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

[Skull Pilot]

No the addicts are the selfish ones, they can still go to non smoking establishments.

and so can you. So let them have someplace where they can smoke.

But no you can't allow that can you?

No one is stopping them from smoking in their own home or places thier smoke doesn't affect others.
Why should non smokers have any bit of compassion for the smoker's craving for their drug? After all these years of being treated like shit by smokers, is it any surprise there is little compassion? Especially when the smokers have smokeless alternatives for keeping themselves drugged.

The crybaby act doesn't get anywhere with me.

but you said it's illegal to open a pub for smokers where their smoke would not bother nonsmokers. you can't have it both ways

 

[Anguille]

and so can you. So let them have someplace where they can smoke.

But no you can't allow that can you?

No one is stopping them from smoking in their own home or places thier smoke doesn't affect others.
Why should non smokers have any bit of compassion for the smoker's craving for their drug? After all these years of being treated like shit by smokers, is it any surprise there is little compassion? Especially when the smokers have smokeless alternatives for keeping themselves drugged.

The crybaby act doesn't get anywhere with me.

but you said it's illegal to open a pub for smokers where their smoke would not bother nonsmokers. you can't have it both ways

You make less and less sense every time you post.

 

[Toro]

I would really like to see the ban lifted at airports. People are stressed out and often captive there for hours. In order to go outside, one has to go through security again. There is no reason why they can't provide ventilated smoking areas within such a large building.

There are smoking areas in most large airports I am in.

 

[dink]

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

It does not impede their rights as they have the right to go to another establishment.

They shouldn't ever have to. The laws are there to insure that they don't.

Why shouldn't they? Many professions are risky or just not for everyone, but still, a choice that one is able to make. You think nonsmokers need the government protecting them?

Well then I want the same protection from just about everything that offends me.

Besides, if we're talking bar and restaurants, these employees aren't required to take drug test to qualify for employment. So who's protecting their coworkers from them?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Skull Pilots argument in this thread is spot on. That so many of you can't grasp the concept of 'choice' is beyond me.

It used to be non smokers and smokers who did not want smoke around them while they ate were forced to choose. Even back in their heyday when the tobacco industry had free rein to get the public hooked on their drug, non smokers still out numbered smokers.
Smokers were asked politely to stop doing it in these places. Some insisted their needs were more important than anyone else's and kept on puffing away, anywhere and everywhere. Because of them the public put it's foot down and enacted the bans. The bans are only going to get stricter because the law makers know this is what the public wants and feels it is entitled to as citizens of the home of the smokefree and the brave.

I've never been in a eatery that didn't offer smoking or non-smoking. If it was smoking only I would have gone somewhere else and that business would have lost me as a customer. I would have made a choice.

When they decide something you like is 'bad' and they ban it, give me a call.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That's really too bad that the charities lost out because some patrons decided smoking was more important to them than seeing that their money went to charity rather than the casinos. I hope they can find another way of raising money.

As much as I support charities like that, I don't think they should make money allowing something that harms their employees and the people who attend their events.

You obviously never been to a bingo hall in Spokane, most of the people who played there smoked and had a disability of some kind or were older. It was 17 degrees out the day the ban went into effect. Most of the employees who worked there also smoked. When this ban went into effect they did many stories on the bingo halls discussing this.(i wish i could find them) At the time it was banned I was going to bars quite a bit and had many bartender friends, none of them wanted the ban because of loss in tips and the simple fact they smoke also.
Here in Washington, we already had plenty of smoke free bars and restratraunts for people who didn't like the smell. In Spokane most of the restratraunts except for places like Denny's had already banned smoking in their restratraunts. It is a stupid law, and it hurts the small business owner.

Cigarette smoke hurts the small business owner, employee and customer more than any ban ever could.

I support small business too, but not to the extent that they should be excused from health codes.

Small business owners have a choice. They can choose to run a business that does not rely on smokers to sustain it.

And you have a choice to not patronize a business that allows smoking. You can take your business elsewhere if smoking bothers you. But the business owner should be allowed to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishment or not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one is stopping them from smoking in their own home or places thier smoke doesn't affect others.
Why should non smokers have any bit of compassion for the smoker's craving for their drug? After all these years of being treated like shit by smokers, is it any surprise there is little compassion? Especially when the smokers have smokeless alternatives for keeping themselves drugged.

The crybaby act doesn't get anywhere with me.

but you said it's illegal to open a pub for smokers where their smoke would not bother nonsmokers. you can't have it both ways

You make less and less sense every time you post.

pot, kettle honey

 

[editec]

... in bars and restaurants?

I think we ought to license both smoking bars and non smoking bars.

I am completely sympathetic to non-smokers who don't want to have to put up with smoking.

But I am not sympathetic to health fascists, which many of these people obviously are.

 

[chanel]

There is a really cool steakhouse/bar in Red Bank NJ called Ashes Cigar Club. Because they have a private club license they can still allow smoking. I just read a story that they were shut down by code officials for a few days for being OVER capacity. In this economy? The place is not cheap either. I wonder if other bars would consider this way around the law. Might not be a bad idea.

 

[Anguille]

I've never been in a eatery that didn't offer smoking or non-smoking. If it was smoking only I would have gone somewhere else and that business would have lost me as a customer. I would have made a choice.

Separate smoking and non smoking sections never worked. Owners found that it cost too much money to buy the equipment to ventilate properly. Then the number of people requesting one or the other section would vary all the time so often you'd have a line of customers waiting for a table in the non smoking section while tables in the smoking section remained empty. Non smokers and smokers alike were increasingly requesting the smoke free sections. Having a separate smoking section was costing too much money in equipment, wasted space and lost revenues.

