If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fresh air)   In the old tobacco state of Virginia, legislators considering measure to ban smoking in restaurants. Remaining smokers to be herded up and sent to camps in Utah   (nbc4.com) divider line 225
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1193 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2007 at 8:08 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



225 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-01-25 05:29:59 PM
Oh, kwitcherbiatchin. Workplace smoking puts the health of employees and customers alike at risk. If it had been phrased as "legislators considering measure to ban recreational injection of radioactive materials and carcinogens into the air in restaurants," you wouldn't see anywhere near as much opposition. But no... smokers gotta have their cancer sticks.
 
2007-01-25 05:59:26 PM
Since bars are technically illegal in Virginia, only restaurants serve alcohol, then this is the equivalent of a state wide ban on smoking in bars.

/To serve alcohol you have to sell a certain amount of food, and actually a lot of food, not just bar food, therefore making them restaurants.

This is big folks, and in my opinion a smart choice.
 
2007-01-25 06:33:44 PM
Oh yes, poor, persecuted smokers, being denied their right to make us all choke on their addiction.
 
2007-01-25 06:37:26 PM
Fish ain't biting today.
 
2007-01-25 06:59:17 PM
I predict this thread will get flamey.

Angry smokers, where are you? Outside probably.
 
2007-01-25 07:22:31 PM
captainktainer: Workplace smoking puts the health of employees and customers alike at risk.

That's right.

And, accordingly, bars should be required to furnish employees with respirators just like any business is required to do for employees that have to work around toxic fumes.

No need to ban anything.

Problem solved.
 
2007-01-25 07:27:27 PM
SchlingFo: That's right.

And, accordingly, bars should be required to furnish employees with respirators just like any business is required to do for employees that have to work around toxic fumes.

No need to ban anything.

Problem solved.


I can see it now.

*hurr* *hiss* "Can I" *hiss* "take your order?"

They'd also have to give the customers respirators too. Hell, given the radioactivity of Polonium, I'm pretty sure everyone would have to wear environmental suits, too.
 
2007-01-25 07:39:09 PM
We've had smoking bans where I'm at since the start of 2006, and its a really good thing not smelling like an ash tray every time you go out for a drink. Don't worry smokers It's really not that hard to step outside for a smoke.
 
2007-01-25 07:56:37 PM
captainktainer: They'd also have to give the customers respirators too. Hell, given the radioactivity of Polonium, I'm pretty sure everyone would have to wear environmental suits, too.

My hearing is starting to go bad. So I avoid bars with live music or otherwise loud places. The level of volume in many places is bad for the hearing of employees and the patrons alike.

When are we going to ban loud music?
 
2007-01-25 08:01:17 PM
untrustworthy: My hearing is starting to go bad. So I avoid bars with live music or otherwise loud places. The level of volume in many places is bad for the hearing of employees and the patrons alike.

When are we going to ban loud music?


When loud music gives you cancer or emphysema :-)
 
2007-01-25 08:02:49 PM
Oh, yeah, in many places there are decibel limits for workplaces - for instance, at Universal Studios' Islands of Adventure, OSHA regulations require that employees not be exposed to anything over 85 decibels for a certain amount of time, and that they not be exposed to anything over 80 decibels nearly constantly. Those limits may be exceeded with safety gear.

So, in a sense, loud music is already regulated.
 
2007-01-25 08:03:32 PM
captainktainer: When loud music gives you cancer or emphysema :-)

So we are only concerned about potentially deadly health risks?
 
2007-01-25 08:04:42 PM
captainktainer: So, in a sense, loud music is already regulated.

Not in bars it isn't. I've heard some pretty f-ing loud music.
 
2007-01-25 08:12:56 PM
Cigarettes are bad for you, and being in a room with tobacco smoke is bad for you.

Everyone knows that. That information is widely available.

Thus, there is no need to ban it. Leave it up to the resteraunts and bars to decide. If people don't like it, they can go somewhere else.
 
2007-01-25 08:14:06 PM
Smoking ban began here in Alberta on Jan 1st. Went to the local bar to watch the NHL All-Star game. Air was MUCH clearer, smelled a hundred times better, overall a much more pleasant experience.
 
2007-01-25 08:14:48 PM
Good.
 
