Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

cigarette smoke = hidden threat. thanks.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Are you talking about standards for cleanliness and such? If so, it's completely different. Not to mention those apply to the staff and food preparation and such, not the clientele. No one is going to get food poisoning from breathing some errant second-hand smoke.

wrong. if there's mud or something on the floor, sink, or counter anywhere in the room by the food, it is a violation of health inspections. however, it has nothing to do with food preparation.

cigarette smoke also carries particles, such as various flus and other airborn diseases.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

So why don't they just post the results of a failed health inspection on the door rather than shutting the restaurant down? Let the consumers assume the risk if they choose.

this post is the same kind of post assumed would make.... i typically like you and your posts, so i suggest you rephrase your post so that it is logical and not assumed-like

 

[gotsmack]

what they should do is force everyone to be smoking only or non smoking only and business owners have to post a sign outside. that way you know what the deal is before you go somewhere and can't complain.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

bs. proof. i think MORE business will be had because of a decrease in smokers in their bars.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

cigarette smoke = hidden threat. thanks.

Thanks for what? Your silly attempt at obfuscating the obvious?

Cigarette smoke is readily detectable and hardly hidden.

Also, of all the airborne particulates you may face on a day to day basis, it's one of the LEAST harmful, if at all. Funny, I don't see you up in arms over diesel exhaust, which is universally PROVEN to cause cancer in people exposed to it on a daily basis unlike ETS, in which the majority of studies do not find harm outside the margin of error.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

Yes, you are justifying it because you agree with it. It makes sense to you because you agree with it.

actually, it makes sense because innocent people aren't being hurt. if those who want to hurt themselves WANT to hurt themselves without hurting others, they can.

that's called "making sense," regardless of whether or not i agree with it.

Again, it is quite simple. If you think tobacco smoke will harm you, do not go into private property that allows smoking. How hard is that?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

bs. proof. i think MORE business will be had because of a decrease in smokers in their bars.

It is a myth that smoking bans don't cause harm to some businesses:

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/05/03_hughesa_ban/

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

So why don't they just post the results of a failed health inspection on the door rather than shutting the restaurant down? Let the consumers assume the risk if they choose.

this post is the same kind of post assumed would make.... i typically like you and your posts, so i suggest you rephrase your post so that it is logical and not assumed-like

The funny thing here is he was being sarcastic in an effort to prove his argument... the same lame argument you're trying to make. Not only did it completely fly over your head, you vainly try to insult me with name-calling.

There is no ownage like self ownage...

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SampSon
Amused: If you've noticed how everything you're talking about has already been covered nearly verbatim in this thread, you'll realize how utterly useless it is to explain what you're saying to them. They don't care about property rights, or personal rights, or anybody's "rights" but their own. It's an exercise in futility and what it boils down to is these people saying "I don't like smoking and I will go to every measure to make sure it's not around me, except actually being proactive and not being in the presence of smokers.".

You can argue this thread to 15 more pages and you're never in a million years going to get them to agree that you're right and they are wrong on the issue of property rights and infringement of personal rights and the importance of personal responsibility. These people would rather whine and have the govt do something for them rather than them actually putting an ounce of effort into "protecting" themselves.

really Sampson, you are sounding like a typical smoker; harsh, inconsiderate, and just concerned with your rights. but hey, we're bad guys for wanting the same rights.

i don't see what the issue is for you. it seems you've found a goldmine of a bar in NY state that lets you smoke it up. kudos - have a good one there, and bitch about how bad non-smokers are, and how big brother is stealing all your rights. ha.

Psst, I'm not a smoker.

There is nothing harsh or inconsiderate with allowing business owners to decide if it's a smoking establishment or not. You have no argument against allowing that, period.
You have the same rights, if not more. Smokers now have to jump over hurdles in order to enjoy their rights while non-smokers don't have to do anything except exist. Personal rights should involve nothing more than existing, so why is it smokers must do more than exist in order to have their rights?

I dont have to specifically bitch about non-smokers, I will bitch about any fool that supports the government restriction of ones personal rights as well as a private business owners rights. I don't see how you can provide any argument against letting private business owners choose their stance on smoking.

