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

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t feel sorry for the Bering Sea fisher man making $80,000 in 3 months, I don’t feel sorry for the pretty poker dealer making $200 a night nor do I feel sorry for the pretty female, asian Pai Gow dealer making $800 a night. These people have jobs that require skills or other qualifications and they are compensated for working in the hostile environment of their choosing.

I say that low income, unskilled, unattractive workers have less choice. Obviously you don't and we simply are going to disagree.

Regarding bars - I’d be more sympathetic to your arguments if everyone involved didn’t benefit so much - the customers, the employees, and the owners. If the owners were losing money, that would be one thing, but they aren’t ( in aggregate ), they are making more money since the ban went into effect. I did see a study where tobacco companies lost money due to the ban, but, oh well, we were discussing bars. Evidently, when people are smoking less, they are drinking more. Ironically, by forcing all bars to comply, the State forced all bars to make more money. If the State hadn’t enacted these laws, it would have been tough for bar owners to cartelize in so efficient a manner.

link to brief of California board of Equalization reports


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CURRENT STATUS OF SMOKE-FREE BARS IN CALIFORNIA

On January 1, 1998, the final component of the California Smoke-free Workplace Act, Labor Code 6404.5 (formerly known as AB 13) went into effect. It mandated that bars, restaurants with bars, and gaming clubs-- including casinos, bingo parlors and card rooms---join virtually all other places of employment in California by prohibiting smoking indoors.

Nearly five years after the Smoke free Workplace Act went into effect, the economic effects of the legislation are clear and positive.
¨ COMPLIANCE IS HIGH
Reliable estimates based upon on-site bar observations, place sustained overall compliance with Labor Code 6404.5 at 90% for all bars, taverns, gaming clubs and restaurants with bars, statewide. Enforcement activities are taking place in every county in California at municipal and/or county levels. (Compliance estimates are obtained from municipal and countywide code enforcement agencies, county health departments, and non-profit health organizations that monitor bar compliance in California 1999-2000)

¨ REVENUES ARE UP
State of California Board of Equalization sales tax figures prove that Taxable Annual Sales for bars and restaurants increased by nearly 6% during 1998 as compared to 1997; and revenues for 1999 increased over 1998 figures by more than 8%. Sales for these establishments went up again in 2000 by 9.8%. Even with an overall downturn for other sectors of the economy in 2001, taxable sales reported by bars and restaurants increased again in the first quarter of 2001 by 6.9% over revenues in 2000. (California State Board of Equalization-November March 2001)

¨ CALIFORNIANS BELIEVE IN IT
88.7% of Californians agree that all indoor work sites should be smoke-free, including bars. Since January 1, 1998 when smoke-free bars became law, several statewide public opinion polls including an American Cancer Society-sponsored poll, several Field Research Corporation Polls and a Los Angeles Times Poll found that Californians - including bar patrons - overwhelmingly support the current law banning smoking in bars, restaurants, taverns, gaming clubs, casinos and bingo parlors. (1997, California Adult Tobacco Survey, CDHS)

¨ EVEN TOURISTS LIKE IT
Tourism in the state has not been affected negatively by California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Act despite the tobacco industry’s dire predictions. In fact, California continues to be the most visited state in America. (California Trade & Commerce Agency-1998 & BREATH-1999)

¨ WORKER HEALTH HAS IMPROVED
The health of bar staff has improved as a result of the California Smoke-free Workplace Law. A University of California-San Francisco study of bartenders revealed that 59% who had symptoms of respiratory problems and impaired lung capacity before the law took effect showed a significant decrease in symptoms and improved lung capacity when they were interviewed and tested after the law took effect. (Journal of the American Medical Association-JAMA-December 9, 1998)

¨ OUR WORKFORCE IS PROTECTED
Over 800,000 hospitality employees who were unprotected prior to January 1, 1998, are now guaranteed a smoke-free workplace under Labor Code 6404.5. In 1990, only 35% of California workers were protected from secondhand smoke. In 2000, over 90% were protected. (California Department of Health Services-Tobacco Control Section-2000)




[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
unless bar owners have some obsession with getting non-smokers to have smoke blown in their face, what benefit in this situation does cartelization have?


[/ QUOTE ]
You guys are tough. People are going to go to the bars where the rowdiest, loosest women are. Here in Idaho, where we don’t have smoking bans, those bars would be the smoking bars. Non smoking bars do ok, but they are business MAN hangouts mostly. Hence, single bar owners don’t have a large incentive to make their establishment non smoking for fear that they will lose business because people congregate to other bars.
However if someone forces all bars to become non-smoking, then the loose rowdy women are still going to hang out at whatever club has the best music, only while the females are dancing with themselves, the men are going to drink even more because they can’t smoke. Forcing the hapless bar owners to make more money.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but it's not that simple (or at least it didn't used to be that simple, before non-smoking became a popular policy). A relative handful of smokers, scattered around a restaurant, or a town, or a city, or a state, or a country, possessed the capability to make life unpleasant and unhealthful for every non-smoker in every place of public accomodation everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's that simple. If you walk into a place and smell the faintest waft of smoke, leave. That's how you can send a message to business owners if you feel they're neglecting your desires.

