smoking ban questions

[cowhead]

Alrighty, here in the lovely progressive little town of Lawrence Kansas, the city commish is trying to pass a smoking ban in bars, resturaunts and all public enclosed places. (I've been to California and yeah.. it more or less works although some of the places we went in Oakland offered us 'candy dishes' aka. ashtrays) and I'd like to say I have no problem with banning smoking in resteraunts.. but shouldn't it be the owners choice wether or not to have his/her business smoking or not? that seems to be logical to me... (maybe I'm crazy).

so I guess I was wondering if any of you live in a community where a smoking ban has been passed and what if any effect it had on local businesses. (especially Bars and Music Venues)

[jaguar]

The arguement tends to be that workers have no choice but to be exposed to a health risk. I'm not really sure where I stand. I dislike smoke but it's a goddamn bar people. One of the things I enjoy the most on occasion is a good cigar and a long island iced tea, that's the kind of the bars are made for.

Resteraunts is a different kettle of fish. Melbourne does in theory but it's poorly if ever enforced.

Well, my retirement plan consists of a pack of American Spirits a day and a family history of heart disease. I figure that if I want to kill myself in the privacy of my own home or car, that's my business. However, I do not have the right to inflict my chosen method of self destruction on you. It does seem to me, however, that restaurant employees are free to choose positions in non-smoking establishments if they are that worked up over it.

[Elspode]

Originally posted by cowhead
Alrighty, here in the lovely progressive little town of Lawrence Kansas...

You're in Lawrence? I'm in Grandview...South side of KC.

Howdy, neighbor!

I don't like laws limiting legal activities in general, however, I play in a darts league, which means being in bars, and I quit smoking almost three years ago. The smoke stench is disgusting, but it is my right not to go to these places if I don't want to.

[Troubleshooter]

I figure it's the owner's decision. Dining out or smoking is a luxury, not a right.

I don't smoke, but if other people want to smoke, in another part of the establishment that is hermetically sealed and has its own air supply, I won't complain.

[warch]

I love to go hear music, but I hate to come home with my clothes, hair, coat and spouse smelling like a schmanky ash tray.

[tw]

Originally posted by Elspode
The smoke stench is disgusting, but it is my right not to go to these places if I don't want to.

It is your right to go to any public establishment without an attack on your health. NYC restaurants, to protect their customers, will sometimes put limosines outside in nearby parking lots for their drug addicted customers.

The cigarette industry long knew that they could get addicts to 'fall off the wagon' as long as they put a 'bottle of gin under the nose of an alcoholic'. The technique is simple and well proven. Get other addicts to smoke in public. Eventually the recovering cigarette addict will fall off the wagon. A typical number is seven years. As long as they can keep putting the gin bottle or cigarette under an addicts nose, then the addict will eventually succumb.

Curious is Phillip Morris position on all this now that Phillip Morris claims to have changed their tune - to actually discourage smoking. Ironically the ploy appears to be working. Phillip Morris has reaped profits where as RJ Reynolds lost money.

[Clodfobble]

They banned smoking in all restaurants and bars maybe a year ago in my city. It was a big hullabaloo. The main argument against it (besides the idea that the owner should have the right to decide what sort of establishment he would like to run, which seems pretty plainly obvious to me) was that people wouldn't go to bars if they couldn't smoke and therefore this would force all the clubs and bars out of business.

A year later, I can say with confidence that the latter does not hold water. People just smoke outside the establishments now and go back inside when they're done. There are definitely many people out on the street smoking, but attendance at the bars has not gone down.

[Troubleshooter]

Maybe we should define what a public place is, statutorially speaking.

[cowhead]

thanks everyone (and Howdy neighbor!) I smoke, although I try to be considerate about other people, my mother died of lung cancer a year and a half ago.. so quiting is high on my list of things to do. (and there have been periods where I wouldn't smoke for months)

BUT! if you'd like I'll post some links to local forums where the issue is being hotly debated.. I agree with the health concerns and better air filtration SHOULD be required anyway, but it's still my contention that the city should not regulate what a private business owner does*.. with in reason, NO I'm not saying sell booze or cigarettes to minors.. those laws are already firmly in place (damn it I was right behind the cusp when they raised the drinking age to 21... still a little bitter about that one.. naw, not really) as to 'protecting the employees' well... most of the bar/resturaunt employees I know (myself included) smoke.. and if they choose to work in a smoking enviroment.. that is their choice.


* the funny thing is that the issue right before the smoking ban issue was that the city has decided that parts of the patriot act are unconstitutional and intrusive into the lives of larryville citizens and has chosen not to comply with certian aspects of it (ie. getting reading lists from the library.) so it seems hypocritical at best to propose this ban... (also they have no real means of enforcing it.. they want teh firemarshalls to be out pounding the beat cracking down on this.. there are all of 5 firemarshalls... and well over 100k citizens and gawd knows how many bars/resturaunts.. also on a side note the wording about 'public areas is very very vauge, it could be taken such that I can't smoke in my car with the windows down while driving on a public street.. it's too vague. okay I'm rambling.. sorry was up way too late last night junking out on FFX)

[Elspode]

Originally posted by tw
It is your right to go to any public establishment without an attack on your health.

I agree to the extent that publically *owned* places should be smoke free by law, but I believe that the status of smoking in privately held properties should be at the owner's discretion.

The market would decide whether establishments that were smoke free would become more popular than those who allowed smoking, and if smoke-free became more popular, and therefore profitable, every other place would soon be smoke-free.

[Skunks]

I don't smoke and I don't drink, but some of the people I used to hang out with before my German class last term did lots of both. One of them, in particular, was female and disliked the smoking-in-bars ban.

Her rationale, as I recall, was thus:

If she goes outside to smoke, she's leaving the relative comfort of the bar/etc to stand outside in the maybe cold maybe wet where she has to deal with random crazies in the dark. Inside, her drink sits unattended where someone could potentially spike it.

[TheLorax]

I didn’t know there were still places that allowed this. It’s about the employees, what you dealing with here is an OSHA situation and rising costs of healthcare.

[elSicomoro]

Continue to treat smokers like criminals, and you will wind up creating criminals.

[Elspode]

As far as I can see, in another twenty years, we will be so protected from ourselves that we will be unable to do anything at all.

If we make everyone a criminal in some way, shape or form, everyone will be easier to control. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Tinfoil hats, anyone?