Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Immanuel]

Ang, you posted this on Mani's 'have you had an abortion' thread.

"So I have been fortunate enough to never have had an abortion. But if I ever decided I wanted one I would not be ashamed of it, nor would I pass judgment or persecute anyone else who had one. I would be grateful I live in a wonderful country in which my right to chose is protected by anti-governmental intrusion protections."

Right to choose is what this thread is about and you believe it's fine for government to tell business owners what they can and can't do in their business yet . . . you want to government to butt out when it comes to abortion, which also harms (I'm using 'harms' to keep it in context of the thread cause you know how I feel about abortion) another human life.

Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?

Honest to God, Boing, if you don't know the difference between a public barroom and a woman's womb no amount of biology lessons is going to help you. Unless of course, you see them both as a place for conducting business and pulling in cash. though, in the case of the womb, in your twisted view, the womb would not be the property of the woman whose body enclosed it.

And you called me low earlier?

That is below you Ang.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

Ang, you posted this on Mani's 'have you had an abortion' thread.

"So I have been fortunate enough to never have had an abortion. But if I ever decided I wanted one I would not be ashamed of it, nor would I pass judgment or persecute anyone else who had one. I would be grateful I live in a wonderful country in which my right to chose is protected by anti-governmental intrusion protections."

Right to choose is what this thread is about and you believe it's fine for government to tell business owners what they can and can't do in their business yet . . . you want to government to butt out when it comes to abortion, which also harms (I'm using 'harms' to keep it in context of the thread cause you know how I feel about abortion) another human life.

Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?

Exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke has been shown to cause high blood pressure. High blood pressure can cause complications for a pregnant woman. It can cause her to need to abort or it can even cause a miscarriage. Why should smokers be allowed to cause abortions in women who do not want one?

Playing dodge ball? The question was about government and choice. Try again. On second thought, never mind. Your view on this is clear, as Immie has pointed out many times. You're fine with uncle telling privately owned business 'no smoking' because you don't like smoking. You're ok that uncle has taken personal choice away from people. You're ok with losing choice as long as it pertains to something you don't like. Well except maybe for pot.

Ang, you posted this on Mani's 'have you had an abortion' thread.

"So I have been fortunate enough to never have had an abortion. But if I ever decided I wanted one I would not be ashamed of it, nor would I pass judgment or persecute anyone else who had one. I would be grateful I live in a wonderful country in which my right to chose is protected by anti-governmental intrusion protections."

Right to choose is what this thread is about and you believe it's fine for government to tell business owners what they can and can't do in their business yet . . . you want to government to butt out when it comes to abortion, which also harms (I'm using 'harms' to keep it in context of the thread cause you know how I feel about abortion) another human life.

Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?

Honest to God, Boing, if you don't know the difference between a public barroom and a woman's womb no amount of biology lessons is going to help you. Unless of course, you see them both as a place for conducting business and pulling in cash. though, in the case of the womb, in your twisted view, the womb would not be the property of the woman whose body enclosed it.

I've been nothing but polite in this thread and here you are with an asshole response. Figures. I don't know why I even bother because this seems to be your m.o.

 

[Anguille]

Here's an idea...

Since most patrons don't seem to have been negatively affected by this all that much, how about we tentatively repeal the ban and see if everyone keeps things the way they are regardless of the ban being lifted?

Most bars have already been outfitted to cater to the smokers now, so let's drop the law and let the market figure it out from here.

Or is that too right wing?

Because repealing the ban would mean wasting government time on things that are relatively unimportant, like rewriting the laws restricting volume levels for TV ads.

This is not my opinion, it's how I would expect you to answer your own question.

In the future, law historians will ponder as to why a civilized society would have needed such laws in the first place. Tobacco will have long passed from use. It will be an amazement to them that people ever smoked that stuff, especially around others.

I think sometimes you have a too high opinion of human nature. Though I also think it can be a good thing to expect the best from people.

 

[FA_Q2]

WOW the taglines were destroyed when I tried to use the quote button. Whole parts of the pose were missing!!! I wonder why…. Oh well, on to responding.

If you have ever worked long hours in a crowded bar you would know that it's not a case being several faeet away from cigarette smoke for only a few few hour a week.

I acknowledge that you think there is no evidence to show exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant health risk, (though I do disagree with you). However is there any evidence that shows secondhand smoke is safe? Do you believe firsthand smoke is safe?
Can you think of any reason why a person should allow someone near them to poison the air they both breathe with a narcotic and carcinogens? Why would anyone be willing to accept any amount of these in the air? Does cigarette smoke have any redeeming value to anyone other than th smoker who must feed his addiction and selfishly chooses the most anti-social method of doing so?

