavy air pollution in Houston. But this thread isn't about air pollution in general. It's about smoking laws. And sticking to this subject, the arguments for banning smoking are winning against the arguments for allowing it. -- droxford
or freedom of choice. Again, this can be solved with having establishments that cater to non-smokers and others for smokers.
Teh proposed ban in Columbus includes patios. Since employees have to service those areas tehy have to be non-smoking too. So I'm not sure how other states/cities are handling it but here in Columbus it includes patios in the ban. They tried to do it within 20 feet of every business entrance under the 1st draft, but that was taken out since at some places int eh city the only place 20 feet away from every entrance was the middle of teh road.
freedom of choice? that's such a non-starter. they're not banning smoking entirely. they're banning it in certain establishments. what piece of the constitution provides you a freedom of choice to smoke whereever and whenever you want? even the right to free speech isn't absolute. do you think smoking is more vital than that?? we always want to cite a freedom...we always want to say our liberties are being infringed. in this country, if it's in the constitution as a protected right...or if it appears out of case law...then it's there. otherwise, do my wife and i have a right to have sex in the middle of the street? can my dog take a dump whereever she wants? our freedoms aren't absolute. particularly not when they come at the expense of other people...which is the science behind why these ordinances are getting passed and then being upheld by courts.
So some poor bartender/waiter/waitress should be unemployed until they find an opening at one of the few non-smoking establishments? Isn't that a little more intrusive than say.....you having to go outside for a smoke?
So that answers my question then. Ban on smoking in public places could potentially apply to the outside as well.
It's always refreshing when I visit the Bay Area or New York, since neither place allows smoking in public places. The best part is going home and not having your clothes reek of nasty stale cigarette smoke.
Not at all. There are plenty of places I do not work for many different reasons. I don't plan on being a bartender at an Exotic Male Dancers bar any time soon...
of course, when you consume those things, the person next to you isn't forced to consume them right along with you.
First off, don't question whether or not I have these problems. I do. Period. End of discussion. I am allergic to cigarette smoke and I have been since I was a kid. I stopped playing live for almost 5 years and that was part of the reason. Second, name the place I can play where there are smoke free nights besides the Mucky Duck. There aren't any.
And nobody is forced to go or work at a smoking-bar or non smoking bar, or any other place. Isn't that good thing?
They are if they are waitresses, waiters or bartenders and, from what Jeff is saying, there are very few non-smoking places to work. But again....I suppose them changing professions is easier than you going out for a smoke.
