Tee hee. Smoking "ban"

Most bar employees smoke.

In related news, the city of Houston has decided that all beer served in bars must be non-alcoholic, and all music must be Christian rock.

 

I'd have no problem with that.

 

Awesome that your father was able to honor God in all ways.

 

It's funny when even the supposed conservatives on this board can't wait to drop their pants for the nanny state. Shameful.

Come visit Israel, Fatty. I think you'd like it. Everyone smokes and there are no plus-size clothing stores. Only a chain for woman with C-cups and larger (no foolin').

 

I go out to listen to music again. I go out to bars again. This middle aged replicant used to be someone who lit up and enjoyed it, but after waving bye-bye to that, discovered that his body no longer could stand being in a smoky bar or club. One of my best friends is a heavy smoker (except when he quits for a couple of weeks, from time to time) and he recently moved back to Austin, living in a rented condo for several months while the condo he's buying downtown is built. Sadly, it doesn't have a balcony or patio, so his pad is like London in the 19th century. I go over anyway, but I bring a change of clothes to wear on my trip home, because they stink of cigarette smoke. I have a headache in the morning from hours exposed to it. While smoking, it didn't bother me, of course, but it does now. What's great today in Austin is that I can go bar hopping again. There are a couple of dozen nice places within walking distance of his place, and when we're inside, it's cool. No smoke, and when we go out on a deck or patio, we're outside, so I can handle it. Someone mentioned earlier that meeting chicks outside, where people were smoking, is easy. Not in the market, myself, but my buddy is, and he has great success with the chicks outside. Looks like a win-win, to me.

 

Maybe your arteries haven't hardened but I bet your clothes smells especially if the guy is getting a cheeseburger with grilled onions and bacon...

mmmm... getting hungry..

 

What I still don't get is why a blanket ban?

Why not allow some bars to get a smoking license like a liquor license? If we start with the point of that you have to get a license its doubtful that every bar will since studies shows that bars can still make money but in the case that a bar feels it has to allow smokers then they can cater to those.

 

In other news, someone drinking beer does not directly contribute to my risk of developing cancer, acute lung injury and everything else. Christian Rock probably does, but the clinical trials are still phase 1.

Using that "we don't need the government to baby us" argument about smoking regulations are so tired. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is demonstrably horrible for health - if you don't care about the health of the musicians who you go see at clubs (often uninsured, btw) or the bartenders - the costs our healthcare system (gazillions of dollars) deprive others of care they need / taxpayers footing the bill. For what? So you can expose people involuntarily to your whim / addiction / pleasure whenever you feel like it? Forget it.

They should not prevent people from doing what they want, and I appreciate the consideration of those who do smoke responsibly, and those who are trying to quit. I feel like most smokers are actually totally adult about it, and I'm good with that. But the cowboy smoker persona is such a product of tobacco industry advertising and their BS "Rage Against the Machine via Tobacco Users Rights" angle.

My right not be exposed to toxic waste supercedes your right to expose me to it - seriously, the medical literature does not at all equivocate about the dangers, it's not made up or mild. Secondhand smoke exposure is an extreme health risk- it would be irresponsible fiscally and ethically not to curb it in public spaces. I'm sorry it is an inconvenience to my smoking friends. But I think it is 100% fair to regulate your ability to expose my friends, family, co-musicians, friends in the bar-business etc., flight attendants, whoever to toxic waste.

Read the secondhand smoke medical literature. It's pretty damning.

 

"Republicans: Creating government small enough to fit in your vagina!"

 

In other news some people like smokey, seedy bars, not rumpus rooms.

We are not asking for every bar to be smoking, just some of them. But that's not enough for people like you who want complete control.

 

Again with the tobacco industry propaganda - "people like you want complete control."

You ignore the points in the post with a one line condemnation, and then suggest that I am being inflexible - whatever dude. I am fine with negotiating whatever. But please answer the following point: How you are going to protect the employees of these smokey seedy bars from being exposed to secondhand smoke, and how are you proposing we pay for their secondhand smoke related health problems? The "they can work elsewhere" may be an easy answer, but it is not in line with the health, safety and liability protections given to all workers across the US - you don't say "if they don't like working in a construction company with no safety equipment, they can go elsewhere." No, you have certain industry or government standard to protect them. How do you plan to address the problems these employees are so likely to develop?

