Smoking banned in private homes.

[Anguille]

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.

The gains through taxes are far outweighed by the costs society must bear from the effects of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

[tigerbob]

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

Muslims should not be allowed in apartments.

rofl!

 

[tigerbob]

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.

The gains through taxes are far outweighed by the costs society must bear from the effects of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke.

I assume you are not talking about financial costs.

 

[Anguille]

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.

So you stopped going out to eat because two of you in this group of 8 couldn't smoke in restaurants anymore or to save money?
If it was just the smoking issue I have to wonder why you would even smoke at a table where other people, your own friends!, are eating.

 

[Annie]

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?

Acting like an idiot on all counts. Many restaurants and bars would choose to go smoke free, some wouldn't. To block fire exits, sprinkler codes, etc., would put themselves and their livelihood at risk, which is why such nonsense never should be mandatory. Keeping their business going is enough incentive, besides their insurance company would require it.

 

[Anguille]

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.

As if smokers (who smoke around other people) are any less selfish.
LOL!

 

[Valerie]

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 was talking about private businesses who cater to smoking customers. Restaurants and bars should have a choice. The employee has a choice.

 

[Anguille]

Most on the board would agree with you.

Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. But the country as a whole, even most of the developed world, seems to think restrictions on where and if people can smoke in public places are a very good thing.

 

[Annie]

Most on the board would agree with you.

Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. But the country as a whole, even most of the developed world, seems to think restrictions on where and if people can smoke in public places are a very good thing.

Indeed, which is why many places of business are suffering at your hand. Why have they no rights?

 

[Anguille]

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

How is it stupid to require all employers to respect employee safety laws?

Why should some get a pass? is it because bar employees are undeserving of the same protections as all other types of employees?

 

[Annie]

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

How is it stupid to require all employers to respect employee safety laws?

Why should some get a pass? is it because bar employees are undeserving of the same protections as all other types of employees?

How about 'employee safety laws' are out of control and nonsensical? That's for a start.

 

[Ravi]

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.

As if smokers (who smoke around other people) are any less selfish.
LOL!

Never said they weren't. I like laws like this because they give me hope that one day we can outlaw pitbulls and muslims or any other fundamentalist religions. Not to mention football and baseball. Or stinky people. I long for the day when everyone, everywhere is banned from offending anyone.

 

[Valerie]

Most on the board would agree with you.

Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. But the country as a whole, even most of the developed world, seems to think restrictions on where and if people can smoke in public places are a very good thing.

Anguille, certainly you can distinguish the differences between "public places" ?

No one smokes while they grocery shop or when they're at the library or in the waiting room of the hospital or even in the office at work. It's common sense. Restaurants and bars are different in that they cater to a smoking customer and it is a private business.

 

[Father Time]

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.

So what can and can't they allow on their own property?
Smoking is legal so why shouldn't it be legal for a bar owner to then let people smoke on his property?
No one is forcing his employees to work there and no one is forcing customers to go there.
However the laws are forcing him to enact a policy that may hurt business.

 

[Anguille]

]

I was talking about private businesses who cater to smoking customers. Restaurants and bars should have a choice. The employee has a choice.

Would you like to see smoking allowed in your workplace? Would you think it would be fair if you and your co-workers were told smoking was now going to be permitted and if you didn't like it, go look for work elsewhere?

If you don't think that's fair, why would it be fair for bar workers?

If small business are able to find a way to cater to smoking customers without exposing their employees to second hand smoke and while providing them with the same protections that every other type of employee is entitled to, then I say let them do it.

 

[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.

So what can and can't they allow on their own property?
Smoking is legal so why shouldn't it be legal for a bar owner to then let people smoke on his property?
No one is forcing his employees to work there and no one is forcing customers to go there.
However the laws are forcing him to enact a policy that may hurt business.

Seems to me that the employees have every right to decide where to work. They personally decide what environments they are willing to deal with. It's called freedom.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Sounds like you just live in an area with more rude people. Smokers are no different than other people, but now we can claim minority status soon because of all this anyway (just like the damned junkies and drunks do), so you see why I don't fight against the laws. Sure, make it illegal, but then give us all the excessive rights and extra medical funding and free drugs like all the other addicts, otherwise, leave us alone and we can all get along just fine. I use to be mindful of non smokers ... until the bans. *evil grin* Now I make an effort to smoke around them as much as possible without breaking the laws. It's more fun now because I just no longer care about them.

 

[Anguille]

Most on the board would agree with you.

Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. But the country as a whole, even most of the developed world, seems to think restrictions on where and if people can smoke in public places are a very good thing.

Anguille, certainly you can distinguish the differences between "public places" ?

No one smokes while they grocery shop or when they're at the library or in the waiting room of the hospital or even in the office at work. It's common sense. Restaurants and bars are different in that they cater to a smoking customer and it is a private business.

It would seem it's you that can't distinguish between public and private places.

 

[KittenKoder]

Just because the public is welcomed doesn't make it a public place.

 

[Anguille]

I use to be mindful of non smokers ... until the bans. *evil grin* Now I make an effort to smoke around them as much as possible without breaking the laws. It's more fun now because I just no longer care about them.

Like I said, nicotine, affects the cognitive faculties.