2007-01-25 08:16:12 PM
Next thing you know, you won't be able to put lead in paint and gasoline.
 
2007-01-25 08:16:58 PM
Yay, two headlines mentioning Utah in a row!

/Yes we are a state
 
2007-01-25 08:17:26 PM
chimp_ninja: Next thing you know, you won't be able to put lead in paint and gasoline.

How much longer does society have to wait before we'll get legislation banning sharp corners and hard surfaces? Think of the children!
 
2007-01-25 08:17:38 PM
untrustworthy: So we are only concerned about potentially deadly health risks?

Usually, yes.

Not in bars it isn't. I've heard some pretty f-ing loud music.

In some localities it is - noise ordinances and the like. It hasn't been treated as a federal issue in bars, though.

Churchill2004: Thus, there is no need to ban it. Leave it up to the resteraunts and bars to decide. If people don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

That's lovely, except that there is then the problem of employees. In a capitalist society, one of the necessary tradeoffs for increased overall prosperity is the requirement that workers sell their labor to whomever is willing to pay for it in order to survive. Stripping away protections would mean that, lest they die, workers would have to expose themselves to deadly carcinogens in order to eat.

However, there is no great overriding reason to have this situation occur. Simple legislation - no smoking in restaurants - produces a healthier society.
 
2007-01-25 08:17:54 PM
Untrustworthy

Sarcasm aside, you have a valid point. I've been to a few bars in Austin TX (keep in mind I'm from Canada eh) and you can hear them down the road, oh I get it... that's the point.

I agree, they should keep the volume less than say 85dB or so. Though to be honest there were a few bars on sixth street (apparently famous for all the bars) that were respectably not ear piercingly loud.

I dunno mix booze + loud bar + loud shiatty band == ringing in ears. I'd rather get that from well tuned trance/techno than from "good 'ol fashion rock'n'roll" ...
 
2007-01-25 08:18:12 PM
Yea, smoking sections in restaurants just don't cut it. They would have to be basically on separate sides of the restaurant for it to work right, and most are not. Bars, and restaurants are much more comfortable after smoking bans.
 
2007-01-25 08:19:24 PM
captainktainer: Usually, yes.

Aren't virtually all health risks potentially deadly?

In some localities it is - noise ordinances and the like. It hasn't been treated as a federal issue in bars, though.

The noise ordinances are typically intended to prevent disturbing neighbors, not protecting people in the immediate vicinity of the noise.
 
2007-01-25 08:20:07 PM
"I'm a non-smoker, and I'm tired of not being able to go to the best bars, because the best bars are smoking, and I'm a bit of a prick, so I won't just go to a non-smoking bar or restaurant. So you know, i'm gonna force all places to be non-smoking, because, I'm a prick, and thats just how I roll."

/Really I'm a smoker, I hate the anti-smokers, their such pricks, not content with no-smoking on planes, trains and buses. Not content with having non-smoking bars, not content with having better health and less sterility, they have to take smoking out of bars, because, they "worry about their health". How about , you fark off with your health aight, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I drive an electric car, but MOST non-smokers drive gasoline powered-cancer-causing-birth-defect-enabling-funding-terrorists-through-oil -death mobiles. And yet they try and make smokers look like the bad guys "because they don't need to smoke" well you dont' need to drive your farking car, so shut the hell up. NO-ONE is blowing smoke in your face, or forcing you to go to a smoking bar, or a smoking restaurant, you just choose to go there, because, you like to complain "but I like the food in the smoking places" well then go there, but don't complain because you KNOW their smoking.
//I don't move next to an airport then complain about the noise
///I don't go into war-zones then complain about getting shot
////and I especially don't go around complaining that other people want to do stuff I find offensive/offends my senses
//you wanna ban smoking?! ban petrol/diesel cars
//and ban farting in public too.
 
2007-01-25 08:20:22 PM
untrustworthy: How much longer does society have to wait before we'll get legislation banning sharp corners and hard surfaces? Think of the children!

Such a global ban could not be easily enforced, so it never will be. However, there already are bans on hard surfaces and sharp corners on products made for certain classes of children, such as playgrounds. My sister was badly injured due to a hidden sharp corner in a playground; the city replaced it and only avoided a suit due to the only witness' death. The ban costs very little to enforce, and leads to fewer dead or severely disabled children.
 
