On smoking bans in bars and such

[Robor]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The argument that smoke is bad for you is a little silly. Need I remind you that drinking is bad for you also? In Kansas they use to have blue laws so they made a lot of the bars into private clubs and they drank on sunday anyway. So bars could use the same basic premise and call themselves private clubs and require a membership card that they do not charge for. Then they just let you smoke anyway.

You've got to be kidding me. There's hard evidence that long-term exposure to 2nd hand smoke is harmful. Some people are affected by short-term exposure. My ex-wife got asthma attacks when she was around it.

 

[piasabird]

I think you missed the point. There is evidence that if you drink that Drinking Alcohol can kill you. The point was not that Smoking was not bad for you, it was that drinking was just as bad for you. Based on this all bars should be permanently closed.

Please take a deep breath and smell the pizza!!!!!!!

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: sactoking


You have 100 potential customers. 50 are smokers and 50 are non-smokers. It takes 60 people for a bar to be profitable. If all you have are smoking bars, the 50 smokers will go there and maybe 10-15 non-smokers will as well. The bar gets just enough business to stay open.

If you open a non-smoking bar, you will likely have a 50-50 split of patronage and neither bar makes enough money to stay open.

If you mandate that bars go non-smoking, you will probably get 40 or so non-smokers and 40 or so smokers. It is, in the long run, more profitable to force bars to be non-smoking. Opening it up to competition does no good as neither venue can be made profitable.

This is proven to be true in states and municipalities that ban smoking. Overall profitability goes up as the influx of non-smoking customers outweighs the very small losses of smoking customers.

Speculation IMO. Competition is always good, whoever runs the best businesses wins. Forcing businesses to go smoke free isn't going to end the world...but little by little big gov't is taking more freedom away from business owners.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: piasabird
The argument that smoke is bad for you is a little silly. Need I remind you that drinking is bad for you also? In Kansas they use to have blue laws so they made a lot of the bars into private clubs and they drank on sunday anyway. So bars could use the same basic premise and call themselves private clubs and require a membership card that they do not charge for. Then they just let you smoke anyway.

You've got to be kidding me. There's hard evidence that long-term exposure to 2nd hand smoke is harmful. Some people are affected by short-term exposure. My ex-wife got asthma attacks when she was around it.

It is harmful. However, I do believe that the numbers of 2nd hand smoke related deaths and serious health problems are GREATLY exaggerated.

 

[piasabird]

There should be bars where people can smoke if that is what they want to do. Just put a sign on the door that says if you enter you agree to be exposed to second hand smoke and have no legal right to sue us.

Personally, I never go to bars. I dont drink and I dont smoke, and they have nothing I want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: piasabird
The argument that smoke is bad for you is a little silly. Need I remind you that drinking is bad for you also? In Kansas they use to have blue laws so they made a lot of the bars into private clubs and they drank on sunday anyway. So bars could use the same basic premise and call themselves private clubs and require a membership card that they do not charge for. Then they just let you smoke anyway.

You've got to be kidding me. There's hard evidence that long-term exposure to 2nd hand smoke is harmful. Some people are affected by short-term exposure. My ex-wife got asthma attacks when she was around it.

That's just part of what is wrong with his thinking. Were is the evidence that when you drink and breathe your alcoholic vapors in the air it hurts me. Where is the evidence that moderate drinking is bad?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I have to say is that everyone in CA complained about the smoking ban before it came in, and now I know very very few people who would ever want to go back.

The power struggle between banning and not banning cigarettes goes back to a power struggle between children wanting to continue playing and their Mom's desire to change their diaper. They will kick and scream but feel much better after it's changed.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think you missed the point. There is evidence that if you drink that Drinking Alcohol can kill you. The point was not that Smoking was not bad for you, it was that drinking was just as bad for you. Based on this all bars should be permanently closed.

Please take a deep breath and smell the pizza!!!!!!!

As I stated earlier, I think this case should be left up to each business to decide.

With that said, comparing smoking to drinking here is a poor argument. Second hand smoke is a health risk to people and there is no disputing that. The act of drinking alcohol is not a health risk to anyone around you. What you might do while drunk could be a health risk to those around you, but that is why we have laws against that sort of behavior and we don't have laws against the actual intake of alcohol with exception of age. Big difference.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think you missed the point. There is evidence that if you drink that Drinking Alcohol can kill you. The point was not that Smoking was not bad for you, it was that drinking was just as bad for you. Based on this all bars should be permanently closed.

Please take a deep breath and smell the pizza!!!!!!!

Your comparison is seriously flawed. Drinking alcohol affects the person drinking it and no one else. Smoking affects the smoker and those around them. I can wait tables in a bar and serve alcohol to patrons with no affects on my health. The same can not be said in a smoking bar.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: piasabird
The argument that smoke is bad for you is a little silly. Need I remind you that drinking is bad for you also? In Kansas they use to have blue laws so they made a lot of the bars into private clubs and they drank on sunday anyway. So bars could use the same basic premise and call themselves private clubs and require a membership card that they do not charge for. Then they just let you smoke anyway.

