Your right to smoke stops when it interferes with others' right to enjoy a meal without breathing in vile smelling carcinogens.

In other news, the government is telling toy manufacturers how to run their businesses by interfering with their right to use lead paint in children's products.

Subby is a dumbass.

And here...... we..... go...



/popcorn
//should be a good thread
///love the smoker/anti-smoker threads
/slashies

Zoinks!: Your right to smoke stops when it interferes with others' right to enjoy a meal without breathing in vile smelling carcinogens.

Why don't you just go to a bar or restaurant that already doesn't allow smoking? Vote with your wallet -- unless you just prefer to be one of the anti-smoking Nazis.

FTFA: "Under the agreement, which the two men finalized last night, smoking will be permitted only in private clubs"

I foresee many, many "public restaurants" becoming "private clubs" as soon as this passes.

It's already been documented that restaurants that go non-smoking increase their revenues so why the need for government intervention. Don't like the smokey environment, go to a non-smoking restaurant.

/non-smoker (tobacco)

Smoke at home cancer boy.

Best damn thing the government ever did.

And don't get me wrong, I don't give a damn shiat if you smoke six packs a day. I just don't want to farking smell it while I'm eating.

Demetrius: And don't get me wrong, I don't give a damn shiat if you smoke six packs a day. I just don't want to farking smell it while I'm eating.

I hate the smell of curry. I think the government should outlaw all Indian restaurants.

Obviously no one has a choice to patronize smoking or nonsmoking establishments.

Any other product as dangerous to humans as cigarettes would have been banned decades ago, except for the efforts of the tobacco lobby.

Cigarettes are the only legal consumer product in the US that when used as intended will kill you.

Cigarette smoke is statistically more dangerous to the employees of establishments that allow smoking than over 700 other substances that the FDA and OSHA regulate in the workplace.

clancifer: Zoinks!: Your right to smoke stops when it interferes with others' right to enjoy a meal without breathing in vile smelling carcinogens.

Why don't you just go to a bar or restaurant that already doesn't allow smoking? Vote with your wallet -- unless you just prefer to be one of the anti-smoking Nazis.

That's a good solution. In theory. In reality, you have non-smoking 'sections' in restaurants that don't do a thing to lessen the second hand smoke.

I moved to Massachusetts several years ago when there was already a non-smoking ban in effect for restaurants, and I would say that it is a good thing. People still go to these restaurants and bars - in droves. There has been no drop in business for these establishments.

Obviously, I'm a non-smoker. But I'm not immune to the argument that these laws are taking away rights of people. I find it troublesome whenever the government steps in to regulate peoples' lives. But I'm also not immune to the effects of second hand smoke. That shiat is nasty.

And please. I prefer the term "anti-smoking-national-socialist." :)

It's not an issue that 100% of the people will ever agree on. But I don't want to be a dick about it. I'll be the first to buy you a beer and sit down and talk about it. Good beer here (new window).

Ahh Bach: I foresee many, many "public restaurants" becoming "private clubs" as soon as this passes.

Has this happened anywhere else that has implemented similar smoking bans?

It's already been documented that restaurants that go non-smoking increase their revenues so why the need for government intervention. Don't like the smokey environment, go to a non-smoking restaurant.

[citation needed]

Wow, how utterly stupid. It pisses me off that New York's like it, and it sucks that it's spreading to VA.

And yet... still doesn't bug me as much as those Truth commercials. I think they're not made to stop people from smoking. They're made to get people to accept anti-smoking laws because in contrast the laws aren't as farking annoying.

Ahh Bach: It's already been documented that restaurants that go non-smoking increase their revenues

Uh no. In fact all the previous smoking bans in the U.S. have decreased bar/restaurant revenues for their respective cities. The ban in L.A nearly destroyed the service industry until most bars just decided to ignore it. Same in NYC. Same in Chicago. In VA? You can find a bunch of non-smoking establishments to eat in. Most, in fact. Just don't show up to a locals bar and start wagging your snooty hands in front of your face and feigning a cough.

El_Perro: [citation needed]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#United_States

thamike: Ahh Bach: It's already been documented that restaurants that go non-smoking increase their revenues

Uh no. In fact all the previous smoking bans in the U.S. have decreased bar/restaurant revenues for their respective cities. The ban in L.A nearly destroyed the service industry until most bars just decided to ignore it. Same in NYC. Same in Chicago. In VA? You can find a bunch of non-smoking establishments to eat in. Most, in fact. Just don't show up to a locals bar and start wagging your snooty hands in front of your face and feigning a cough.

