Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Anguille]

Find me a person that can't find work anywhere but in a smoking environment.

These issues could be decided on a case by case basis, there's no reason for wholesale restriction of the rights of people to engage in a legal activity. Especially in light of lack of evidence that shs does harm. That is the definition of selfish.

I'm done with this subject.

Find you person who can't find work anywhere but in smoking environment? Well, at one time, when bars and restaurants were exempt from employee protection laws concerning smoking, there were plenty of people forced to chose between giving up their jobs or working in a smoking environment. That same situation could likely reoccur if smoking bans are rescinded. You are also forgetting that in many depressed areas of the country people will do any job they can get to put food on the table.

If this were a case of smokers complaining that they should be allowed to smoke in hospitals or schools or other places where white collar people work, the issue would never come up because that would mean that white collar people's health would be put at risk. But saying it's okay to put the health of unskilled workers such as bar employees at risk, to single them out as the ones who won't get the same protections that other employees get, is discrimination against low income people. And seeing as more and more people employed in the food and beverage industry are immigrants and minorities, it might even be construed as racial discrimination as well.

These issues could be decided on a case by case basis.

I believe that has already been done. At one time smoking bans only applied to certain types of places of employment. Now it's been determined that all employees deserve equal protection.

the rights of people to engage in a legal activity.

It has become a cliché, but a person's so called right to smoke ends when it infringes on another person's right to breathe.

Especially in light of lack of evidence that shs does harm.

If you still think that secondhand smoke is harmless, even after all the evidence that has been brought forward over the decades, you have your head buried in the ashtray sand.

 

[Anguille]

I think people who think smokers shouldn't have any place to smoke but outdoors, regardless of weather, are silly.

I quit smoking about 2 months ago (thank you acupuncture) but I've always been of a mind that the business owner should be able to make the decision about whether the premises should be a smoking or non-smoking area. I also thought the concept of smoking sections was a very good one. When I smoked (and I NEVER hated smoking... I enjoyed my ciggies) I really missed being able to have a cigarette and a cup of coffee or a cigarette and a drink. And, to tell the truth, if I were capable of only smoking "occasionally", I'd still smoke. I just seem not to be capable of it.

But, anyway, I digress... my point... the argument that the workers' health is a reason to ban smoking to the outdoors (and even then, people are rude, obnoxious and annoying to smokers) is specious. There are many jobs that are ACTUALLY dangerous. If you're asthmatic, perhaps working in a bar/restaurant isn't the job for you... but then again, neither is coal mining or working in an animal shelter.

Just saying....

I think people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they like, so long as no one else has to breathe it.

 

[Ravi]

Like I said, I'm done with this topic. You've not made the slightest effort to understand what anyone else on this thread is saying and now you're just repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth.

 

[Anguille]

Like I said, I'm done with this topic. You've not made the slightest effort to understand what anyone else on this thread is saying and now you're just repeating yourself and putting words in my mouth.

Not so, I have tried to understand why some smokers feel justified in smoking around other people, but no one has been able to give me a good reason why they do. I live in a crowded city and have to put up with people's smoke all the time. If there was some way I could reconcile that with some proof it does no harm or that there is a legitimate reason why I should put up with it, that would make my life easier, I would not be getting so annoyed when people foul up the air I am breathing.

But all I hear is nonsense about secondhand smoke not being proven to some people's satisfaction that it causes health problems. As if some smokers have never been told to their face, "Your smoke is making me ill".

 

[jillian]

I think people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they like, so long as no one else has to breathe it.

And I think you're free to walk away.... freedom doesn't mean freedom from everything that annoys you. Otherwise, no one at a table near me in a restaurant or on a cell phone would speak at mega decibles.

 

[Anguille]

And I think you're free to walk away.... freedom doesn't mean freedom from everything that annoys you. Otherwise, no one at a table near me in a restaurant or on a cell phone would speak at mega decibles.

