Restaurant Smoking Ban

[tommy]

It's absurd to continue to say that someone's drinking has no secondary effects on those around him/her.

it is utterly ignorant (as in uninformed) to make the parallel btwn second hand smoke in bars, and its affects on others, and the possibilities that you mention. simply bizzare. all of those things that you mention can and do happen without alcohol. i know of very few cases of second hand smoke being an annoyance or health risk without firsthand smoke being involved.

[tommy]

foodboy, no one walks into a stuntperson's place of business and creates a hostile and unhealthy environment where one didn't previously exist. naming these professions simply does not present a reasonable argument.

[macrosan]

Interesting discussion. It amazes me that America, the bastion of individual liberty, is the country that introduces the most draconian anti-smoking legislation in the world.

Let me register an interest up front. I am an ex-smoker, and I spend a significant amount of my time campaigning against smoking. But I am opposed to what the USA is doing.

The problem of smoking is a practical, and a humanitarian, problem. The USA has about 70million drug addicts (smokers) who are meeting their addictive needs perfectly legally. They need help, not criminalization, to quit smoking. The Federal, State and City governments are spending billions of dollars introducing and policing anti-smoking legislation, but not a cent on providing advice or support for smokers to quit (all of that funding comes from the tobacco company settlements).

Until the US government has put its money where its mouth is, and provides massive funds to help smokers to quit, and until such a program has started to successfully make significant impact on reducing the number of smokers, I think it is immoral, hypocritical and unconstitutional for further legislation to be introduced.

[mogsob]

Macrosan -- I could not agree with you more. It makes economic sense to spend funds to help people overcome addictions rather than criminalize and have to spend money in enforcement, punsihment and health care down the road. But then, again, the American voter has always been in favor of passing the buck to the next generation.

Nina -- your arguments are illogical. You must look at the derivative actions of alcohol (brawls, drunk driving, harassment etc.) -- all of which are criminal offenses, whereas the act of smoking, in and of itself, is harmful to others and remains legal.

Glenn -- I do not own a car and do not drive, but rather rely exclusively on mass transportation.

Smokers: I'm shocked that no one has come forward to defend the rudeness of the manner in which people smoke. Smokers as a rule exhale (and position their cigarette while not inhaling) away from themselves and their companions to avoid sending noxious smoke in their own or companions' faces and/or meals without regard for anyone else in their immediate vicinity. This practice is utterly indefensible and is tantamount to battery.

The selfishness of the smoking minority is staggering. It can be generally admitted that smoking is a noxious habit. I have several myself, but I choose to engage in those. Smokers give you no choice, but to avoid them. Smoking should be banned in all public spaces: offices, streets, parks, restaurants, bars etc. If you must do it, do it at home. Perhaps such a law would give people an incentive to quit, which would be a good thing.

[Miss J]

Smokers as a rule exhale (and position their cigarette while not inhaling) away from themselves and their companions to avoid sending noxious smoke in their own or companions' faces and/or meals without regard for anyone else in their immediate vicinity.  This practice is utterly indefensible and is tantamount to battery.

Ah - forget what I said earlier about smoking licenses. Maybe businesses should just put signs up saying, "You can smoke, but please don't exhale."

[glenn]

If you must do it, do it at home.  Perhaps such a law would give people an incentive to quit, which would be a good thing.

Following your logic, why shouldn't the ban be extended to the home? [which indeed it has in at least one new york co-op or condo]. 2nd hand smoke apparently travels through apartments. And jeez, if I walk by a house where all the smoke is coming out the window, my rights are also being violated. Let me ask, why shouldn't driving/owning an auto be made illegal? It causes far more damage to the innocent pedestrian.

[tommy]

Let me ask, why shouldn't driving/owning an auto be made illegal?  It causes far more damage to the innocent pedestrian.

this is the second time you've asserted this. i'd like to see some studies on this, as i'm pretty sure you're talking out of your tailpipe.

people, please pay attention and answer this question: considering that smoking is banned in ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS (places of business) in NYC, why should the ban not encompass bars/restaurants? and if it shouldn't, why shouldn't the ban be lifted on the other 99.99% of the public space where it currently exists. if this point isn't addressed, and i doubt that it will be, i'll simply hang up my hat (or at least try to).

[LaNiña]

Tradition? Not necessarily a logical argument, but it's there...

[glenn]

people, please pay attention and answer this question:  considering that smoking is banned in ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS (places of business) in NYC, why should the ban not encompass bars/restaurants?  and if it shouldn't, why shouldn't the ban be lifted on the other 99.99% of the public space where it currently exists.  if this point isn't addressed, and i doubt that it will be, i'll simply hang up my hat (or at least try to).

Tommy, when you speak, I always listen :). I thought my post from 8/10 was clear about this. Here is what I said, and I think you should hang up your hat not out of exasperation, but because you are clearly wrong and I am crystal clear correct....

"This may not be pc, but I don't think government should stick their big fat noses in regulating smoking. That applies to smoking anywhere except for public places (and where it might pose a fire hazard), not just bars or restaurants. If IBM wants to allow smoking, more power to 'em. I firmly believe if government hadn't stuck their big butts in and starting regulating where people could smoke, society would have taken care of it for better or worse. And just to make it clear, there is no personal agenda here as I am a non smoker and I try to avoid those restaurants that allow smoking, though i do work in a restaurant, but i am only a lowly clock puncher (and watcher)."

"Edit a totally unclear assertion: By public places I mean governmental facilities such as transportation facilities, libraries, etc. vs. privately owned businesses."

