Am I the only non-smoker who thinks "smoking bans" are a bunch of BS?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
If the employee didn't want a smoky work environment, they wouldn't have taken a job in a place that allows smoking.

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally. But most people owe bills, have zero savings, and little talent - when these people lose one job, they tend to take the first job that becomes available. Only when their teeth loosen and their skin cracks open with sores from the massive amounts of smoke, in say a casino cage, do these people then look elsewhere for jobs.

Incidently, the smoke in casino’s and bars is way above and beyond incidental second hand smoke.
[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I don't believe that a smoky bar was the only thing left. They just didn't care enough to find somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]


I forgive you. Smokey bars really aren’t a concern here. The concern is places, such as casino’s, that are by far and away the main employer in town, hiring say 3000 people and providing atrocious work conditions. Industrial air filters might do the job. Making certain areas, where employees are trapped - non smoking, might do the job, but until these employers wake up and decide to help their employees, a law needs to be passed for their protection. Incidently, casino’s are monopolized by the State, they get away with barbaric conditions for employees.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is going to a bar a necessity? What about casino gambling, why do non-smokers patronize smoky casinos?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they enjoy bars and gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you want to override their ownership to make them do what you want them to do. Basically you're saying you have more of a right to their property then the actual owner. Where do you draw the line?
[ QUOTE ]
But telling an employee to quit if they don't like it is not a reasonable accommodation of their health concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]
In your opinion. I fully expect others not to force you to do that on your property.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the employee didn't want a smoky work environment, they wouldn't have taken a job in a place that allows smoking.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally. But most people owe bills, have zero savings, and little talent - when these people lose one job, they tend to take the first job that becomes available. Only when their teeth loosen and their skin cracks open with sores from the massive amounts of smoke, in say a casino cage, do these people then look elsewhere for jobs.

Incidently, the smoke in casino’s and bars is way above and beyond incidental second hand smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I don't believe that a smoky bar was the only thing left. They just didn't care enough to find somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]


I forgive you. Smokey bars really aren’t a concern here. The concern is places, such as casino’s, that are by far and away the main employer in town, hiring say 3000 people and providing atrocious work conditions. Industrial air filters might do the job. Making certain areas, where employees are trapped - non smoking, might do the job, but until these employers wake up and decide to help their employees, a law needs to be passed for their protection. Incidently, casino’s are monopolized by the State, they get away with barbaric conditions for employees.

[/ QUOTE ]
Smokey bars aren't the main concern? Then why are these bans usually applied to bars and the arguments made that the poor workers are suffering these conditions?

That town isn't the only town they can work in, is it? And why are they living in this town anyway, if they don't want a smokey work environment?

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]


I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and this bill still really gets to me. I am an avid cigar smoker but cigar smoking is banned by most businesses anyways.



[/ QUOTE ]


Sure. And you drive in Formula1. but never drove a production car in your life.
Just keep talking we are poker players we believe everything you say.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the employee didn't want a smoky work environment, they wouldn't have taken a job in a place that allows smoking.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally. But most people owe bills, have zero savings, and little talent - when these people lose one job, they tend to take the first job that becomes available. Only when their teeth loosen and their skin cracks open with sores from the massive amounts of smoke, in say a casino cage, do these people then look elsewhere for jobs.

Incidently, the smoke in casino’s and bars is way above and beyond incidental second hand smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I don't believe that a smoky bar was the only thing left. They just didn't care enough to find somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]


I forgive you. Smokey bars really aren’t a concern here. The concern is places, such as casino’s, that are by far and away the main employer in town, hiring say 3000 people and providing atrocious work conditions. Industrial air filters might do the job. Making certain areas, where employees are trapped - non smoking, might do the job, but until these employers wake up and decide to help their employees, a law needs to be passed for their protection. Incidently, casino’s are monopolized by the State, they get away with barbaric conditions for employees.

[/ QUOTE ]
Smokey bars aren't the main concern? Then why are these bans usually applied to bars and the arguments made that the poor workers are suffering these conditions?

That town isn't the only town they can work in, is it? And why are they living in this town anyway, if they don't want a smokey work environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's easier to move to another town than to change citizenships, the same reasoning could be applied to the argument about taxation: if they don't like paying taxes in the USA, why don't they become citizens of another country? Well, maybe they like where they are living overall, and would like it even more if they could get their preferences enacted (or get their preferences respected. Smokers don't *have* to light up in a bar or restaurant for the 60-120 minutes that they are there, but people around them do have to breathe their smoke. When someone at the next table else eating jelly donuts makes *me* fat, I'll probably see it differently).

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Smokey bars aren't the main concern? Then why are these bans usually applied to bars and the arguments made that the poor workers are suffering these conditions?