I am personally not bothered at all by people talking on their cell phones, but you do bring up a related point. Many public places have restrictions on playing music loudly or other types of noise polution. It's called disturbing the peace. People who smoke around others are being offensive and are likewise disturbing the peace. Should people who don't like boomboxes on the subway just not ride the subway anymore?


I am curious, Jillian, why did you quit smoking? Do you believe secondhand smoke is a health hazard?

Congratulations, btw.

 

[manifold]

It's pretty simple gals, freedoms are not absolute even though we all, myself included, like to argue at times as if they are. Everyone, with a few exceptions, recognizes that sometimes it's necessary to restrict freedom for the overall good. So what I see here is a fundamental, and perfectly reasonable, difference of opinion regarding the presence of such a need in this instance. And it's pretty clear that Anguille feels very passionately that such a need exists, and quite frankly, she's made a pretty decent case IMO. However, the rest of you have not really made any argument that the need doesn't exist other than out-of-hand dismissals of any harm from SHS. Your entire position seems predicated on the idealistic notion that freedom is absolute, which, I know you know isn't the case. Being a staunch civil libertarian myself, my default position is that no need exists until convinced otherwise. But like I said, Anguille has put forth a pretty decent argument for which her elements of need have yet to be directly addressed, let alone refuted.

 

[jillian]

I am personally not bothered at all by people talking on their cell phones, but you do bring up a related point. Many public places have restrictions on playing music loudly or other types of noise polution. It's called disturbing the peace. People who smoke around others are being offensive and are likewise disturbing the peace. Should people who don't like boomboxes on the subway just not ride the subway anymore?


I am curious, Jillian, why did you quit smoking? Do you believe secondhand smoke is a health hazard?

Congratulations, btw.

I quit the first time to get pregnant. Then when my son was 6, I decided I could have "just one". Four years later.... I quit because I was going on a trip with a 12 hour flight and the thought of having to be at the airport 3 hours before that.... and then have to get through baggage claim and customs on the other end, freaked me out. Plus, I never smoked in front of my son or my nephews (who were also on this trip) and my husband said he wasn't going to enable me by taking walks with me or keeping lookout.

It was just easier to quit. But it isn't because I hate smoking. Like I said, I love a cigarette and a cup of coffee on my terrace in the morning. But oh well...such is life. As for second hand smoke, I think in small doses, it's no big thing. And basically, I think we have to balance people's rights. If a business owner decides his establishment is for smokers... that's cool. If he/she decides it's for non-smokers, that's cool, too.

I think the effects of second hand smoke are overstated....by people who whine because they smell something they don't like. But, you know what? I don't like being able to smell people's cologne/perfume/after shave when they walk past me... but no one's going to outlaw people slathering on perfume just because *I* don't like it.

The other day, someone on the board said that the last group of people we could discriminate against are fat people. But I don't think that's true. I think people feel no compunction about being rude to smokers... and there's one more group ... people who wear fur.

Just my feeling on the subject.

 

[Ravi]

It's pretty simple gals, freedoms are not absolute even though we all, myself included, like to argue at times as if they are. Everyone, with a few exceptions, recognizes that sometimes it's necessary to restrict freedom for the overall good. So what I see here is a fundamental, and perfectly reasonable, difference of opinion regarding the presence of such a need in this instance. And it's pretty clear that Anguille feels very passionately that such a need exists, and quite frankly, she's made a pretty decent case IMO. However, the rest of you have not really made any argument that the need doesn't exist other than out-of-hand dismissals of any harm from SHS. Your entire position seems predicated on the idealistic notion that freedom is absolute, which, I know you know isn't the case. Being a staunch civil libertarian myself, my default position is that no need exists until convinced otherwise. But like I said, Anguille has put forth a pretty decent argument for which her elements of need have yet to be directly addressed, let alone refuted.

trans·par·ent
4.
a. Easily seen through or detected; obvious

 

[jillian]