2007-01-25 08:20:52 PM
captainktainer: that there is then the problem of employees.


They also have a choice. They can unionize and demand no-smoking, which would be fine. They could get a job elsewhere, which would also be fine.

Having the government come in and use coercion is never a good thing.
 
2007-01-25 08:20:53 PM
Health nazis strike again.

/Let owners decide.
 
2007-01-25 08:20:54 PM
this is a choice for each bar to make - there is a smoke free bar here in Arlington VA that is wildly popular - people who can't stand smoke love it - i just hate to think of little hole in the wall bars that have bartenders and waiters that smoke anyways, and a group of loyal patrons that also like to smoke have the gov't tell them that they can't have their little drinking and smoking party...

If the gov't wants to get involved, i think tax incentives are the reasonable way to go about this -

/does smoke a cig or two in certain bars where it just feels like the thing to do, a when in rome type of thing
 
2007-01-25 08:23:01 PM
captainktainer: Such a global ban could not be easily enforced, so it never will be. However, there already are bans on hard surfaces and sharp corners on products made for certain classes of children, such as playgrounds. My sister was badly injured due to a hidden sharp corner in a playground; the city replaced it and only avoided a suit due to the only witness' death. The ban costs very little to enforce, and leads to fewer dead or severely disabled children.

Un-farking-believable.

home.comcast.net
 
2007-01-25 08:23:40 PM
I have seen that 25% of Americans smoke cigarettes (and you are not being honest with yourself if you do not believe that the percentage is 'higher' for food service workers).

Why not let 25% of the bars allow smoking? This would make it reasonably plausible for smoking food service workers to find employment in smoking establishments. I am curious what pro smoking ban people think of that solution.
 
2007-01-25 08:23:57 PM
MayorYanaAnd yet they try and make smokers look like the bad guys "because they don't need to smoke" well you dont' need to drive your farking car, so shut the hell up.

Of course. My need to drive a car is exactly like your need to smoke. That example makes so much sense. Thanks for your valuable input.
 
2007-01-25 08:26:37 PM
lohebohi: Why not let 25% of the bars allow smoking? This would make it reasonably plausible for smoking food service workers to find employment in smoking establishments. I am curious what pro smoking ban people think of that solution.

It is bad because it allows choice.
 
2007-01-25 08:26:40 PM
So on the one hand you have people saying "Get the government out of our lives" and on the other you have em saying "Ban this! Ban that!" Make up your farking minds.

/against the ban/
//non smoker//
 
2007-01-25 08:27:34 PM
MayorYana


"I'm a non-smoker, and I'm tired of not being able to go to the best bars, because the best bars are smoking, and I'm a bit of a prick, so I won't just go to a non-smoking bar or restaurant. So you know, i'm gonna force all places to be non-smoking, because, I'm a prick, and thats just how I roll."


"I'm a smoker, and I don't understand why I can't go into a restaurant and force everyone there to either sit and inhale my filthy fumes, get their clothes and food stinking of cigarrettes, and dose them with secondhand smoke. So, you know, I'm just going to force all places to be smoking, rather than cutting back, smoking outside, or being in the slightest bit considerate, because, I'm a prick, and that's just how I roll."

Asshole.
 
2007-01-25 08:28:02 PM
captainktainer:

I can see it now.

*hurr* *hiss* "Can I" *hiss* "take your order?"


You mean like this:
img164.imageshack.us
 
2007-01-25 08:28:07 PM
lohebohi

That would be a nightmare to organize and how do you pick who gets to stay smoking or not?

I can't believe there are people who would defend lighting a paper tube full of god knows what on fire and inhaling the stuff, KNOWING that it's not good for your health, AND that it's been DESIGNED to make you addicted to it.

Sure cola/etc may be unhealthy too [which is also why I don't drink a lot of it] but at least I don't force those around me to drink it, or get it on their clothing, over their furniture, etc...
 
2007-01-25 08:28:34 PM
Once the smokers are all gone, then they will go after the fat people.
 
2007-01-25 08:28:44 PM
untrustworthy

They do regulate how loud music in bars can be, so what's your point?
 
2007-01-25 08:30:32 PM
eldezod: Asshole.