[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like your neighbor playing Led Zeppelin at concert hall volume...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, and it's not even close. My neighbors' smoking doesn't affect me unless I've chosen to be there. Just like someone in a bar's smoking doesn't affect me unless I've chosen to be there. Clearly my neighbor blasting music will affect me whether I've chosen to be in his house or not. Are you now for criminalizing smoking within one's own home?

I would be opposed to the bar simply venting its smoke into the air because now people who have not chosen to expose themselves to cigarette smoke are forced to deal with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand something: under AC, you have the moral right to do anything if it does not harm or coerce others, is that correct? Well, smoking around others indoors does not fit into that category because it does harm others.

[/ QUOTE ]
With some caveats, such as being able to hold a boxing tournament on your property. I also think you have the right to set the rules on your property and if others don't like those rules, they can leave.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like your neighbor playing Led Zeppelin at concert hall volume: you don't have to live there next to him, but if you choose to do so, you'll just have to deal with it? Well, no, that's why town ordinances regarding decibel levels exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO! it's like someone doing this IN A CONCERT HALL and you demanding the volume lowered. The smoke is not wafting onto your property, you chose to go to a place where the owner allows smoking even though it makes you gag and tear up. If you don't like loud music don't go to rock concerts, if you don't like second-hand smoke don't go to smoking bars+restaurants.

[FreakDaddy]

Should we allow PRIVATE club owners to burn diesel in their clubs?

Or how about the 'easier' question...

Should we allow PRIVATE club owners to run nude in their clubs?

Hope you see the point, and can put the rest together. If not, then just do more drugs...

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if any other airborne pollutant besides cigarette smoke were present, OSHA would require workers to wear a respirator or breathing aparatus. I think those kind of protections are good for workers and patrons.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is nanny state thinking at its apex. Employees are too stupid to choose where they work, a smokey bar or a smoke free environment.

I'm always pleased to find folks that know they know what's better for me.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is nanny state thinking at its apex. Employees are too stupid to choose where they work, a smokey bar or a smoke free environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply using slogans to make your point. Employees simply don't have the choice you think they have. There stupidity, as you call it, may extend to putting them at risk to support their families.

[BaggyAnt]

banning smoking in bars what next?...banning on-line gambling as well...oh wait

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
banning smoking in bars what next?...banning on-line gambling as well...oh wait

[/ QUOTE ]

Online gambling doesn't affect others... smoking surely does!

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but it's not that simple (or at least it didn't used to be that simple, before non-smoking became a popular policy). A relative handful of smokers, scattered around a restaurant, or a town, or a city, or a state, or a country, possessed the capability to make life unpleasant and unhealthful for every non-smoker in every place of public accomodation everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's that simple. If you walk into a place and smell the faintest waft of smoke, leave. That's how you can send a message to business owners if you feel they're neglecting your desires.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Sending a message " didn't do the trick for many decades. You are likely too young to have experienced it, though. It won't help you much if "the market" takes 70 years to come around to your way of thinking and you get cancer from secondhand smoke in the meantime.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like your neighbor playing Led Zeppelin at concert hall volume...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, and it's not even close. My neighbors' smoking doesn't affect me unless I've chosen to be there.Just like someone in a bar's smoking doesn't affect me unless I've chosen to be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

But smokers monopolized all bars and restaurants with their presence and smoke. Like I said, there didn't used to be a choice: Smoking was taken for granted virtually everywhere. Again, I'm guessing you're too young to have experienced that.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly my neighbor blasting music will affect me whether I've chosen to be in his house or not. Are you now for criminalizing smoking within one's own home?

[/ QUOTE ]

I favor bans in places of indoor public accomodation.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be opposed to the bar simply venting its smoke into the air because now people who have not chosen to expose themselves to cigarette smoke are forced to deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the smoke is out-of-doors it disperses quickly, usually. Secondhand smoking generally refers to something that occurs indoors. Have you ever been to a large automobile dealer's auction? The fumes indoors are what are brutal, not the air outside.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand something: under AC, you have the moral right to do anything if it does not harm or coerce others, is that correct? Well, smoking around others indoors does not fit into that category because it does harm others.

[/ QUOTE ]


With some caveats, such as being able to hold a boxing tournament on your property. I also think you have the right to set the rules on your property and if others don't like those rules, they can leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Secondhand smoke on harms more people than does a boxing tournament. It is the harm to others that defines this category of activity for purposes of this argument.

Thanks for your responses.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like your neighbor playing Led Zeppelin at concert hall volume: you don't have to live there next to him, but if you choose to do so, you'll just have to deal with it? Well, no, that's why town ordinances regarding decibel levels exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO! it's like someone doing this IN A CONCERT HALL and you demanding the volume lowered. The smoke is not wafting onto your property, you chose to go to a place where the owner allows smoking even though it makes you gag and tear up. If you don't like loud music don't go to rock concerts, if you don't like second-hand smoke don't go to smoking bars+restaurants.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring the related point that before the bans came into effect, essentially EVERY bar and restaurant was a smoking establishment. The choice you would have had in those days was NOT between going to a smoking or non-smoking establishment, the choice was between going out or staying home for the evening. The same applied to any sizable indoor workplace, even in office settings. Your choice would have been to go to the office to go work (and breathe others' smoke), or skip work and stay home. I'll guess that you, like BCPVP, are much too young to have experienced these choices and conditions.