Have fun arguing a losing battle with Amused, no offence of course.

smokers have to jump over hurdles in order to enjoy their rights? that's a bit dramatic.
two of my friends who used to smoke inside the bar now just step outside to puff. no hurdles, just a little change of setting, and a few short steps towards the door. funny, they aren't whining 1/16 as much as Amused is about this law.

i hate to keep going back to this, but seat belt laws, and even more specifically our law in NY which disallows us from speaking on a cell phone while driving (unless it's hands free) are also so-called government restrictions. do you take the stance that we should be allowed to decide on our own to wear a seatbelt or not or to talk on a cellphone while driving or not?

and i would've guessed you were a smoker because you revelled in the fact you found a bar that allows smoking. so that means you aren't a smoker, but you enjoy inhaling smoke put out by others?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: gotsmack
what they should do is force everyone to be smoking only or non smoking only and business owners have to post a sign outside. that way you know what the deal is before you go somewhere and can't complain.

what about the people that work there? what if there are only smoking bars in your area and it's the only job someone can get yet they don't want to be breathing in smoke their whole shift? do they count for anything?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

bs. proof. i think MORE business will be had because of a decrease in smokers in their bars.

It is a myth that smoking bans don't cause harm to some businesses:

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/05/03_hughesa_ban/

there is no myth. smoking bans have not hurt businesses.

Smoke Free City: How did ban affect NY? By Cheryl Burton
October 25, 2005 - A vote is expected later this week on a proposed smoking ban in Chicago's bars and restaurants. In 2003, New York City passed its own smoking ban. There was fear in the Big Apple that jobs would be lost and profits would plummet.

Some restaurant owners in Chicago have the same fears. What really happened in New York? And what might Chicago expect if a ban is passed here?
The scene on New York City sidewalks looks a lot different these days. Smoking was banned in bars and restaurants more than two years ago, forcing smokers to light up outside.

"At first, I was really upset about it, but once I got used to it, I understood," said Jessica Thomas, a bartender and smoker.

Most of the members of the New York State Restaurant Association were against the ban when it was first proposed.

"There may have been some places that have actually gone out of business as a result of it, but I think most have learned to live with it," said one member.

In survey after survey, New Yorkers say they are happier eating and drinking in a smoke-free environment. The fact most people feel that way should be no surprise since four out of five New Yorkers don't smoke.

"There are probably still some hardcore smokers that aren't coming to restaurants, but there are also people coming to restaurants that wouldn't go there before, because they didn't want to be around the smoking," said Chuck Hunt, New York State Restaurant Association.

Dan Meyer owns several Manhattan restaurants and says business has never been better.

"Every single fear that was injected into this argument in New York has not only not come to pass, but it's been quite the opposite. Restaurants are busier than ever. Bars are busier than ever," said Meyer, Union Square Hospitality Group president.

"I think we were a little slower than usual for about two days, and then after that, we've seen really no negative results from the ban whatsoever," said Michael Steele, Markt Restaurant Association GM.

And a public health study indicates those who work in New York restaurants are healthier now. Employees have fewer chronic sore throats, runny noses, and red eyes, all things that can be caused by secondhand smoke.
"Over the summer, new information came out that actually showed that by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars, the saliva of those workers showed a 78 percent reduction in cotinine, which is a key chemical that tracks exposure to tobacco smoke," said Louise Vetter, New York American LUNG Association CEO.

And the New York health department says since the ban, more people are now kicking the habit, and those who do smoke are doing it less.

"If I go out, yeah, I smoke less, which I guess is a good thing," said Jessica Thomas, smoking bartender.

The most common complaint about the smoke ban now comes from neighbors who say smokers gathered on the sidewalk make too much noise. But restaurants say the sidewalk crowds are good for business.

"Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. Sometimes, you know, it almost looks like we're so popular, because there are so many people standing outside smoking that we get busier," said Michael Steel, Markt Restaurant Association GM.

Apparently, there are still places in New York where the law is not being enforced and others where it is being overlooked late at night. Those owners will pay a price if they are caught, a fine of up to $2,000.