It's pretty simple gals, freedoms are not absolute even though we all, myself included, like to argue at times as if they are. Everyone, with a few exceptions, recognizes that sometimes it's necessary to restrict freedom for the overall good. So what I see here is a fundamental, and perfectly reasonable, difference of opinion regarding the presence of such a need in this instance. And it's pretty clear that Anguille feels very passionately that such a need exists, and quite frankly, she's made a pretty decent case IMO. However, the rest of you have not really made any argument that the need doesn't exist other than out-of-hand dismissals of any harm from SHS. Your entire position seems predicated on the idealistic notion that freedom is absolute, which, I know you know isn't the case. Being a staunch civil libertarian myself, my default position is that no need exists until convinced otherwise. But like I said, Anguille has put forth a pretty decent argument for which her elements of need have yet to be directly addressed, let alone refuted.

I think perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is saying SHS is good for you. Nor do I think there's any constitutional right to smoke in a restaurant. But... the argument that it's bad for employees is silly because there are lots of jobs that aren't good for the health of the person working. Yet they have the right to choose those jobs. I'm sorry, I think a business owner should be able to decide if he wants to serve smokers. And if such a business owner does choose to serve smokers, he will certainly lose Anguille's business...and should. But does Anguille have the right to dictate what all owners do because SHE finds something distasteful? I think not.

*That's* the point....

 

[AllieBaba]

Also, a huge percentage of the employees in bars and restaurants smoke themselves.

I always used to laugh when those commercials that said the percentage of cancer in bar employees is so much higher than in any other population.

It's because THEY SMOKE more than any other population. Not only do they smoke on breaks and after work, if you smoke in a smoking bar, you smoke AS YOU'RE WORKING.

 

[manifold]

I think perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is saying SHS is good for you. Nor do I think there's any constitutional right to smoke in a restaurant. But... the argument that it's bad for employees is silly because there are lots of jobs that aren't good for the health of the person working. Yet they have the right to choose those jobs. I'm sorry, I think a business owner should be able to decide if he wants to serve smokers. And if such a business owner does choose to serve smokers, he will certainly lose Anguille's business...and should. But does Anguille have the right to dictate what all owners do because SHE finds something distasteful? I think not.

*That's* the point....

I understand your point perfectly. You do not recognize the need to restrict freedom in this particular instance. In your view, protecting employees is superflous to any real needs because workers have it made and can easily switch careers. And if you're consistent, I'd conclude you also view everything OSHA and the Department of Labor do as superfluous since everyone has the freedom to not work. I get it. Really, I do.

 

[Anguille]

I quit the first time to get pregnant. Then when my son was 6, I decided I could have "just one". Four years later.... I quit because I was going on a trip with a 12 hour flight and the thought of having to be at the airport 3 hours before that.... and then have to get through baggage claim and customs on the other end, freaked me out. Plus, I never smoked in front of my son or my nephews (who were also on this trip) and my husband said he wasn't going to enable me by taking walks with me or keeping lookout.

It was just easier to quit. But it isn't because I hate smoking. Like I said, I love a cigarette and a cup of coffee on my terrace in the morning. But oh well...such is life.

I smoked too, for a few years in my late teens and twenties so I know how difficult it can beto stop. It too me a few tries and I discovered it was all or nothing with me as well. Trying to keep it down to one a day was much harder than quitting altogether. By the time I finally quit for good, I was no longer enjoying cigarettes at all. I smoked just to appease the cravings for nicotene. I hated that I would find myself digging in the ashtray for butts when I woke up in the morning and was out of cigarettes. I didn't have any of the problems after quitting that some people do, like gaining weight. In fact, I lost weight because all the extra energy I gained when I quit made me more active.

As for second hand smoke, I think in small doses, it's no big thing. And basically, I think we have to balance people's rights. If a business owner decides his establishment is for smokers... that's cool. If he/she decides it's for non-smokers, that's cool, too.

