Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Thorfinn]

You completely and conveniently ignored the big issue of the single Mom who can't get a job anywhere else. Or the student who can't work anywhere else while studying.

Why can't they find another job? I know darned well most fast food places pretty much always have a sign up, and very few of them allow smoking anywhere. Every time I go into WalMart, they are asking for someone to bring carts out of the parking lot, and usually have a stocker or cashier position open. Heck, flip open the Help Wanted section and there is a slew of entry level positions roughly as demanding as barmaid. If they want to work at the bar for tips, big friggin' deal. That is their choice. If will have to weigh the tips against the second-hand smoke.

I am being considerate. This is people being forced to destroy their health so they can pay rent, eat or provide for a child. That is the biggest reason this has been done. To provide a safe WORKPLACE.

Really. Perhaps you missed the little discussion about safety and second-hand smoke. I know of no second-hand research that has not been proven to be bogus, simple exercises in data mining, including the 1993 EPA report that started this whole goverment regulation nightmare. Perhaps you could enlighten me if there are some which have not been totally discredited? Because if not, you are condoning government officials committing perjury, just so that you can have the world arranged more the way you like.\

But then again, it has been a long time since I have ever heard of a "liberal" who thought perjury was a bad thing...

[mysticelt]

The way I see it...
establishments have to have a safety standard. If they want to allow smoking in the establishment, they should have an area with highly functioning air cleaners apart from 'non-smokers'. The reason this is not happening is the establishments exist for profit.

It works quite well in our county. Force the establishments to provide a safe environment for all patrons to dine safely and not exclude anyone.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: And before we go on about the jobless having a choice, has anyone heard the saying "beggars can't be choosers?"

Dude, The reality of the situation is you can go work smoke-free at mcdonalds or taco bell, have a steady wage and they are almost always hiring. So I say the jobless do have a choice and aren't neccessarily beggars.

I realy find this to be a lame argument. If someone doesnt like smoke, they aren't gonna go work at a smoky bar, when Dennys up the road offers the same type job with at least a segregated smoking area.

What problem do you have with segregated smoking areas? The non-smokers get a smoke free enviroment and the smokers get an indoor social enviroment to smoke.
Non-smoking employees who have health concerns can work the non-smoking side if they choose.

[Thorfinn]

Originally posted by Yorick: Thorfinn, yet again you've avoided answering the question. What is so tough about walking outside for two minutes? Don't attempt to comeback with a "what's so tough about staying away" that's a distraction. A straw man. Answer the question.

There is nothing tough about it. What is your point? Why should you be able to force me, the guy who owns the bar, and who presumably invited you in (though I'm having second thoughts about the wisdom thereof) to go outside my own building to have a smoke? Especially considering pretty soon, you are going to be complaining that you have to walk through smoke to get into the place, and I'm going to have to go into the alley. And don't think it won't happen -- it already has...

BTW, you are using "straw man" incorrectly. A straw man is when "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument." I did not attack your argument at all. In fact, my argument was that you have no right to violate my property rights. You have the right simply to refuse to do business with me. You chose not to answer that, but to set up a straw man yourself that it would not be too difficult for me to comply with your wishes. There was a straw man, indeed, but it was not perpetrated by me...

[ 05-13-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Ummm in one case you have people exercising their right to political speech, in another you have people poluting their bodies and the air of everyone near them. Apple meet orange. Unless smoking is now a form of political speech.

Not exactly accurate. The mall was allowed to limit the guy's FIrst Amendment free speech right because it is PRIVATELY owned. By the very same token, the mall - THE MALL - decides if it is a smoking or non-smoking venue. Apple meet apple.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: And what would happen if the private establishment banned blacks from entering? Apartheid mk III?? The rights to exclusion are nonsense.

Private clubs - where you pay membership - can still ban blacks -- q.v. many golf courses (yes, still). Civil Rights Act is the ONLY thing that prevents a bar from banning blacks. Again, the constitution does not disallow me from being prejudice, rather it is a bar to the government making laws that discriminate.

Using fair logic, we make it up to the OWNER of the bar to decide whether smoking is allowed. Then, we BAN smoking outside, where it can affect anyone traversing the public property. This I would be more supportive of. Telling a pub owner what he must or must not allow is a sort of tyranny.