It's not quite that clear:

Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says

Restaurants, bars gain business under smoke ban

Sure, you can find studies that say the opposite, but it's a bit inaccurate to say clearly that the bans have "nearly destroyed the service industry."

Ahh Bach: I hate the smell of curry.

Curry in my food doesn't have harmful effects... until later.

/Dutch oven...

Ahh Bach: El_Perro: [citation needed]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#United_States

That doesn't support what you said. You said that going smoke-free helps businesses, so there's no need for government intervention. That link seems to have some evidence suggesting that smoking bans (as opposed to individual restaurants going smoke-free) helps (or at least doesn't harm) business.

I'm looking for something supporting the proposition that individual businesses going smoke-free, outside of a broad government-imposed ban on smoking in restaurants, increase their revenues.

El_Perro: I'm looking for something supporting the proposition that individual businesses going smoke-free, outside of a broad government-imposed ban on smoking in restaurants, increase their revenues.

What I'm saying is that restaurants that have gone smoke free, whether government imposed or not, have thrived. If that's the case, I don't see the need for government intervention.

I do know that last year a local restaurant went smoke free on Monday through Thursday. It was such a success for them that they made the business decision to go smoke free 7 days a week. In fact, two other nearby restaurants decided to do the same to stay competitive.

It's the smoke free aspect, not the government imposition that is attractive to non-smoker.

El_Perro: I'm looking for something supporting the proposition that individual businesses going smoke-free, outside of a broad government-imposed ban on smoking in restaurants, increase their revenues.

Found one.

http://hillsandheights.org/2008/01/08/otoole-on-the-proposed-smoking-ban/

Cog: Obviously no one has a choice to patronize smoking or nonsmoking establishments.

Or the choice to simply quit smoking when it becomes inconvenient. I know it's fun to kill yourself slowly, so why not add the possibility of getting pneumonia from standing outside in the dead of winter for a little bonus fun?

Yanks_RSJ: Cog: Obviously no one has a choice to patronize smoking or nonsmoking establishments.

Or the choice to simply quit smoking when it becomes inconvenient. I know it's fun to kill yourself slowly, so why not add the possibility of getting pneumonia from standing outside in the dead of winter for a little bonus fun?

It's called choice. Look into it.

If a factory owner were to expose their workers to the equivalent of second-hand smoke for 8 hours a day, they would get slammed for damaging their workers' health. The factory owners would probably try to say "Go work somewhere else if you don't want to inhale smoke all day", but we don't allow that in this country. Workplaces need to be as safe as is reasonably achievable.

I agree that customers can go elsewhere. You can't make the same assertion about the work force. You can't tell someone "You have to choose between your health and your job".

We had a restaurant around here that polled their customers to decide if they should go smoke-free. They ended up getting a petition signed by 95% of their own staff demanding the restaurant go smoke free. Many of the workers smoked and they felt it made it harder to quit if they were exposed to people smoking all day.

Ahh Bach: El_Perro: I'm looking for something supporting the proposition that individual businesses going smoke-free, outside of a broad government-imposed ban on smoking in restaurants, increase their revenues.

What I'm saying is that restaurants that have gone smoke free, whether government imposed or not, have thrived. If that's the case, I don't see the need for government intervention.

I do know that last year a local restaurant went smoke free on Monday through Thursday. It was such a success for them that they made the business decision to go smoke free 7 days a week. In fact, two other nearby restaurants decided to do the same to stay competitive.

It's the smoke free aspect, not the government imposition that is attractive to non-smoker.

I guess what I'm saying is that whether individual restaurants benefit from going smoke-free in a legal environment in which smoking is allowed in restaurants is a very different question than whether restaurants as a whole benefit from an industry-wide prohibition. They're two very different business and legal environments.

EponymousCowHerd: Many of the workers smoked and they felt it made it harder to quit if they were exposed to people smoking all day.

Alcoholics working in a bar may have the same argument. Should alcohol be outlawed in bars too.

I get your point about second hand smoke but as of right now tobacco is a legal product in the U.S. Now, if you want to outlaw tobacco all together, that's another argument and I'm not sure I disagree. Outlawing it all together makes more sense to me than these laws.

El_Perro: I guess what I'm saying is that whether individual restaurants benefit from going smoke-free in a legal environment in which smoking is allowed in restaurants is a very different question than whether restaurants as a whole benefit from an industry-wide prohibition. They're two very different business and legal environments.

My limited personal experience and common sense tells me that there is a huge market for smoke free restaurants. I'm not a smoker (I think smoking is disgusting) or a restaurant owner, but if I were to open a restaurant it would be smoke free because there seems to be a huge demand for it. If the government mandated that all public restaurants must be smoke free, I'd open a private club that allows smoking because there would be a demand for it. The free market works.

