Timber's smoking thread, Part III

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: I might have missed soemthing Yorick...but how come people who do not like working in a smokey environment are..ummm working in a smokey envrionment...re-that bartender you just tossed at TL...? If they don't like smoke, Im pretty sure they are not indentured servants or slaves....Unless Im way off on my idea of what NYC is like....

Debt is the slavery of the West.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Debt is the slavery of the West.

Finally, something we can agree on. I hope you are going to reply to my most recent questions, including the outstanding 20% issue.

[pritchke]

I don't see how having 20% of a bar or restaurant smoke free works. What happens when the door to the smoking room opens. It all goes to the non-smoking side. Even if for a few minutes it still enough to make your cloths stink.

One thing would be for the bar restaurant owners to have a say if their establishment is smoke free or not. If a restaurant allowed smoking than kids are not allowed in to eat, or a special permit.

This is all fine but I think the real issue is protecting the workers rights.
I worked in an office building once in which the head bosses smoked. My cloths stank, I was tired, grumpy, and unproductive. I was only to happy to leave. Maybe the bars could provide mask and special tanks on their backs to provide clean air to the non-smoking workers. They would sound like Darth Vader taking your order.

But whatever, I generally avoid smoking establishments, and their business is usually less than the non smoking establishments.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by pritchke: I don't see how having 20% of a bar or restaurant smoke free works. What happens when the door to the smoking room opens. It all goes to the non-smoking side. Even if for a few minutes it still enough to make your cloths stink.

You've missed a lot of the discussion. The proposal on the table, as a way to reach some compromise is:
1. Ban smoking in PUBLIC areas -- streets and sidewalks, but not your back yard (which you own) or in your car.
2. Pass a ZONING ordinance such that BUILDING PERMITS are only issued in such a way (details can be done later) that at all times at least 20% of the bars in town are smoking and 20% are non-smoking. The 60% in the middle can fluctuate to reflect what the market preference is. Thus, be you a smoker or a non-smoker, you can always count on 1 out of every 5 bars being a haven for your tastes.

Personally, since I'm willing to ban smoking and its bothersome effects while he's walking on the street, I don't know why Yorick doesn't leap at this proposal.

But, regardless, it's not about cutting up one venue, it's about allocating among venues.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by pritchke: I don't see how having 20% of a bar or restaurant smoke free works. What happens when the door to the smoking room opens. It all goes to the non-smoking side. Even if for a few minutes it still enough to make your cloths stink.

You've missed a lot of the discussion. The proposal on the table, as a way to reach some compromise is:
1. Ban smoking in PUBLIC areas -- streets and sidewalks, but not your back yard (which you own) or in your car.
2. Pass a ZONING ordinance such that BUILDING PERMITS are only issued in such a way (details can be done later) that at all times at least 20% of the bars in town are smoking and 20% are non-smoking. The 60% in the middle can fluctuate to reflect what the market preference is. Thus, be you a smoker or a non-smoker, you can always count on 1 out of every 5 bars being a haven for your tastes.

Personally, since I'm willing to ban smoking and its bothersome effects while he's walking on the street, I don't know why Yorick doesn't leap at this proposal.

But, regardless, it's not about cutting up one venue, it's about allocating among venues. [/QUOTE]Makes sense to me. I think Yorick's concern is more for the rights of workers in a smoking establishment. But I would be looking else were if I worked in such an establishment. Maybe I can't really say but there seems to be no scarcity of work in the restaurant and bar industry.

[Timber Loftis]

The "service industry" represents fully 45% or more of the jobs in both New York and Chicago. If 20% of the bars were always guaranteed to be non-smoking, the issue would not exist, as there would be other places to work. Besides restaurants in NY State are, and have been for years, non-smoking only, IIRC. Even where they are not, these days the smoking sections are relegated to 2 boths that you have to walk through the kitchen to get to anyway. Plus, Hotels and the like also employ service industry folks in the same sorts of capacities.

In short, the "force someone to work in smoke" argument really only applies to bartenders and musicians (like Yorick), because everyone else can find work in their same job function elsewhere. Pass my 20% rule and the issue is off the table completely.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Personally, since I'm willing to ban smoking and its bothersome effects while he's walking on the street, I don't know why Yorick doesn't leap at this proposal.

Because out in the open it's not harming anyone but the smoker.

I'm for legalisation of all drugs, hard and soft, but support any law which restricts a drug users choice to use, overriding someones choice not to. I don't support marijuana or tobacco smoking in public bars, the workplace or any other area nonsmokers will be affected.

What people do in the open air or their own house is different.

Although, if their decision to smoke affects their child, I would call this irresponsible parenting. If a woman uses while pregnant, the child inherits the addiction.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The "service industry" represents fully 45% or more of the jobs in both New York and Chicago. If 20% of the bars were always guaranteed to be non-smoking, the issue would not exist, as there would be other places to work.

THat's not a given Timber. It would also over-regulate the industry. The magical 20% number would keep changing as new places opened up. What if they closed down? A smoking place suddnely lost it's right to be a smoking place because a couple of places closed down that month. It'd be chaos in an already chaotic city Timber.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you still have not responded to my 20% request. Apparently, you want it all. Your way or the highway. I now resort to acting like you: Will you please quit ducking and answer the dang question.

1. Are you willing to give me a measley 1 in 5 bars? Or, must you insist on having ALL my liberty to smoke?

2. What about my proposed compromise.

God, this is frustrating. If you were not so guilty of doing that which you accuse others of doing, I would not be so concerned.

I DEMAND AN ANSWER.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Yorick: Because out in the open it's not harming anyone but the smoker.

I actually disagree.

Bus stops can usually be fairly bad, then there is the littering problem. I don't know very many people who carry their butts with them. Sometimes there are garbage bins or ashtrays nearby and butts are still tossed on the ground. City Aesthetics!

[ 05-14-2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]