Smoking banned in private homes.

[tigerbob]

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?

I've had this discussion with you before, and I recall your previous arguments, which appear to be unchanged. Everything you say revolves around an unshakeable belief that passive smoking is as dangerous or more dangerous than direct smoking. Like most antis, you will not listen to anyone who is not as convinced as you are, and have an alarming tendency to become more hysterical in your condemnation the longer the debate goes on.

You also have a tendency to muddy the waters of the debate....

I am constantly amused by all the loopy logic some smokers will come up with to try and justify imposing their drug on everyone around them. All this nonsense about how cigarette smoke never hurt anyone...

....such as there where you are (deliberately I would say) confusing some peoples' disagreement with the dangers of passive smoking with the dangers of smoking in general.

Or here...

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

...where you ask an absurd question to try and put others on the back foot.

This seems to be your modus operandi. If there is a danger of "the other side's" objections sounding reasonable, try to undermine their position by putting words in their mouths or resorting to other such nonsense.

 

[tigerbob]

I can only conclude that your progressive bent means you only wish to outlaw things that offend you and everyone else be damned.

I am constantly amused by all the loopy logic some smokers will come up with to try and justify imposing their drug on everyone around them. All this nonsense about how cigarette smoke never hurt anyone and freedoms are being taken away and it's all bad for the economy and anti-American to boot.





I have more respect for the ones who openly admit they are addicts and that being addicts means nothing can come between them and their drug.

As usual, you totally avoid the point I was making. Not to mention that you've lied about what I said.

Sad.

My point exactly.

 

[Father Time]

I can only conclude that your progressive bent means you only wish to outlaw things that offend you and everyone else be damned.

I am constantly amused by all the loopy logic some smokers will come up with to try and justify imposing their drug on everyone around them. All this nonsense about how cigarette smoke never hurt anyone and freedoms are being taken away and it's all bad for the economy and anti-American to boot.

Wait a minute if people are being restricted on what they can and can't do isn't that by definition taking away freedom?


Smokers are imposing their smoke on you? Oh please, by forcing bars to not let people smoke, YOU are imposing your anti-smoking bend onto the bars. Now if we made it illegal for bars to ban smoking that would be imposing smoking onto them. I haven't seen anyone suggest that.

 

[jgbkab]

Wow! I thought I've seen all the vs. on this board but smokers vs. nonsmokers? What's next? Shirts vs. skins? I guess it's just that a LOT of people don't try to put themselves in the other person's shoes. One person categorizes all smokers as stinky. But people may avoid you because of a BO problem. Smokers don't plot to blow smoke in your faces nonsmokers. And some nonsmokers do have medical problems when they smell cigarette smoke. Now...carry on.

 

[Valerie]

Wow! I thought I've seen all the vs. on this board but smokers vs. nonsmokers? What's next? Shirts vs. skins? I guess it's just that a LOT of people don't try to put themselves in the other person's shoes. One person categorizes all smokers as stinky. But people may avoid you because of a BO problem. Smokers don't plot to blow smoke in your faces nonsmokers. And some nonsmokers do have medical problems when they smell cigarette smoke. Now...carry on.

I'm not even a smoker!

I just think we should be careful what we allow the government to dictate by law. Let the market bear the difference. As Ravi said, the risk is inherent to the job. If someone can't stand the environment of cigarette smoke then they shouldn't work in a restaurant or bar that allows smoking. And if not enough people want to patronize such a place then it will go out of business. If non-smoking places become more popular then they will thrive. It seems to me that smokers are the ones being treated as second class citizens who are deprived the right to sit at a bar and have a smoke. The owner wants to allow it, the customer wants to allow it, but the employee can't stand the smoke so it's against the law?

Maybe each town's zoning board can allow a certain percentage of smoking establishments and everyone can be happy with having a choice.

 

[random3434]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Annie]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Echo Zulu again.

 

[dilloduck]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

If only every place was that rational.

 

[tigerbob]

I can only conclude that your progressive bent means you only wish to outlaw things that offend you and everyone else be damned.

I am constantly amused by all the loopy logic some smokers will come up with to try and justify imposing their drug on everyone around them. All this nonsense about how cigarette smoke never hurt anyone and freedoms are being taken away and it's all bad for the economy and anti-American to boot.

Wait a minute if people are being restricted on what they can and can't do isn't that by definition taking away freedom?


Smokers are imposing their smoke on you? Oh please, by forcing bars to not let people smoke, YOU are imposing your anti-smoking bend onto the bars. Now if we made it illegal for bars to ban smoking that would be imposing smoking onto them. I haven't seen anyone suggest that.