I just don't see the need for government intervention. My argument comes more from a pro-limited government stance than a pro smokers rights stance.

I gotta go to bed. I'll pick this up tomorrow if I can get away from the daily grind that hasn't been grinding too much lately.

/enjoyed the debate

Ahh Bach: tobacco is a legal product in the U.S

Benzene and hydrofluoric acid are legal products in the US too! So you won't mind if I spray some in your face, I hope. It really relaxes me.

Yup. Me and my selfish douchebag friends are going to spray it all over every grocery store in the state. If you don't like it grow your own food at home! How dare you interfere with my right to give you lung cancer and melt off your face!

HansensDisease: Benzene and hydrofluoric acid are legal products in the US too! So you won't mind if I spray some in your face, I hope. It really relaxes me.

You're right. I agree, I would never, ever go to a restaurant that allowed people to spray those chemicals in people's faces. I'd choose the non-spraying of chemicals restaurants. I hear there is a huge demand for those.

Seriously, spraying those chemicals in people's faces is a crime. As of right now exhaling tobacco smoke isn't. Funny you didn't link the part of my post about outlawing tobacco all together.

/people are allowed to smoke in grocery stores in your area? Ewwwww!
//off to bed

Bars and restaurants will still be allowed to allow smoking, provided that they have a walled-off smoking area with its own ventilation system.


Cog: Obviously no one has a choice to patronize smoking or nonsmoking establishments.

Obviously smokers don't have the choice to just step outside.

AntiNorm: Obviously smokers don't have the choice to just step outside.

You don't think private business owners should be allowed to choose to have smokers in their restaurant/bar?

Ryan2065: You don't think private business owners should be allowed to choose to have smokers in their restaurant/bar?

You don't think the government should be allowed to regulate health and sanitation in restaurants?

Ahh Bach: exhaling tobacco smoke

Tobacco smoke contains benzene^. The hydrofluoric acid part I made up because it sounded more painful that just a slow gasping death from emphysema.

/people are allowed to smoke in grocery stores in your area? Ewwwww!

That was what we call 'a metaphor' down here in the damaged heart of terbaccy country. Even the local hospital wasn't entirely smoke free until this year though.

Ahh Bach: EponymousCowHerd: Many of the workers smoked and they felt it made it harder to quit if they were exposed to people smoking all day.

Alcoholics working in a bar may have the same argument. Should alcohol be outlawed in bars too.

Alcoholics who are serious about quitting don't work in bars, duh.

There is a smoking ban going into effect here this summer. I'm glad. And today the seatbelt law--where they can pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt--got voted down again. yes, we can't get a seatbelt law passed in Montana, but the smoking ban has a lot of support.

AntiNorm: Ryan2065: You don't think private business owners should be allowed to choose to have smokers in their restaurant/bar?

You don't think the government should be allowed to regulate health and sanitation in restaurants?

They should. You know what else would be a good law for them to pass? Anyone who is sick shouldn't be allowed to go into restaurants! Health and sanitation right? I'm fairly positive that I'm more likely to get sick from the person coughing next to me than from the person smoking next to me.

El_Perro: Sure, you can find studies that say the opposite, but it's a bit inaccurate to say clearly that the bans have "nearly destroyed the service industry."

Sure consumers got over it in time. But in L.A. and NYC it caused many bars to have to close. I dig non-smoking restaurants (I don't even smoke in my own home), but bars? Bad for business and it was done as a labor law, even though I've never met a bartender or bar server who doesn't smoke (or at least doesn't mind being around it). And I've been in the restaurant/bar management business for 10 years. The backlash against the smoking bans was much bigger than the voice of support, mainly coming from the workers the bans were meant to "protect" from the "second-hand smoke" that has yet to harm anybody who hangs out next to a smoking section.

clancifer: Zoinks!: Your right to smoke stops when it interferes with others' right to enjoy a meal without breathing in vile smelling carcinogens.

Why don't you just go to a bar or restaurant that already doesn't allow smoking? Vote with your wallet -- unless you just prefer to be one of the anti-smoking Nazis.

i'm an ex smoker who has no problem with smokers or smoke, who was smoking at the time florida passed the law that we couldn't smoke in restaurants, so understand where i come from when i say this:

get over it. i got over it. it never was much of a bother to not smoke in the restaurant - stepping outside really isn't that hard. this is only a problem if you're looking for it to be one.