A night club can refuse you entrance if it does not like your shirt or the size/shape of your butt. Living in NYC I am sure you realize this. Now, under the law, it can still do this, but it must not allow smoking inside. This is absolute idiocy. Either the club owner owns his private land or he does not.

[edit] And, the club can still install all the annoying FOG MACHINES it wants!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

[ 05-13-2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Mordenheim]

Walking outside for two minutes has no bearing on the issue. The issue has been raised several times. I think some of us are more worried about a trend or a thought pattern that gives way to this type of law.

There are plenty of places that exclude and do it in a legal manner. All kinds of private clubs that excluse all types of people based on religion, gender, race, and other factors. That is something you deal with in a free society.

The problem here is those fine people gave not one though to people who smoked. I am not saying everyone should not be treated equal but that is not what happened. Listening to you Yorick is frightning. You can't get past "my" "I" to see the bigger picture that I am sure you could care a less about.

Had people got together and made way for non-smoking and smoking bars then the issue would have been much better resolved. Let us stop beating around the real issue though. These same people see a America where smoking is a banned illegal act. At the very best they see a America where smoking is something you should do with the local heroine addict in a corner far from society. They can't ban smoking outright so they chip away at it. They create this massive hysteria and you can create anough radicals to make a stir. Why exactly do you reward 600 million to one single man who got cancer? To kill the company of course. Why do you make smoking illegal in ALL bars instead of doing the right thing and having two places where each can go? To make smokers feel ashamed and not worthy of doing such a vile act in public of course. The market would handle both just fine I believe since alcholism is so rampant. The truth is they do not WANT any place a smoker can feel at ease. I know it, you know it, we all know it and that is the problem.

I watch this issue and I can't help but give a nod to those who set it all up. Clever move and even here in America we have people saying it is just fine because who cares.. "it's a smoker" afterall who is killing every little child and woman. Yet the evidence show's FAR greater evils that do FAR greater damage to the public. I don't take rights and freedom lightly and no matter my opinion on smoke it is a non-factor. A FAIR AND EQUAL conclusion was never tried nor considered. So go ahead and not respond to 90% of my post and pick what you feel you can attack. Just remember that no amount of debate is going to change this fact : When you make the LEGAL act of smoking ILLEGAL in a PRIVATE owned establishment then you ARE discriminating. So enjoy it folk's and be glad to wear the "tearing down America one freedom at a time" hat.

I'll have a smoker over my house before I will have some no good drunk anyday of the week. I was raised around smoking and my phsyical was 100%. Must be one of the lucky ones like all the others huh.

[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: And what would happen if the private establishment banned blacks from entering? Apartheid mk III?? The rights to exclusion are nonsense.

Private clubs - where you pay membership - can still ban blacks -- q.v. many golf courses (yes, still). Civil Rights Act is the ONLY thing that prevents a bar from banning blacks. Again, the constitution does not disallow me from being prejudice, rather it is a bar to the government making laws that discriminate.

Using fair logic, we make it up to the OWNER of the bar to decide whether smoking is allowed. Then, we BAN smoking outside, where it can affect anyone traversing the public property. This I would be more supportive of. Telling a pub owner what he must or must not allow is a sort of tyranny.

A night club can refuse you entrance if it does not like your shirt or the size/shape of your butt. Living in NYC I am sure you realize this. Now, under the law, it can still do this, but it must not allow smoking inside. This is absolute idiocy. Either the club owner owns his private land or he does not.

[edit] And, the club can still install all the annoying FOG MACHINES it wants!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Don't worry the smoking outside ban is on it's way if certain people here give any indication. "Can not smoke 5 miles within a business radius" .. who cares "they are just smokers"

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Go outside for two minutes. I sound like a freakin' broken record. Go outside for two minutes. Go outside for two minutes. It's not hard, just go outside for two minutes.

I agree. Take your loud music outside for 2 minutes. How can anyone enjoy a bar with the stuff turned up THAT loud?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: That is their choice. If will have to weigh the tips against the second-hand smoke.

Precisely my point. They shouldn't have to sacrifice their health so they can survive.