Then there was the problem of employees having to go into the smoking section to serve food.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've never been in a eatery that didn't offer smoking or non-smoking. If it was smoking only I would have gone somewhere else and that business would have lost me as a customer. I would have made a choice.

Separate smoking and non smoking sections never worked. Owners found that it cost too much money to buy the equipment to ventilate properly. Then the number of people requesting one or the other section would vary all the time so often you'd have a line of customers waiting for a table in the non smoking section while tables in the smoking section remained empty. Non smokers and smokers alike were increasingly requesting the smoke free sections. Having a separate smoking section was costing too much money in equipment, wasted space and lost revenues.

Then there was the problem of employees having to go into the smoking section to serve food.

And the owner could have done several things here. Nothing, and lose business from the customers who didn't like the long lines; made his establishment non-smoking and lost the smoking customers; paid the money to install a better ventilation system, making both sets of customers happy. But it would have been his choice - as it should be because it's his business - and whether to eat there or not would have been the customer's choice.

I think you're missing the point here, Ang. It's about choice. The business choosing to have smoking or non-smoking or both; the customers choosing whether to patronize a smoking/non-smoking or mix business; workers choosing whether to work in same. It's about personal choice vs. government choice. Personal choice has just been taken away from part of the population and you're ok with it because you see smoking as horrible and evil. What would your take on it be if the government decided that xxx was 'wrong', and xxx was something you liked, and uncle banned it and took away your choice? This issue isn't about smoking, per se . . . it's about the government taking away personal choice.

 

[Anguille]

I've never been in a eatery that didn't offer smoking or non-smoking. If it was smoking only I would have gone somewhere else and that business would have lost me as a customer. I would have made a choice.

Separate smoking and non smoking sections never worked. Owners found that it cost too much money to buy the equipment to ventilate properly. Then the number of people requesting one or the other section would vary all the time so often you'd have a line of customers waiting for a table in the non smoking section while tables in the smoking section remained empty. Non smokers and smokers alike were increasingly requesting the smoke free sections. Having a separate smoking section was costing too much money in equipment, wasted space and lost revenues.

Then there was the problem of employees having to go into the smoking section to serve food.

And the owner could have done several things here. Nothing, and lose business from the customers who didn't like the long lines; made his establishment non-smoking and lost the smoking customers; paid the money to install a better ventilation system, making both sets of customers happy. But it would have been his choice - as it should be because it's his business - and whether to eat there or not would have been the customer's choice.

I think you're missing the point here, Ang. It's about choice. The business choosing to have smoking or non-smoking or both; the customers choosing whether to patronize a smoking/non-smoking or mix business; workers choosing whether to work in same. It's about personal choice vs. government choice. Personal choice has just been taken away from part of the population and you're ok with it because you see smoking as horrible and evil. What would your take on it be if the government decided that xxx was 'wrong', and xxx was something you liked, and uncle banned it and took away your choice? This issue isn't about smoking, per se . . . it's about the government taking away personal choice.

I think you are ignoring the fact that cigarette smoke is a carcinogen and causes long term and immediate health problems, some of which lead to permanent disability and death. It has no place in a public space.

If "uncle" banned something that I liked to do in public that caused that much harm to other people, I might be unhappy about it but I wouldn't be so self-centered as to get up on a soap box and claim my rights had been violated. I would have the common sense to see why the ban was necessary and I would agree with it.

I have heard from quite a few smokers who say they agree with the bans and like how they make it harder for them to smoke as much as they would if there was nothing to stop them. I know smokers who never smoke at the dinner table and don't like it when other smokers do it.

You claim it about customers and workers choosing. If you think it's about choice then you must agree it should be about choice everywhere, not just bars and restaurants. Otherwise you'd be discriminating against customers and workers in bars and restaurants.

 

[dilloduck]

You want menthol or non-menthol ?

 

[Anguille]

You want menthol or non-menthol ?

milk chocolate

 

[Skull Pilot]

You want menthol or non-menthol ?

milk chocolate

chocolate is bad for you and makes you fat. I shouldn't have to have your fat oozing over onto my seat on a plane or bus should I?

but if an airline wanted a fat person only section in a plane where they can ooze all over each other that would be OK because I could choose not to get oozed on by you chocolate addicts.

 

[noose4]

You want menthol or non-menthol ?

milk chocolate

chocolate is bad for you and makes you fat. I shouldn't have to have your fat oozing over onto my seat on a plane or bus should I?

but if an airline wanted a fat person only section in a plane where they can ooze all over each other that would be OK because I could choose not to get oozed on by you chocolate addicts.

When the chocolate addicts start shoving chocolate down your unwilling throat I will stand with you to segregate the chocolate lovers from the rest of us.

 

[Shogun]

How do you think I voted, Slippery Eel?

 

[Neser Boha]

I have come to appreciate the ban Especially because I'm currently a part-time waitress and not having to breath in cigarette smoke all 10 hours long of my shift really REALLY makes things easier for me and my lungs. Go ban!



PS: I used to think it was unfair, but I changed my tune.

 

[Skull Pilot]

milk chocolate

chocolate is bad for you and makes you fat. I shouldn't have to have your fat oozing over onto my seat on a plane or bus should I?

but if an airline wanted a fat person only section in a plane where they can ooze all over each other that would be OK because I could choose not to get oozed on by you chocolate addicts.

When the chocolate addicts start shoving chocolate down your unwilling throat I will stand with you to segregate the chocolate lovers from the rest of us.

how about when their fat bodies ooze into my seat against my will?

 

[Anguille]

How do you think I voted, Slippery Eel?

I think you did the right thing and voted "No, They are fair."

But that's because I expect the best from you.