Zoinks!: Your right to smoke stops when it interferes with others' right to enjoy a meal without breathing in vile smelling carcinogens.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's what I do when crying babies and idiots on cell phones start giving me headaches.

burndtdan: stepping outside really isn't that hard

That's not the issue. It's not really hard to get searched at the airport or get blinded by speed cameras in the middle of a yellow light. It still doesn't make it right, fair, reasonable, or necessary.

thamike: burndtdan: stepping outside really isn't that hard

That's not the issue. It's not really hard to get searched at the airport or get blinded by speed cameras in the middle of a yellow light. It still doesn't make it right, fair, reasonable, or necessary.

all of your examples are examples of breaches of the 4th amendment. stepping outside for a cigarette is not a breach of any of your constitutional rights. and none of those examples represent a situation where you are adversely affecting people around you, and even introducing a health concern to them.

not to mention, it's just farking polite.

like i said, this isn't a problem unless you want to make it a problem. me and my smoking friends never once had a problem smoking out front before or after the meal.

burndtdan: all of your examples are examples of breaches of the 4th amendment. stepping outside for a cigarette is not a breach of any of your constitutional rights.

False dichotomy, but I'll bite. Illegalizing a businesses choice to allow patrons to use a legal product if they so choose just might be a similar violation. In fact, some bars have given their employees stock, making them part owners, making it unlawful to force them to ban smoking in their places of business. Again, I have no problem going outside for a smoke, but I do have a problem with Smoke Police f*cking with me. Yes they do exist and really suck, especially in Manhattan (They follow you down the street telling you to get 50 feet away from business entrances, but guess what's 50 feet away?)

thamike: False dichotomy, but I'll bite.

i didn't propose a dichotomy, i was pointing out a false equivalence on your part.

burndtdan: i didn't propose a dichotomy

You contrasted the rights of proprietors with Constitutional Law with the fourth amendment as a measuring stick. I was merely comparing the (very common) minor inconveniences. It's not so much a Constitutional issue. Yet. I still think it should be the proprietor's decision. You don't like being around smokers? Hmmm, do you need me to draw you a map?

I see the smoking bans this way: the majority of Americans do not smoke. It smells horrible, causes asthmatic reactions, causes lung cancer to others and in general ruins food when smelled while eating. You can go the fark outside and enjoy your poison, preventing you from ruining things for the rest of us. You still get to smoke, the rest of us get to not die. Why is this even an issue? As has been linked, bars and restaurants that no longer allow smoking have shown increases in business, proving that smokers should not be allowed to smoke inside.

I'm a smoker that doesn't mind stepping outside for a smoke. Lets me collect my thoughts while I'm out smoking. I don't smoke in my house either.

/Really does need to quit

muck4doo: I'm a smoker that doesn't mind stepping outside for a smoke. Lets me collect my thoughts while I'm out smoking. I don't smoke in my house either.

/Really does need to quit

I'd like to say for the rest of us thank you. It is appreciated.

Ryan2065: Anyone who is sick shouldn't be allowed to go into restaurants!

Feel free to pass that law. I've seen illnesses spread around where I work like wildfire because someone decided to come in even though they were sick. I've had coworkers come in even though they were coughing literally every 30 seconds for days in a row because of pneumonia, and they for some reason wouldn't take any cough syrup.

(No, I don't work in a restaurant, but what I said would still apply.)

Why the hell is tobacco legal at all? Why we have to fight for the legitimate medical use of marijuana while cigarettes are legal, I'll never know.
I was hooked on those dumbass things well before high school. I smoked for the next 20 years or so, other than about a total of 2 years of "trying to quit." Actually I made a full year once 90's. I'm currently at 2 years and I'll never look back.
Anyway, all I have to show for it are serious health problems, some are getting better over time, some won't, and I'll probably still die of cancer if I can keep from getting killed on the way to work. I probably paid those asshats $30,000 or so over the years so I can have tobacco related health issues for the rest of my life.
For what, you ask? Nothing. The whole damn time I smoked, I didn't even know why.

HectorSchwartz: Why the hell is tobacco legal at all?

Free will. Yes, it is a health threat, but if smoking is banned, they will start banning foods next. I'll let smoking live so I can eat what I want.

GAT_00: Free will. Yes, it is a health threat, but if smoking is banned, they will start banning foods next. I'll let smoking live so I can eat what I want.

This slippery slope argument fails because the government already bans plenty of foods/food additives - it's part of the reason we have an FDA. The authority to ban dangerous foods is nothing new, and if any manufacturer tried to sell a food product as dangerous as cigarettes, that product wouldn't last a day before it was pulled off the shelves (Take a look at what the Supreme Court said in prohibiting the FDA from asserting jurisdiction over tobacco: link)