Ang doesn't care about freedom in this matter, other than the right of her to not see or smell smoke wherever she happens to be. Actually it goes further than that. Even if you can't see it or smell it, it may still be there, so let's just ban it outright in every place that the hapless nonsmoker may potentially wander into.

Nobody would ever suggest making it illegal for bars to ban smoking, and the vast majority of smokers understand and accept that their use of tobacco is offensive to many non smokers.

I, for example, support smoking bans in public (i.e. municipal) buildings, workplaces, airplanes, theatres, etc. In fact anywhere where smokers and non smokers have no choice but to sit side by side. I understand to a degree the smoking ban in restaurants, though I believe they should have the right to have separate, well-ventilated non smoking areas.

I do not and will not support a ban in all bars. Smoking while you have a drink in a bar has been a social activity for centuries and there is absolutely no reason why bar owners should not be allowed to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their own establishments.

Employees have been used to working in smoky bars for decades. If a bar owner wants to continue to allow smoking then employees have a right to decide whether they want to continue to work there. If not, there are plenty of nonsmoking bars they could get a job at. Let's face it, it's not like you leave college with a degree and an ambition to work in one particular bar because it's the best bar in the city, with the best reputation, the best training program, the best healthcare and benefits. These are bars we are talking about, not Morgan Stanley, Skadden Arps, or Leo Burnett.

That seems reasonable to me, but Ang will say that a person working at a bar should have a right to be able to work in a place where their health is not damaged and they do not have to put up with unpleasant tobacco smells. In saying this, she will assume that passive smoking is highly dangerous, and she will ignore the rights of 100 smokers to have one bar they can smoke in so that 1 non smoker can work anywhere he or she may of may not choose to work.

To me, that's intolerance in a nutshell, which is usually the point at which Ang will throw in a few red herrings to get herself out of the difficulty of defending a position that is clearly intolerant. Generally it's something along the lines of this...

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?

Post #48.

Or this...

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.

#62

Or this...

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

#74

You will never even convince Ang that smokers have rights, let alone that their rights are being trampled on. The more you try and fence her in with rational and reasoned arguments, the more hysterical, hectoring and holier-than-thou her tone becomes.

 

[tigerbob]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

I think it seems this clear to everyone. Except someone.

 

[tigerbob]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Echo Zulu again.

I just gave it to Echo.

 

[dilloduck]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

I think it seems this clear to everyone. Except someone.

That someone just loves to argue.

 

[Dis]

She probably wears really offensiive perfume, too.. But I bet that's ok...

 

[Annie]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Echo Zulu again.

I just gave it to Echo.

Thank you for that, alas:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tigerbob again.

 

[tigerbob]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Echo Zulu again.

I just gave it to Echo.

Thank you for that, alas:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tigerbob again.

It's the thought that counts!

 

[Ravi]

Here is how it is here.


If you serve children, you have to be a non-smoking restaurant.

If you don't (meaning 21 and over) then you can be a smoking venue. Or not, it's the business owners choice.


So, if you want to smoke while having cocktails, or after dinner, you go to Bar/Restaurant X.

If you don't want to smell the second hand smoke, you go to Bar/Restaurant Z.

If you are a server/bartender and looking for a job, you apply at either:

A place that allows smoking if it doesn't bother you.

A place that is non-smoking if it does.


Seems simple enough to me.

That works for me. And if an apartment building owner wishes to run a non-smoking establishment, he or she is welcome to do so...ditto if they want to allow people to smoke in their apartments.

 

[Dis]

Maybe I'll buy a house next door to Ang.. When I smoked, I didn't smoke in my house, or my car. Onlly outsiide.. Don't want to smell it? Keep all your windows closed.

Your tolerance is shit, and you're probably just as guilty at producing offensive odors as you claim everyone else is.

 

[Shogun]

Are you kidding me? Assuming a pink lunger can make the personal choice to go to a smoke free bar without a blanket smoking ban is about as preposterous as expecting them to rip out their ******* guts and show it to you. Remember: you can drink in public and go kill families on the drive home.. BUT DONT YOU DARE SMOKE AND MAKE SOME PINK LUNGERS HAIR SMELL LIKE SMOKE!

 

[RodISHI]

Maybe I'll buy a house next door to Ang.. When I smoked, I didn't smoke in my house, or my car. Onlly outsiide.. Don't want to smell it? Keep all your windows closed.

Your tolerance is shit, and you're probably just as guilty at producing offensive odors as you claim everyone else is.

Surely not. Some peoples poo don't stink.....then again those type probably never have bad breath either....

 

[Dante]

This is just ridiculous.

Smoking ban extends to apartments in California city - International Herald Tribune

I don't think so. On the face of it sure, but after reading the how and why (the context) I don't find it ridiculous at all. A person's private home is not affected (yet - lol). When one rents an apartment one is sharing living quarters/property.