Dumbass. I was saying I can have you arrested for assault, whereas nonsmokers can't have me arrested for smoking. I like your tangent on the whole thing, though. Run with it as much as you'd like.
I think Bar owners should have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking. However, that being said, it is much nicer in Austin to go to bars now......you don't leave there reaking of smoke.. And the bowling alley is actually a pleasant experience now...with low ceilings and no haze. Just put porches everywhere, let the future cancer patients inhale and exhale on the porch. DD
Many strip bars have amateur nights that allow patrons to strip. If a bar is a strip bar and allows nudity its up to the bar to set its own policy on who is naked. And that's fine if most smokers don't want to patronize bars that allow smoking but they still have the choice to go to a smoking bar. To me that sounds like the market solution. There are smoking and non-smoking bars and how much business they get is left to the market to determine.
I'll just leave and not patronize that bar. But some non-smoking nazi will call the inspectors and make sure that bar gets a big fine...and pretty soon it will be the bar owner kicking you out. So flaunt all you want, your days of poisioning other people than yourself are numbered.
Still, that's part of the performance, no different than allowing someone to go up on stage and smoke as part of an act they are doing. The last time I checked, there's no strip club in which the patrons check their clothes in at the door and walk around naked. That would be a truer analogy to what you are suggesting for smokers. At the end of the day, smokers can walk outside, have a smoke and do what they need to do. The idea that they need to smoke inside and damage other people's health is ludicrious. Why shouldn't I be allowed to let of toxic or noxious fumes in bars so long as they are legal fumes? That is what cigarette smoke is to a lot of non-smokers. It irritates their eyes, and some people are allergic. If you released ammonia into a bar, they'd kick you out anywhere, yet it's ok to do that will smoke?
There are things like private sex clubs and massage parlors that allow people to do that. Why not then have some bars that are smoking and some that aren't? Why a blanket ban? The problem with a blanket ban is that in a cold climate like MN smokers don't have a choice and will huddle near the door smoking so non-smoking patrons still get exposed to smoke where as having a smoking bar they can go there be inside and not anywhere near people who don't like smoke. There are people who find the smell of coffee noxious, are allrgic to perfume, and wood smoke is toxic yet we still have cafes, perfume counters spraying perfume in the air and bars and restaurants with open wood fires. All of those to many people are very irritating but are allowed.
There are legal sex clubs in America? NYC has pretty much a blanket ban. Why a blanket ban? First of all, people don't go to a bar to smoke. They go to drink. Your logic is flawed in the sense that one could argue that certain companies could cater to smokers by creating a pro-smoke atmosphere. Why not have a place of work where smokers can smoke while they work? Why the universal ban on smoke in the workplace?? And here's where you miss the point. Even if you create places for smokers, you have to hire staff to work at those places, and they are exposed to second-hand smoke and their health gets damaged.
Not being a person who frequents them I don't have any details but I believe they exist. If I recall a former Republican Illinois state legislator, Ryan, got into trouble when it was revealed in his divorce proceedings that he had tried to talk his wife into going into to them. From what I remember the details weren't that they were illegal but that she considered it perverse. Anyway there are places where you can legally go and strip. Strip bars host amateur nights, massage parlors, and nude beaches. Of course there are bars that cater to smokers, cigar bars. If you have bars and other venues that allow smoking, and it sounds like NYC doesn't have a blanket ban since you yourself said it is 95% (not a 100%) of bars that don't allow smoking that 5% has employees who are exposed to smoke in their workplace and conversely could probably smoke at their workplace on breaks. Employment laws though provide reasonable protection and under that people are allowed to work in jobs with extremely high risks to health, construction, mining, deep sea fishing, fire fighting and police. Given that the nature of the job presents an inherent risks it would be illogical that worker protection laws go so far as to make it impossible to work there, ie saying police could never be exposed to guns. So while exposure to second hand smoke is harmful if you allow the enjoyment of a legal product then the accomodation would be to mandate better air circulation. It goes along the lines as having a wood burning fire produces toxins but since you are allowed to have a bar or a restaurant with one inside rather than blanket ban wood burning fires OSHA, health and building codes mandate greater ventilation to deal with it.
well, in nyc it's more of a 99.9% ban. And the smoke chops are really smoke shops - where the focus is the cigars and tobacco products. They are not bars first. So yes, there is a 0.1% exception (or 5% as you like to extend it), but you know what, I don't know a single smoker who goes to those to any of those 2 or 3 places. Can you imagine if the 2 million smokers did? It would be a slightly crowded to say the least. And you couldn't make a cop walk through the shooting range dodging bullets. That's what you are suggesting as an analogy. So again, this isn't the 1800's or fast-food nation where you can force illegals to get munched up in machines. Even firefighters are given equipment, shouldn't employees at smoke-filled bars have the same? I think smokers will lose on this one. Because ultimately, any bar that doesn't enforce the ban will be liable to a lawsuit since they can be sued now (just because the police don't enforce it, doesn't mean it's not illegal). But I am disturbed that you put the rights of addicts above those seeking to breathe clean air.
We are not doing that. I don't get why yall keep saying that. We just want a few places where nobody cares, and people just want to work or drink at a real bar. Those looking to breath air with no smoke will not be affected.
yup. Options is all people are saying. And that makes complete and total sense, much more so than a complete ban.