That town isn't the only town they can work in, is it? And why are they living in this town anyway, if they don't want a smokey work environment?



[/ QUOTE ]

Take the strict licensing requirements away from owning a bar and I could see your point. Do away with minimum wage laws, employment tax laws, licensing laws, etc and there would be more freedom for employees to choose and more incentive for owners to satisfy niche customers and keep employees happy.

The laws that I mentioned will never go away, so employees will never have the plethora of choices that you are fantasizing about. The smoking law is already here, and it satisfies employees and doesn’t piss off customers too bad. In fact, many smoking customers get use to it and end up liking the law. If the owner doesn't like the law, poke a hole in the ceiling at some area of your bar - problem solved and everyone happy.

If you insist on having a smoking bar, then there is no law prohibiting it. Just own it yourself and do your own bartending. Don’t hire employees, else, like I said, have an outside bar or an inside bar in an area where a hole is in the ceiling.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Take the strict licensing requirements away from owning a bar and I could see your point. Do away with minimum wage laws, employment tax laws, licensing laws, etc and there would be more freedom for employees to choose and more incentive for owners to satisfy niche customers and keep employees happy.

The laws that I mentioned will never go away, so employees will never have the plethora of choices that you are fantasizing about. The smoking law is already here, and it satisfies employees and doesn’t piss off customers too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
So we have a bunch of bad laws. That doesn't justify adding yet more bad laws.

And how do you know that such laws don't piss off customers? Did you poll them all?

[ QUOTE ]
If you insist on having a smoking bar, then there is no law prohibiting it. Just own it yourself and do your own bartending. Don’t hire employees, else, like I said, have an outside bar or an inside bar in an area where a hole is in the ceiling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should I then not be allowed to have customers? Are the customers not the concern then? Are the employees existance in the bar less voluntary than the customers?

And why stop with smoking? Shouldn't we ban fishing in the Bering Sea since so many people die there? Aren't you concerned about the health of those fishermen? How do we decide that a certain work-related risk is voluntarily accepted by the employees in that work?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's easier to move to another town than to change citizenships, the same reasoning could be applied to the argument about taxation

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said they'd have to move to another town?

But no, you can't apply the same reasoning to taxation since taxation is coercivly applied by a particular entity. No entity forces you to work at a smokey bar.

[ QUOTE ]
Smokers don't *have* to light up in a bar or restaurant for the 60-120 minutes that they are there, but people around them do have to breathe their smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]
And non-smokers don't *have* to go to a bar that allows smoking.

[fredericksburg]

I live in England where a nationwide smoking ban in public places with almost no exceptions is to be introduced next week. I think it is great that I will now be able to go to a pub or restaurant and be able to breathe clean air and not stink of cigarette smoke or wait at a train or bus station and not be surrounded by smoke.

I think far too much attention is paid to the rights of the smokers and not enough to the majority of people who don't smoke. Up until recently, smoke-free pubs, bars and restaurants were almost non-existent so there we didn't have a choice. They are now quite common and most people I have discussed it with prefer a smoke free bar, even the smokers.

I am also pleased that something is being done for the people who have to work in smoky environments. They need this protection as they tend to be in low paid, unskilled work so they don't usually have the choice of choosing different employment.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
So we have a bunch of bad laws. That doesn't justify adding yet more bad laws.



[/ QUOTE ]


Then what would you do with bad laws if you know they won’t be repealed? Bad laws create unintended consequences. The bad laws either need to be repealed ( preferable), or new laws need to be made to fix the problems with the bad laws.

[ QUOTE ]
And how do you know that such laws don't piss off customers? Did you poll them all?


[/ QUOTE ]


No. I concede this point.


[ QUOTE ]
Should I then not be allowed to have customers?

[/ QUOTE ]


When did I ever say anything about not being able to have customers?


[ QUOTE ]
Are the customers not the concern then?


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes. I explained in detail how to satisfy the customer. Just do what Larry Flynt does.


[ QUOTE ]
Are the employees existance in the bar less voluntary than the customers?


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, customers are totally voluntary. I’ve explained in detail why employees are less voluntary.


[ QUOTE ]
And why stop with smoking? Shouldn't we ban fishing in the Bering Sea since so many people die there? Aren't you concerned about the health of those fishermen? How do we decide that a certain work-related risk is voluntarily accepted by the employees in that work?


[/ QUOTE ]


What are you talking about? The Bering Sea is perhaps the most regulated area of fishing in the U.S., unless you are a native with a subsistence permit. Licenses fluctuate, but the last time I was in the Bearing Sea, they were running about $200,000. Also, these employees are paid a share of the catch, which, in the Bering Sea, and Kodiak Island, etc, is usually quite large. They take the risks for the same types of returns that the owners make.