Restaurants and bars should be free to permit smoking if they like. So a smoking patron can't just go anywhere and light up. They'd only be able to do so with the consent of the policy of the private business they are patronizing.

However, non-smokers are trying to force all businesses to cater to them.
 
2007-01-25 08:31:00 PM
tomstdenis

Sure cola/etc may be unhealthy too [which is also why I don't drink a lot of it] but at least I don't force those around me to drink it, or get it on their clothing, over their furniture, etc...


QFT. Guess what smokers, by engaging in your habit in enclosed areas, you're forcing everyone else in those areas to engage in it also. And surprise, surprise, some of us don't LIKE smoking.
 
2007-01-25 08:31:13 PM
eldezod: I'm just going to force all places to be smoking


Except that nobody is forcing any place to be smoking.
 
2007-01-25 08:31:28 PM
HumbleGod: Oh yes, poor, persecuted smokers, being denied their right to make us all choke on their addiction.

Oh yes, poor, persecuted nonsmokers, being denied their right to go to a different f*ck restaurant if smoking bothers them that much.

People, this is *not* a good thing. Having the government step in and tell owners of *private* establishments what (completely legal) activities are, and are not allowed is a bad idea. Sorry to use an overused saying, but it really is a slippery slope.

When it comes to smoking bans in *public* places, I have no problem with that, parks, federal buildings, etc. But this shiat is too far.

I guess it's the libertarian in me :)

/flame on
 
2007-01-25 08:31:40 PM
eldezod: They do regulate how loud music in bars can be, so what's your point?

How do you figure that? Most bars with live music leave me with ringing ears. That's not too well regulated, is it?
 
2007-01-25 08:32:12 PM
The other issue with smoking is that it isn't self-contained. It spreads to others. I've seen people on here saying smoking should be allowed on trains and planes, and at work.
 
2007-01-25 08:32:25 PM
eldezod: QFT. Guess what smokers, by engaging in your habit in enclosed areas, you're forcing everyone else in those areas to engage in it also. And surprise, surprise, some of us don't LIKE smoking.

Go somewhere that caters to your ilk.
 
2007-01-25 08:32:40 PM
eldezod: And surprise, surprise, some of us don't LIKE smoking.

Then don't go to a resturant or bar that allows. Nobody's forcing you to go.
 
2007-01-25 08:32:42 PM
Hope none of you haters are supporting Obama in 08 he is
teh evil because he is a smoker.
suk it libs !!
 
2007-01-25 08:32:51 PM
to further my thoughts on a possible tax incentive solution... perhaps the opposite could work, something like a 'smoking license' that establishments would have to apply for and pay a a yearly fee - that would allow business owners who really think that their business would get hurt to weigh their expected losses against the cost of the license - that could allow bars to experiment with a smoke free enviornment, knowing that if its hurting business too badly, they can get a license if need be. This would encourage bars to try out the no smoking thing, and if their customers truly enjoy the smoke free atmoshpere, then they can continue to go not smoking, if its killing them, and their loyal patrons stop coming in, then they go back to smoking.

I think non-smoking bars are a great idea, and one that could do very well esp in urban/suburban areas. I think owners afraid of 'rocking the boat' and risking going to non smoking could be influenced to at least give it a try, and for some it would work out, for others they would stay smoking... this would create a better balance of smoking vs non smoking bars for customers to CHOOSE from.... imagine that

this is seriously a good idea that i just had - i'm proud
 
2007-01-25 08:33:34 PM
untrustworthy


Restaurants and bars should be free to permit smoking if they like.


Why? If smoking is a health hazard, why should it be permitted in a public place? They have laws regulating sanitation of food. How is this different?
 
2007-01-25 08:34:42 PM
It would not be hard to organize. Local municipalities and Cities have a list of liquer license holders. They could open the smoking licenses to bidding.

Smoking does not have to be defended as it is not illegal.

tomstdenis:
That would be a nightmare to organize and how do you pick who gets to stay smoking or not?

I can't believe there are people who would defend lighting a paper tube full of god knows what on fire and inhaling the stuff, KNOWING that it's not good for your health, AND that it's been DESIGNED to make you addicted to it.

lohebohi: Why not let 25% of the bars allow smoking? This would make it reasonably plausible for smoking food service workers to find employment in smoking establishments. I am curious what pro smoking ban people think of that solution.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report