What is the percentage of smokers now? It was like 50+% but I hear it is falling rapidly. Smokers are like lepers now. DD
I'm not familiar with NYC's ban and don't have the search function but I'm going by your statements which implies its not a blanket ban at all. Whether or not smokers go there or not they have the option to do so. At the moment the market is dictated taht people like smoke free bars so why not leave it to the market to dictate that instead of a blanket ban? A blanket ban appears to be an unnecessary regulation. And you couldn't make a cop walk through the shooting range dodging bullets. That's what you are suggesting as an analogy. So again, this isn't the 1800's or fast-food nation where you can force illegals to get munched up in machines. Even firefighters are given equipment, shouldn't employees at smoke-filled bars have the same? I never suggested walking through a shooting range but you cannot deny that police, fire fighters, miners, deep sea fishermen and construction workers are all exposed to serious dangers. While I agree smoking is hazardous its not proven to be a 100% or even 90% hazardous and someone exposed to a smoke filled environment can recover if they don't suffer long term exposure. Also as I pointed out many businesses already expose their employees and patrons to smoke. Any restaurant or bar that has an open fire is exposing patrons and employees to as much harm as cigarrette smoke. Those things are dealth with by having increased air circulation so why not mandate that a bar that wants smoking to have increased air circulation too? That is a good point and I'm not arguing not enforcing it. I'm arguing whether it should be a law in the first place. But rights aren't about protecting people from harm to themselves or offense to others. As I've said regarding free speech is that its not about keeping people from getting insulted. The point about rights is that if no one would get offended by the exercise of them their would be no need for a government to protect them. As I said I won't deny that smoking is a harmful and addictive activity but it is a legal activity. As such businesses should be able to cater to it if they think its in their interests.
Right to free speech as a comparison doesn't work. I don't owe you any First Amendment rights, personally. The government (state actors) do. There all sorts of things regulated because of health concerns. Food service and pollution come to mind. We don't qualify health risks by saying, "well this business really wants to engage in it, so it's not a problem." If it's a health risk to patrons and employees...then it's subject to the same sort of scrutiny. If it's not, then the government really has no risk messing with it.
Essentially, NYC has a blanket ban. The exceptions are so small that it makes no difference in effect. As for jobs with occupational hazards, they are managed and addressed by OSHA - are you suggesting that OSHA does the same with bar employees - you know what OSHA would do, they would prohibit smoking in bars. There's no reason for someone to be exposed to a toxic chemical when it can be simply addressed by banning the use of tobacco around workers. Smoking isn't necessary in bars to make the business function. Firefighters have to be exposed, as do miners and so forth, there's no real way around it....but that's not true for bars, so they can just ban cigaretter from the work place. What I find confusing - do you advocate then allowing people to smoke in any work environment? Offices, government offices, airplanes, or any other inclosed space? Why shouldn't that be allowed but allowed in bars? What about amusement parks, movie theatres, shopping malls, train stations, buses, all restaurants, and so on??? Why stop at allowing smoking in bars? I don't think the temperature outside prohibits smoking. If you are that addicted that you have to smoke right then and there - why do you need to poison people around you - because that's what you are doing. It's not offending people - you are poisoning them. You're killing them. You are increasing their cancer risk and taking years of their life. Is that fair? Is that right? Can you compare that to taking your clothes off or eating greesy food? I don't think so. It's more like drunk driving, where you are endangering others with your behavior, and that's not anything but taking the rights away from another person. Free speech is only valid so long as it doesn't endanger someone. That's why you can't yell "Fire" in a movie theater - because it could lead to someone getting hurt. Sure, they will recover form the injury, but that's not going to fly in court will it? By the same token, smoking in a bar is injuring someone, and that right can't be protected since it is impeding on someone's right to control what's put into their bodies. If smokers are willing to contain their smoke by encasing themselves in a bubble while in a bar, i'd support them being able to smoke in a bar. That way no one has to be contaminated with thier toxic fumes. Smokers complained at first about the ban, but they don't now, and they seem to make due with stepping outside for a smoke break, and everyone gets what they want. Smokers feed their addiction and get to poison themselves, and non-smokers get to enjoy a drink without having cancerous fumes floating in the air.
Hi New Yorker! Here's a suggestion: pretend to be a smoker that loves the ban. It worked great in the Macaca thread! Seriously, dude. You've given zero reasons for there not to be some mechanism allowing for one or two bars to allow smoking. It's a compromise that every other non-smoker on this BBS has said would be fine. As a smoker, I'm not arguing the ban. I think makes good sense for all the reasons cited. But I see no reason why a couple bars shouldn't be allowed to apply for (expensive) licenses to cater to a select crowd that wants to engage in two sorts of unwise and unhealthy behavior at the same time. And apparently neither do you. But of course you won't acknowledge that as that would lead to agreement between two interests -- anathema to one whose chief pleasure is argument for its own sake.
I was against the smoking ban here in Austin, spoke at city council about it, own part of a bar and thought it would hurt business. It didn't, we had a patio, people smoked out there. At the end of the day, I would rather the business owner have the choice as to whether to allow it or not, and let the consumer vote with their money as to which bar to patronize. But, I have to admit, now that Austin has had it for a couple of years....it is much nicer at bars. MUCH nicer ! DD
