Smoking banned in private homes.

[KittenKoder]

The really funny thing is that the bans do nothing to curtail the smoking addictions (I smoke but want to stop). It's actually the education that has and for many of us smokers who do want to stop it's because of personal reasons (not even health related many times). It's the lefties trying to tell us what to do combined with the wingnuts trying to make a profit (thus the 'sin' tax). Neither side is doing it because they actually care about us.

Why should they care about you?
I don't much care about smoker's heath or needs since they they generally don't care about mine.

The anti-smoking campaign is as much if not more about protect the health of non smokers as it is to stop smokers from harming themselves.

I have a few friends that still smoke and almost all want to quit. I support them in their effort if they ask for it, otherwise I mind my own business and ask that they do theirs elsewhere where I don't have to smell it.

Um ... no evidence that non-smokers are effected by smoking even if blown directly into their face, so for their health first get rid of air pollution then maybe we can see evidence one way or the other. Secondly, with the number of people who wear too much cologne or perfume out there, talk about smelly! They should be banned more, those perfumes give a lot of people headaches and burn the nose. As a matter of fact one reason I am having a hard time stopping my smoking is because of all the offensive smells from perfumes and cars, if I go more than a few hours without a smoke I get hit with all those smells and almost pass out walking down the street.

 

[Anguille]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

 

[Annie]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Then welcome to a new country, it's not the one that made it possible for your ancestors and mine to make life better for us.

 

[Anguille]

Um ... no evidence that non-smokers are effected by smoking even if blown directly into their face

Get a clue!!!!

If I tell you your smoke is bothering me, it's bothering me. Take my word for it!

Funny how you whine about your headaches caused by perfume, but if someone were to have an asthma attack from your smoke you'd probably repeat, "Um ... no evidence that non-smokers are effected by smoking even if blown directly into their face.

What amazes me more about some smokers is how they can rationalize what they do to others. There must be something in nicotine that short circuits logic in the brain.

 

[KittenKoder]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Funny ... though you are correct that they are often mistreated most I know smoke ... and they smoke twice what I do. They gripe about the bans more than most of us as well. However, private property is private and the government should in no way infringe on such. As for making up laws, what do you think smoking bans are? Many businesses (most actually including many bars) went smoke free on their own, no prompting from any laws, no being fined because someone outside decides to smoke near their business, no being harassed by idiots with too much time on their hands. They did it to cater to the non smokers who didn't want to be in a smoky environment, and both types of businesses flourished. Now with most smokers instead drinking at home, eating at home, and only the non smokers (those without smoker friends) using their businesses they are failing. So now those who didn't force non smoking on their customers have to close so those who had chosen to be non smoking can make a profit.

 

[Anguille]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Then welcome to a new country, it's not the one that made it possible for your ancestors and mine to make life better for us.

How did our ancestors make life better for us by smoking around us?

 

[KittenKoder]

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Then welcome to a new country, it's not the one that made it possible for your ancestors and mine to make life better for us.

How did our ancestors make life better for us by smoking around us?

Tobacco has made us a huge profit and pays for most of the roads you use.

 

[Annie]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Funny ... though you are correct that they are often mistreated most I know smoke ... and they smoke twice what I do. They gripe about the bans more than most of us as well. However, private property is private and the government should in no way infringe on such. As for making up laws, what do you think smoking bans are? Many businesses (most actually including many bars) went smoke free on their own, no prompting from any laws, no being fined because someone outside decides to smoke near their business, no being harassed by idiots with too much time on their hands. They did it to cater to the non smokers who didn't want to be in a smoky environment, and both types of businesses flourished. Now with most smokers instead drinking at home, eating at home, and only the non smokers (those without smoker friends) using their businesses they are failing. So now those who didn't force non smoking on their customers have to close so those who had chosen to be non smoking can make a profit.

Exactly right. From my school we had a group of 8 that went out regularly to a restaurant in local mall. 2 of us smoked and don't want to bother going out anymore, but are willing to have all over at our homes, as are the other 6. When we go to their homes, we go outside or to their 'designated smoking areas.' We've saved a fortune. It used to be 2X a week @ $18 per person. I can have all 8 over for less than myself once in bar of restaurant. All are happy. Thank you Binny's. Note that the waitress/waiter is no longer getting their $10-15 tip.

Around Thanksgiving we met at that restaurant, before going downtown for a theater performance. None of us were ordering drinks or food, just pop and coffee. When it came time to pay, the waitress said, "The boss is comping, he'd like to see you all here more often." We left her $10, but we won't go back for anything other than a 'meeting place' for somewhere else. It's not fun anymore.

 

[tigerbob]

Smoking should be banned if it drifts into other people's apartments.

Make the bastards smoke outside.

Yeah - right outside their open windows.

 

[Valerie]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Preferring a non-smoking environment doesn't mean you are a dictator either. Private business owners should have the freedom to cater to smoking customers, if they so choose. A choice. The interest of the employee is protected by their freedom to do the same job elsewhere in a non-smoking environment, if they so choose.

The apartment association property is a different situation and I can see where prohibiting smoking could be justified under some circumstances.

 

[tigerbob]

Why do you think bar employees should not be allowed the same workplace protections that all other types of employees are guaranteed?

Bar owners should be allowed to set up their own rules for smoking and when they hire employees they can just tell them that they'll be working in a place with a lot of second hand smoke. It's just that simple.

So should we just leave it up to all employers in every place of business to decide the rules for employee safety? If the employees are worried about workplace injuries they can go see if some other employer is a little kinder?