[LaNiña]

Why the distinction between "public" places and private places? Smoking is smoking is smoking...why should the rights of employees be treated differently just because they're public employees?

[glenn]

Nina, good question and I have mixed feelings. You only mention employee rights. My rationale in not allowing smoking in government facilities also takes into account consumer rights. People have no choice to use these facilities, while this is not the case with privately owned businesses.

[LaNiña]

It's a little silly to say people have a choice not to use private businesses. As far as I know, the government isn't selling or giving away food, for example.

[glenn]

You do have a choice to eat out or not and what restaurant you patronize. My argument extends to all businesses. However, in the case of restaurants, non smoking restaurants would have become common without government interference. Basic supply and demand.

[LaNiña]

I'm not talking about restaurants. I'm talking about, say, supermarkets.

[glenn]

I don't see a supermarket being any different than a restaurant in this context.

[LaNiña]

I don't see a supermarket being any different than a restaurant in this context.

Of course someone has a choice not to go to a restaurant, but where is one supposed to buy food in an atmosphere free of smoke? There are no "public" buildings that provide purchasable food.

[Bux]

If IBM wants to allow smoking, more power to 'em.

Is there a line you might draw in relation to where an employer need not safeguard an employees health? Can you defend legislation designed to improve mining conditions or those of any other occupation?

Speaking of butts, would you see anything wrong with IBM allowing employees free reign in pinching butts. From a managerial position if might improve male worker morale--at the expense of female workers perhaps, but isn't that a decision a company should make on the merits as it affects their business interests in a manner similar to allowing smoking? It's just a matter of allowing one workers urges and needs to affect another worker's body. Assuming if it goes not further than a pinch, there's no lasting physical harm.

That's as swift an answer as I can make at the moment.

[glenn]

Nina, same rationale with the supermarket. If enough people demand it, there would be non smoking supermarkets.

Bux, that rationale could be extended to virtually any crime and I am not an anarchist, i swear. I'm saying there's a line that needs to be drawn where government has to step in to police our actions. And that's the best answer I can come up with in 10 seconds :). The friggin' staff wants their paychecks, the nerve.

[LaNiña]

Ok, so where's the line, and who decides? If the government decides, isn't that also too much government interference?

[macrosan]

people, please pay attention and answer this question:  considering that smoking is banned in ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS (places of business) in NYC, why should the ban not encompass bars/restaurants?  and if it shouldn't, why shouldn't the ban be lifted on the other 99.99% of the public space where it currently exists.

Tommy, the answer is that you're positing a non sequitur. In strict logic, you'd be right, but strict logic doesn't govern legislation.

Bars and restaurants are simply traditional smoking establishments, because most smokers are triggered by drinking and eating to smoke (that's a simple biological relationship). Therefore they have been left till last by the legislators because they believe (probably rightly) that this could be their "brideg too far". Banning smoking in bars could well cause an open rebellion which the authorities simply would be unable to deal with.

So it's not an issue of principle, it's simple practicality.

Incidentally, the whole position with regard to safeguarding employee health has been badly overstated. If someone suffers from ear problems, they are very unwise to take a job as an air steward. The idea that they could then claim daamges from an airline if they suffered ear damage is ludicrous. In the same way, anyone who suffers from respiratory problems would be unwise to take a job in a (smoking) bar. How much of a big deal is this ? Is this really a serious infringement of a person's rights if certain jobs are denied to them by reason of their physical condition ?

All research to date suggests that unless a person has a particular pre-disposition, the health risks from second-hand smoke are not unusually high. They would equate to the risks of working in maybe a chemical factory, or working in a foundry, and so on.

[jordyn]

All research to date suggests that unless a person has a particular pre-disposition, the health risks from second-hand smoke are not unusually high. They would equate to the risks of working in maybe a chemical factory, or working in a foundry, and so on.

Even accepting this hypothesis (I'm not familiar enough with the body of research to comment one way or the other--a clear increase in risk seems to be indicated, but it may be limited to those with certain risk factors), I don't think it's an adequate response. If there were a simple way of making a chemical factory or a foundry demonstrably safer, few would suggest that we ought to let the occassional worker get burned up by molten iron just because employers should be allowed to do whatever they want.

[tommy]

So it's not an issue of principle, it's simple practicality.

no, it's not. it sounds like you're suggesting that it would have been impossible to enforce. well CA found out differently several years ago.

and, i'm well aware of what this issue is, and see all sides of it. it is just that it's frustrating to see people posting this or that and they clearly do not have a grasp on both sides, judging by their reluctance to acknowledge points central to this issue.

it's really easy to say things like "well duh, people go to bars to smoke and kill themselves, and the bartender doesn't have to work there, so who cares." it's *really* easy to say that. it's also easy to fart and smell it.

[SobaAddict70]

Speaking of butts, would you see anything wrong with IBM allowing employees free reign in pinching butts. From a managerial position if might improve male worker morale--at the expense of female workers perhaps, but isn't that a decision a company should make on the merits as it affects their business interests in a manner similar to allowing smoking? It's just a matter of allowing one workers urges and needs to affect another worker's body. Assuming if it goes not further than a pinch, there's no lasting physical harm.

I certainly hope you're being facetious, Bux. This analogy is a poor one, considering the VAST difference between inhaling secondary smoke and officially sanctioned sexual harassment. And disagree on the "no lasting physical harm" -- one pinch perhaps not, but try ten or twenty.

SA

[tommy]

one pinch perhaps not, but try ten or twenty. 

may i?

[SobaAddict70]

hey, T, you can do me anytime....

LOL!

SA