No there is no evidence that shows second hand smoke is safe, the same way there is no evidence that shows flatulence is safe. The burden of proof lies in the other direction.

But there is evidence to support the theory that flatulence is involuntary. Farting and smoking don't make a good analogy.
I'm glad that the burden of proof is not in the other direction concerning most drugs. I'm glad they are not tested first by allowing them to be sold to the general public and then regulated after they killed enough people. I see no reason why second hand smoke should be exempted from safety precautions.If it's proven to be medically safe, then it would just fall under the same restrictions of other public nuisances. Do you think it can be proven to be safe?

Actually, the burden IS in the other direction because it is not considered a drug per se. Drugs undergo extensive testing and many processes to get the big approval stamp from the FDA but I do not believe that products are put through the same process. Coffee or soda, for example, would not require the same testing that chemotherapy would. I believe that cigarettes fall into that category. On the other hand, I think it has already proven sufficiently safe. Remember, I do understand there are health risks associated with cigarettes, I just don’t see that they are sufficient to support a ban. It takes many many years for any health risks to appear and even then it is rare. There are things that you are exposed to on a daily basis that are far more dangerous to your health than even smoking yourself. I gave a few examples in my last but the most relevant would be the benzene that I am exposed to at work. It is far more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke yet I am exposed to it each and every day at my place of work.

To the second part, no, there is no reason to breath in someone else’s carcinogenic habits. That is the point here. You are not forced to breath in anything. I believe that the burden is on the patron to avoid those establishments. You and I see things a little differently. I believe that the choices should be there for you to make and you believe that the government should act in the interest of said people. The biggest problem I have is in the very nature of our government, any government for that matter, is to gain power and control. Each choice that is removed from you is another one you will never get back and an excuse to control the next item. Case in point, there are and have been successful movements to limit fast food restaurants and fatty foods because the health hazards associated with those establishments. The same excuses are used here are used to limit those establishments (minus the other people part). Bans like this lead to stricter bans on things like food. It is deplorable that my choice to have a fatty burger is limited because ‘daddy’ knows best. I can and do make decisions every day that affect my health in various ways and those choices are mine to make, not the governments.

As you would have it, concerning this issue, they are the business owner's to make not yours nor the governments. I agree that we should make individual decisions concerning our health including not having to inhale tobacco smoke in public places and the right to commit suicide.

Yes, it would be the business owner and, by extension, your choice when you chose to frequent or not to frequent that establishment. You do have the choice to not inhale tobacco smoke by not going to a business that allows smoking.

I believe VERY deeply in personal choice and accountability. I would NOT visit an establishment that allows smoking, didn’t back in the day either but I feel that is a choice that I make. It should not be made for me.

Here is a question for you – should it be illegal for a sick person to go to a restaurant? After all, that would present a larger risk to life than second hand smoke..

Depending on the nature of their disease and it's severity and communicability, yes. I believe we already have quarantine laws in place. It's illegal for restaurants to sell food tainted with e-coli and that is sometimes brought into restaurants by patrons and employees. Any restaurant who knowing allows a customer or employee with an e-coli infection to handle food should be charged with and probably is breaking the law. That is why we have healthcodes to minimize the risk of spreading e-coli in food service establishments.

Rememember too, infectious illness is generally not a personal choice whereas smoking is.

I may be illegal for the restaurant to serve e-coli but it is not illegal for you to have the flu and go to a restaurant, cough all over the place and not cover your mouth. Again, the flu is far more deadly than second hand smoke is. All in all, it is not that great an analogy but analogies are never that great. I do believe that it conveys my overall point though – the health risks are not sufficient to perpetuate a ban and there are other activities that are not banned yet have grater health risks associated with them. I will concede that most of the time those risks are associated with the risk taker only and you have a very real point that smoke can and does move to other participants. I also believe that nonsmokers have the option of voting with their dollar and not giving their money to those establishments that allow smoking. It is that choice that brings the exposure to health risks out of it – you choose to be exposed to second hand smoke by going to a smoking facility.

FA_Q2, you have re-invigorated my interest in this thread which was going down the tubes. I will have to get back to you later on this post. It's unlikely we will ever agree but it's interesting to know how other folks are thinking without having to wade through waste.