Shall we just do away with all employee health and safety regulations?

Yup.

 

[Anguille]

Funny ... though you are correct that they are often mistreated most I know smoke ... and they smoke twice what I do. They gripe about the bans more than most of us as well.

Where I worked everyone wanted the ban, even the employees who smoked.

Smokers are a pain in the ass. The need more cleaning up after and annoy the other customers.

After the ban business went up and we were making more money.

However, private property is private and the government should in no way infringe on such. As for making up laws, what do you think smoking bans are? Many businesses (most actually including many bars) went smoke free on their own, no prompting from any laws, no being fined because someone outside decides to smoke near their business, no being harassed by idiots with too much time on their hands. They did it to cater to the non smokers who didn't want to be in a smoky environment, and both types of businesses flourished. Now with most smokers instead drinking at home, eating at home, and only the non smokers (those without smoker friends) using their businesses they are failing. So now those who didn't force non smoking on their customers have to close so those who had chosen to be non smoking can make a profit.

Don't know how things are in your part of the country but in mine it took legal action to put an end to smoking in most public places. Only a few restaurants went smoke free on their own. To think most businesses can be counted on to provide safe working conditions all on their own is laughable.

 

[Dis]

Aren't you one of those "big on tolerance" people?

Having to tolerate your sorry ass on this board uses up all of my tolerance quotient.

You're free to get the fuck out any time you like.

 

[Anguille]

Then welcome to a new country, it's not the one that made it possible for your ancestors and mine to make life better for us.

How did our ancestors make life better for us by smoking around us?

Tobacco has made us a huge profit and pays for most of the roads you use.

LOL! I suppose the opium farmers in Afghanistan can say the same thing.

So we should keep on smoking and supporting the tobacco industry because that's the only way to build roads in this country.

 

[Annie]

How did our ancestors make life better for us by smoking around us?

Tobacco has made us a huge profit and pays for most of the roads you use.

LOL! I suppose the opium farmers in Afghanistan can say the same thing.

So we should keep on smoking and supporting the tobacco industry because that's the only way to build roads in this country.

No one is arguing for non-smokers to smoke. Indeed I think you'd find that most smokers would like to quit. But it's legal, expensive and pays for many of the comforts that non-smokers don't pay for, through excise taxes.

 

[Ravi]

Smoking is a dying addiction thanks in part to those health fascist laws which, I, as a smoker, find extremely annoying.

EXCEPT FOR BARS, I basically agree with laws that prevent smoking in public places.

Vile addiction, smoking.

The really funny thing is that the bans do nothing to curtail the smoking addictions (I smoke but want to stop). It's actually the education that has and for many of us smokers who do want to stop it's because of personal reasons (not even health related many times). It's the lefties trying to tell us what to do combined with the wingnuts trying to make a profit (thus the 'sin' tax). Neither side is doing it because they actually care about us.

Of course not. They only care about themselves.

 

[Anguille]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Preferring a non-smoking environment doesn't mean you are a dictator either. Private business owners should have the freedom to cater to smoking customers, if they so choose. A choice. The interest of the employee is protected by their freedom to do the same job elsewhere in a non-smoking environment, if they so choose.

The apartment association property is a different situation and I can see where prohibiting smoking could be justified under some circumstances.

By that same reasoning any employer can then allow smoking anywhere on the property. They can just pick and choose among all the laws that protect the health and safety of employees. The boss doesn't feel like providing fire exits? Adequate heat and clean bathrooms? Lunch breaks? No problem. Anyone who doesn't like it can just quit.

How many people here would actually like to see smoking allowed in their own workplace? Who would feel that was fair to non smoking co-workers?

 

[tigerbob]

Chill man,

I didn't say to get rid of all safety regulation, but this goes too far.

Some bars want to serve smokers, it's their private property, if they want to let people smoke in it shouldn't that be their right? Does the health of employees take precedent over the rights of the business owner?

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Preferring a non-smoking environment doesn't mean you are a dictator either. Private business owners should have the freedom to cater to smoking customers, if they so choose. A choice. The interest of the employee is protected by their freedom to do the same job elsewhere in a non-smoking environment, if they so choose.

Most on the board would agree with you. The rabid anti lobby (led by their High Priestess, Ang) would not. Choice is only reasonable apparently when the choice is to ban.

 

[Ravi]

Muslims practice a religion that sometimes makes them spontaneously explode. Imagine how that can damage their neighbors.

Muslims should not be allowed in apartments.

 

[tigerbob]

No. Bar employees are not second class citizens. They are entitled to all the same protections that other employees get. If bar owners want to enjoy the privilege of doing business in a community and of employing members of that community, they must respect the laws of that community. Owning private property doesn't mean you are a dictator of a small country who gets to make up laws to suit your own interests.

Preferring a non-smoking environment doesn't mean you are a dictator either. Private business owners should have the freedom to cater to smoking customers, if they so choose. A choice. The interest of the employee is protected by their freedom to do the same job elsewhere in a non-smoking environment, if they so choose.

The apartment association property is a different situation and I can see where prohibiting smoking could be justified under some circumstances.

By that same reasoning any employer can then allow smoking anywhere on the property. They can just pick and choose among all the laws that protect the health and safety of employees. The boss doesn't feel like providing fire exits? Adequate heat and clean bathrooms? Lunch breaks? No problem. Anyone who doesn't like it can just quit.

How many people here would actually like to see smoking allowed in their own workplace? Who would feel that was fair to non smoking co-workers?

I wouldn't like it, nor would it be fair. But banning it in every bar is just stupid.