The Chicago City Council Health Committee votes on its version of the smoking ban this Thursday.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=special_coverage&id=3573803

Journal of the American Medical Association
Vol. 281 No. 20,
May 26, 1999

Results In constant 1997 dollars, passage of the smoke-free restaurant ordinance was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of change of hotel revenues in 4 localities, no significant change in 4 localities, and a significant slowing in the rate of increase (but not a decrease) in 1 locality. There was no significant change in the rate of change of hotel revenues as a fraction of total retail sales (P=.16) or total US hotel revenues associated with the ordinances when pooled across all localities (P=.93). International tourism was either unaffected or increased following implementation of the smoke-free ordinances.

Conclusion Smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and may increase, tourist business.

http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/revenues.htm

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

The Washington state ban does not allow smokers to smoke right outside the doors like the NY ban does. Note how he specifically mentioned the 25 foot clause, not once, but twice. You're comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the bar scene has moved out into the sidewalks and parking lots right outside the doors in NY, the same thing can't happen in WA state. Bars will be hurt, especially as they are the liable parties responsible for enforcing the ban out to the 25 foot limit (and not the smokers).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Too bad. Such a ban should be a decision for restaurant/bar owners to make.

And I bet you think a license to drive should be a decision made by automotive manufacturers, right?

By banning smoking in indoor public spaces, public health risks resulting from 2nd hand smoke will decrease. The same reason why the government requires people to be licensed to drive a vehicle.

Wow, talk about your flawed logic. You don't actually have a brain, do you? Here's a hint: roads are public property. It is perfectly legal to operate a vehicle without a drivers license on private property. BARS are private property.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

The Washington state ban does not allow smokers to smoke right outside the doors like the NY ban does. Note how he specifically mentioned the 25 foot clause, not once, but twice. You're comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the bar scene has moved out into the sidewalks and parking lots right outside the doors in NY, the same thing can't happen in WA state. Bars will be hurt, especially as they are the liable parties responsible for enforcing the ban out to the 25 foot limit (and not the smokers).

it's not comparing apples to oranges. they aren't that non-related.

being that this ban only took effect on December 8th, 2005, in Washington i think it's premature to say what long term effect it will have on buisnesses there.

i would bet that it will parallel what has happened in New York. people will still come out and adapt.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

The Washington state ban does not allow smokers to smoke right outside the doors like the NY ban does. Note how he specifically mentioned the 25 foot clause, not once, but twice. You're comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the bar scene has moved out into the sidewalks and parking lots right outside the doors in NY, the same thing can't happen in WA state. Bars will be hurt, especially as they are the liable parties responsible for enforcing the ban out to the 25 foot limit (and not the smokers).

it's not comparing apples to oranges. they aren't that non-related.

being that this ban only took effect on December 8th, 2005, in Washington i think it's premature to say what long term effect it will have on buisnesses there.

i would bet that it will parallel what has happened in New York. people will still come out and adapt.

Why should they have to adapt? Instead of passing a blanket, draconian law, why doesn't your selfish ass just go to a different bar?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

The Washington state ban does not allow smokers to smoke right outside the doors like the NY ban does. Note how he specifically mentioned the 25 foot clause, not once, but twice. You're comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the bar scene has moved out into the sidewalks and parking lots right outside the doors in NY, the same thing can't happen in WA state. Bars will be hurt, especially as they are the liable parties responsible for enforcing the ban out to the 25 foot limit (and not the smokers).

it's not comparing apples to oranges. they aren't that non-related.

being that this ban only took effect on December 8th, 2005, in Washington i think it's premature to say what long term effect it will have on buisnesses there.

i would bet that it will parallel what has happened in New York. people will still come out and adapt.

Why should they have to adapt? Instead of passing a blanket, draconian law, why doesn't your selfish ass just go to a different bar?

it's not about being selfish, although i will note you resorted to name calling. once again we have to travel down this road and explain to you that it is about getting rid of carcinogens for patrons and for workers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Washington has one of the harshest smoking bans yet, if I'm not mistaken. No smoking in bars and you can't smoke OUTSIDE if you're within 25 feet of any window, door or air intake... supposedly smokers in Seattle protested by camping in the middle of the streets and lighting up... it was the only place not within 25 feet of an opening. I'm not a smoker but... OMFG... I feel really sorry for some of the businesses here. Lots of businesses have been seeing greatly reduced profits and even lost money in some cases.

read up on what happened in NY when the ban went into effect. businesses complained how it would hurt them. initially it did, but it all leveled out to business as usual. the same will happen in Washington. some people just don't like change, but then they get used to it.