I am glad; I am always up for a good debate. While it is true that we may never agree, your position and knowledge still grow in a debate and that is always a good thing

In the future, law historians will ponder as to why a civilized society would have needed such laws in the first place. Tobacco will have long passed from use. It will be an amazement to them that people ever smoked that stuff, especially around others.

Oh, I doubt that. For some reason people thought history have found a way to get high. Cigarettes are just one of the legal options at the moment. It has never ceased to amaze me the depths that people go to for drugs. We do not allow smoking at my workplace except in specific locations 50 feet from any building yet I have watched in amazement as smokers walk out into blizzards to light up. Never will understand.

 

[Father Time]

I am glad; I am always up for a good debate. While it is true that we may never agree, your position and knowledge still grow in a debate and that is always a good thing

This is not a jab at Anguille specifically or anyone else on this thread but the more I get into debates like this the more I think that such debates are going to accomplish nothing, more often than not (as you might have guessed by my signature). Yet somehow they seem compelling.

 

[Ravi]

I am glad; I am always up for a good debate. While it is true that we may never agree, your position and knowledge still grow in a debate and that is always a good thing

This is not a jab at Anguille specifically or anyone else on this thread but the more I get into debates like this the more I think that such debates are going to be accomplish nothing more often than not (as you might have guessed by my signature). Yet somehow they seem compelling.

Maybe you're addicted to debates involving holier than thou attitudes . Beware, it won't be long until arguing in bars and restaurants is banned because someone might take offense.

 

[FA_Q2]

where is angie

 

[Annie]

I think property owners should be free to use their property as they see fit. If an owner wishes to allow smoking, those that want to patronize that business, will. If an owner says no, then he should be allowed to prohibit such behavior.

 

[AkronGuy]

In eating establishments ? I have no problem with it.

In bars ? I have a problem with it. If you're in bars long enough to develop health problems due to second hand smoke, then you're in them long enough to do more damage from drinking. And there would a reasonable connection between drinking and then being more suspectible to breathing problems.

 

[FA_Q2]

But what are the ‘legal’ requirements then. Bartenders spend a lot of time at bars and do not drink at all (mostly at least). What of bars that serve food as well. Is Applebee’s a bar or a restaurant? That is the type of legal definition that makes any selective ban murky. Just let the owners decide and don’t go there if you do not like smoke.

 

[AkronGuy]

But what are the ‘legal’ requirements then. Bartenders spend a lot of time at bars and do not drink at all (mostly at least). What of bars that serve food as well. Is Applebee’s a bar or a restaurant? That is the type of legal definition that makes any selective ban murky. Just let the owners decide and don’t go there if you do not like smoke.

Well a full service restaruant.

And if the bartenders worry about the smoke, then why aren't the worrying about the more short term dangers that's inherent in their trade ?

Would you work in a nude club if you were offended by nudity ?

Would you work in a slaughterhouse if you were a vegan ?

They have an at will employment contract. Booze is far more unhealthy for you when abused than tobacco products.

And I think owners should be able to decide, if you don't want to allow smoking, don't allow it. And if you do, then allow it.

Where I live at, there were nonsmoking bars and dining establishments years before it was universal non smoking, and they did fine and were busy. And so were the smoking joints, everyone was happy. But here, most places that were smoking don't obey the laws against it because it's simply miniscule the punishments.

 

[FA_Q2]

And each of those points could be used with the restaurant as well. I see no distinction between the other two. If you allow it in one type of establishment then you should be able to allow it in other establishments. I see no reason not to leave it up to the restaurant owner.

 

[chanel]

Pennsylvania just surpassed Atlantic City in slot revenue. Gov. Rendell just signed a bill that exempts Philadelphia casinos from the smoking ban. Goodbye Donald Trump. What a shame. Maybe those unemployed casino workers can look for work there.

 

[bodecea]

Absolutely not. It is much more pleasant now that I don't have to encounter smoke while dining. When in states where there is no ban, I'd just as soon not eat out it's so bad.

Makes me realize that before the ban even us non-smokers' taste was affected adversely.

 

[Immanuel]

Absolutely not. It is much more pleasant now that I don't have to encounter smoke while dining. When in states where there is no ban, I'd just as soon not eat out it's so bad.

Makes me realize that before the ban even us non-smokers' taste was affected adversely.

If you have been reading this thread at all, you will know that I am in favor of repealing the ban, but I absolutely agree with you in this post.

Personally, if they repealed the ban, I would choose a non-smoking bar or restaurant over a smoking one. However, I do believe the choice should be up to the owner of the establishment rather than the State.

Immie