So I understand that to mean you think any business owner should have the option to set his own smoking policy and that would include owners of nursery schools, hopitals nay business at all?
Also by small doses you can't possibly mean the 8 hours or more that restaurant workers spent in smoking environments.
I think the effects of second hand smoke are overstated....by people who whine because they smell something they don't like. But, you know what? I don't like being able to smell people's cologne/perfume/after shave when they walk past me... but no one's going to outlaw people slathering on perfume just because *I* don't like it.

Perfume can be pretty terrible when too much is used. One time I was at a concert and the woman next to me reeked so bad my companion's eyes started watering. During intermission, we asked an usher to find us seats away from. But the perfumed woman was actually no less offensive than had she been smoking, I think it would have made perfect sense for the usher to ask the woman to leave. But society is just not accustomed to that yet, just as people were once not used to restrictions on cigarette smoking but now it makes sense to them.
The other day, someone on the board said that the last group of people we could discriminate against are fat people. But I don't think that's true. I think people feel no compunction about being rude to smokers... and there's one more group ... people who wear fur.

I am occassionally rude to smokers, I will admit, but I consider having smoke blown in my face justifiable provocation. I realize that many smokers aren't even aware where their smoke is blowing so my method is to let them know in a non accusatory tone that their smoke is making me ill and then politely ask the person to stop doing it or to move away from me. Most people appreciate that I ask in a respectful manner and they comply. If they don't then I let them have it, depending on how brave i am feeling. Definately there is a backlash against smokers. Not to defend it but I think it's no surprise that people who had to put up with secondhand smoke for years, who think smoker's behavior is rude and who felt their rights were oppressed, are going to feel inclined to get revenge of some sort.

Just my feeling on the subject.

.

 

[Anguille]

Also, a huge percentage of the employees in bars and restaurants smoke themselves.

I always used to laugh when those commercials that said the percentage of cancer in bar employees is so much higher than in any other population.

It's because THEY SMOKE more than any other population. Not only do they smoke on breaks and after work, if you smoke in a smoking bar, you smoke AS YOU'RE WORKING.

I don't know what places you frequent , Alliboob, but in no place that I've ever worked were employess allowed to smoke. Even smokers I worked with mostly favored the bans. The reasons being that cleaning up after smokers is extra work. When we had separate smoking sections in my state, employees would argue about who would have to work the smoking section.

 

[Anguille]

I think perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is saying SHS is good for you. Nor do I think there's any constitutional right to smoke in a restaurant. But... the argument that it's bad for employees is silly because there are lots of jobs that aren't good for the health of the person working. Yet they have the right to choose those jobs. I'm sorry, I think a business owner should be able to decide if he wants to serve smokers. And if such a business owner does choose to serve smokers, he will certainly lose Anguille's business...and should. But does Anguille have the right to dictate what all owners do because SHE finds something distasteful? I think not.

*That's* the point....

It's not only that I and a majority of people find smoking "distatsteful" we also find it extremely offensive harmful to our health, with both long term and immediate effects.
Saying that because other jobs carry health risks means restaurant workers should have to bear them too makes no sense. We should strive to make all workplaces as safe as possible.

 

[manifold]

We should strive to make all workplaces as safe as possible.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you said reasonably possible, I'd agree.

 

[Anguille]

... since everyone has the freedom to not work. I get it. Really, I do.

Thank you. Smokers have the choice not to smoke, it isn't going to kill them not to smoke. But few people have the choice not to work and if they don't work, they don't don't eat and if they don't eat, they die.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're talking about the two workers who actually don't smoke themselves, of course.

 

[Anguille]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. If you said reasonably possible, I'd agree.

Some workplaces are always going to be dangerous in ways that can't be entirely prevented You can't elliminate police or the military because of the chances of them getting shot.

Some jobs require certain risks in order to fulfill a higher need. So "reasonably possible" would have been a better way to put it, I agree.

 

[manifold]

Some workplaces are always going to be dangerous in ways that can't be entirely prevented You can't elliminate police or the military because of the chances of them getting shot.

Some jobs require certain risks in order to fulfill a higher need. So "reasonably possible" would have been a better way to put it, I agree.

No harm. Just trying to maintain my anal street cred.