The Washington state ban does not allow smokers to smoke right outside the doors like the NY ban does. Note how he specifically mentioned the 25 foot clause, not once, but twice. You're comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the bar scene has moved out into the sidewalks and parking lots right outside the doors in NY, the same thing can't happen in WA state. Bars will be hurt, especially as they are the liable parties responsible for enforcing the ban out to the 25 foot limit (and not the smokers).

it's not comparing apples to oranges. they aren't that non-related.

being that this ban only took effect on December 8th, 2005, in Washington i think it's premature to say what long term effect it will have on buisnesses there.

i would bet that it will parallel what has happened in New York. people will still come out and adapt.

Why should they have to adapt? Instead of passing a blanket, draconian law, why doesn't your selfish ass just go to a different bar?

it's not about being selfish, although i will note you resorted to name calling. once again we have to travel down this road and explain to you that it is about getting rid of carcinogens for patrons and for workers.

Why shouldn't I resort to name-calling? Your argument contains the direct implication that we are all slaves incapable of making our own decisions, so you (and those that think like you) will selfishly make our decisions for us. That in itself is extremely insulting. When legislated, it is unforgivable.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You don't get it, and should try applying some common sense yourself. He's not implying anything. He's straight out saying this is depriving private owners of their rights. There is absolutely no logical way to deny that.
And what you're doing is justifying the law because you agree with it.
I find country music extremely distasteful; I don't try to get country bars outlawed, I just... don't go to them.

i'm justifying a law that makes sense... i agree with it because it's justifyable and makes sense. i'm not justifying it because i agree with it.

Yes, you are justifying it because you agree with it. It makes sense to you because you agree with it.

actually, it makes sense because innocent people aren't being hurt. if those who want to hurt themselves WANT to hurt themselves without hurting others, they can.

that's called "making sense," regardless of whether or not i agree with it.

Again, it is quite simple. If you think tobacco smoke will harm you, do not go into private property that allows smoking. How hard is that?

worst logic ever... businessly speaking and socially speaking.

 

[gotsmack]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: gotsmack
what they should do is force everyone to be smoking only or non smoking only and business owners have to post a sign outside. that way you know what the deal is before you go somewhere and can't complain.

what about the people that work there? what if there are only smoking bars in your area and it's the only job someone can get yet they don't want to be breathing in smoke their whole shift? do they count for anything?

what about coal miners that have to mine coal because that is the best work they can get in the area in which they live?

it's the same thing, but I'll take my chances with 2nd hand smoke. and most places I've been to that allow smoking have high celings and good ventilation. if the smoke is so thick you have trouble seeing I would think that it might set off the fire alarm.

 

[imported_Condor]

Light'em up! Just don't exhale!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mugs
How is prohibiting smoking any different from other health-related requirements for restaurants?

Quite simple. The other regulations stop hidden threats to the customer's health. Food poisoning and pest infestation are not easily detected, therefore the risk is not assumable.

With smoking, the supposed risk is easily assumable because smoke is easily detectable. Avoiding it is easy: If you smell smoke, don't go there.

Note the regulations do not stop the sale of unhealthy foods such as fatty foods or procressed sugars (though some are trying even that now). They stop threats where the risk cannot be assumed by the customer.

cigarette smoke = hidden threat. thanks.

Thanks for what? Your silly attempt at obfuscating the obvious?

Cigarette smoke is readily detectable and hardly hidden.

Also, of all the airborne particulates you may face on a day to day basis, it's one of the LEAST harmful, if at all. Funny, I don't see you up in arms over diesel exhaust, which is universally PROVEN to cause cancer in people exposed to it on a daily basis unlike ETS, in which the majority of studies do not find harm outside the margin of error.

hahaha for one, i AM up in arms about deisel fumes... also, 2nd hand smoke in an establishment is way more direct than a diesel truck spewing o-zone carcinogens into the open air. if there were a mack truck in my local bar fuming up a storm, i'll be up in arms... until then, i think i'll let it slide for the sake of this thread :roll:.

also, smoking causes more carcinogens to be spewed into the environment than do diesel automobile.... why? sheer numbers. there are way more smokers, which yeild a larger number of carcinogenic material than do diesel automobiles, per capita, in your worthless argument.