I would suggest that their safety, and the costs incurred treating them -whether or not they agree with the ban or care about their long term health now - is more of a public concern than your affection for smokey bars. But I am all ears. Explain to me how this will work, with secondhand smoke so demonstrably and dramatically detrimental to health of those involuntarily exposed to it.

 

My dad has lung cancer (he never smoked). He has to pay for it. I don't see you pitching in.

Yes. They can work elsewhere. Most bartenders I know smoke and drink. It's why they are bartenders. Your compassion for bartenders is laughable. This is all about you.

 

I am sorry about your dad, genuinely, I hope he they caught it early and he is receiving effective treatment.

I pitch in with taxes for NIH research, of course, and if he is a public institution, through taxes as well. Insurance premiums, etc. And my brother, I am more more than happy to do so - for people who smoked too. I am not suggesting we ignore the health of smokers "because it is self-inflicted," or anything like that. It is just bad business and public health policy to continue exposing people to environments that are costly to all of us and so comically dangerous t their health.

Yes what? Most bartenders you know are bartenders so they can smoke and drink? I am guessing it is for money, as is the case with the other people who work there - the non smokers. Do these bartenders, in it for the drinking and smoking, accept payment in cigarettes and booze? My understanding of them is laughable?

This is not about compassion, even, it is about integrating emerging scientific data into public policy, as it is elsewhere.

But, I know, it is easier to insult and demonize someone than to sensibly discuss something. Thanks for the insults, it sort of reinforces my thinking that the Smokers Rights perspective has no legs whatsoever - it has to resort to saying evidence-based public policy recommendations are the result of a personality disorder on the part of the proponents. I'm totally willing to listen and compromise, but not with someone who advocates smoking by telling me that i "just want control" rather than coming up with a creative solution that protects people or contributes a fair share to their usage of our health care dollars.

 

Literature and science are two different things, but you've nailed this one. Second hand smoke propoganda correctly goes in the literature category. It's science by agenda.

As for costs, cigarette smokers bear a cost in tax that by far swamps any other activity. And if one was to believe the health literature of associated illnesses, cigarette smokers use a much smaller per capita proportion of the health care system than their non smoking counterparts.

Actually I applaud at least your rhetoric calling for an open debate, something you simply can't find with the ETS issue. However, don't so easily cast off someone's contention that this is an issue of free will because you can't deal with it. The simple fact is that in the US there is something like 7% of the population that smokes. If nonsmokers used their market power there would be very few places to smoke without ever having to BAN my right to do so, or to own and run an establishment to do so.

As far as health and safety goes, that is yet another red herring. There are exemptions built into most smoking bans (in colorado the indian reservations, for example; in Austin Trudy's has an exemption; in some cities cigar bars have exemptions). If this was truly a health issue instead of a ideological issue, there wouldn't be exemptions.

Oh, and besides - everyone knows smoking is cool.

 

Having some bars where people can smoke is the compromise. Smoking and drinking is what makes a bar. That is why it is a bar. It is not a health club. The compromise is letting people be unhealthy, even if it costs companies money. Even if it means companies can not test you for smoking in your own home or yard. If it means I can go to the beach with no sunscreen, eating a lard sandwich while smoking a cigar. "Health costs" is the new cry of the greedy fascists.

 

I'm for a compromise, but I agree with this. And, as some people advocate in the gay marriage/civil union debate, there should be a different name for smoke free public spaces where people drink alcohol. Bars should be defined as a marriage between a drink and a cigarette.

 

That, my friend, is poetry.

 

for all the smokers, just because you decided to ruin your health by starting to smoke cigs doesnt mean you should be able to affect others at places you enjoy going to.... is it really that difficult to respect non smokers by going outside and smoking. We have respected your habit for years. If quitting your addiction is so difficult, then smoking outside should be extremely easy. Non smokers didnt complain about second hand smoke so i dont see why smokers should complain about having to smoke outside. Its not like they are making you quit. Smokers can still continue to destroy their lungs and develop cancer all they want, just not indoors.

And for the argument that non smokers will still inhale second hand smoke from leaving the club or bar, thats ridiculous. When people all smoke inside, the smoke has no place to go but into other peoples lungs. When they are smoking outside, the smoke doesnt just linger in the air right outside the door.

Deal with the ban, or stop smoking and stop complaining

 

Read the thread moron. Smokers just some a small percentage of bars (real bars) to smoke in. Not all of them.