You've got to be kidding me. There's hard evidence that long-term exposure to 2nd hand smoke is harmful. Some people are affected by short-term exposure. My ex-wife got asthma attacks when she was around it.

It is harmful. However, I do believe that the numbers of 2nd hand smoke related deaths and serious health problems are GREATLY exaggerated.

I agree they are likely exaggerated but they do exist. As I said, I've seen it first hand.

 

[winnar111]

Smoking gets tax revenue for the state and kills off people before they can collect Medicare.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think you missed the point. There is evidence that if you drink that Drinking Alcohol can kill you. The point was not that Smoking was not bad for you, it was that drinking was just as bad for you. Based on this all bars should be permanently closed.

When other people drink my liver doesn't die.

 

[I Saw OJ]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I have to say is that everyone in CA complained about the smoking ban before it came in, and now I know very very few people who would ever want to go back.

Agreed, im so used to it now that whenever I go out of state and see someone smoking in a bar or restaurant it seems really out of place and weird

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree with the few people that hae said a smoking ban was a good thing. I live in an area that went smoke free about 2 years ago and the bars/clubs are much nicer now. Plus they seem to bring in more business than before because non smokers were now comfortable going to these places. But i dont mind the governement interviening on my behalf since most people seem to stupid/willing to enforce these rules on their own.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Smoking gets tax revenue for the state and kills off people before they can collect Medicare.

What about their insurance company pre-medicare?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think you missed the point. There is evidence that if you drink that Drinking Alcohol can kill you. The point was not that Smoking was not bad for you, it was that drinking was just as bad for you. Based on this all bars should be permanently closed.

When other people drink my liver doesn't die.

But I have to hear them sing, and that's not good for my soul!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111
Smoking gets tax revenue for the state and kills off people before they can collect Medicare.

What about their insurance company pre-medicare?

Well, that's not on taxpayer dollars. $450 billion a year for about 45 million people ($10k a person) and growing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Way to address the questions.

/hiFive

EDIT: Bolded questions for the most educated American on Internets, who apparently can't read.

I read just fine.

I love how people have pwned those like you in this thread.

Nice job everyone :thumbsup:

 

[digiram]

If bands don't like second hand, then they don't have to play. If people don't like smoke, then they don't have to go. Should be totally up to the owner.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I have to say is that everyone in CA complained about the smoking ban before it came in, and now I know very very few people who would ever want to go back.

The power struggle between banning and not banning cigarettes goes back to a power struggle between children wanting to continue playing and their Mom's desire to change their diaper. They will kick and scream but feel much better after it's changed.

So the gov't of a free society should be a nanny?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: winnar111
Smoking gets tax revenue for the state and kills off people before they can collect Medicare.

What about their insurance company pre-medicare?

Well, that's not on taxpayer dollars. $450 billion a year for about 45 million people ($10k a person) and growing.

Doesn't matter. The money is coming from somewhere so it applies to everyone in one way or another. Getting sidetracked anyway. These bans are to protect non-smokers in the workplace.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I have to say is that everyone in CA complained about the smoking ban before it came in, and now I know very very few people who would ever want to go back.

The power struggle between banning and not banning cigarettes goes back to a power struggle between children wanting to continue playing and their Mom's desire to change their diaper. They will kick and scream but feel much better after it's changed.

So the gov't of a free society should be a nanny?

It already is. Why can't I drink in public? I'm well over 21 so drinking alcohol is legal for me.

 

[Peelback79]

Google "Meta study of SHS" or "Meta analysis study of SHS" (Second Hand Smoke). I'll not inject too much of my own opinion as, regardless if you agree with me or not, I'd rather see you do the research and form an opinion of your own than watch the evening news and run screaming into the street about whatever "Story" they're sensationalizing.
A Meta study, for lack of a better description, is a study of studies. I wish I wasn't at work I'd have time to dig up a link I read through. Long story short: An orginization did a meta analysis of the top 22 studies of SHS and found that the cumulative results of those studies had been exagerrated. 2 of the studies showed an increased risk in health due to SHS, 2 found a decreased risk (healthier to be around SHS? wonder who funded those studies lawl) and 18 showed no risk whatsoever to being around SHS.
I heard a good comparison the other day: Which is unhealthier? To be in a closed room with 30 smokers, or in a closed room with 1 automobile running? Now which is more dangerous?
I absolutely agree with many in here who feel that this is merely an overswollen pig of a gov't (regardless of party lines, they're all watching out for each other) trying to 'protect' us from our own stupid selves.
I apologize. I lied about injecting to much of my opinion. Where do I stand on smoking? After struggling about a year I was finally able to go and stay 100% smoke (and chew) free as of March '05. I'm never going back. I love the money I'm saving and my food tastes soooo much better. But that's because of action I've taken myself, not because of some Government mandate.

 

[Gooberlx2]

My brother said this was going in to effect in Detroit...happened here in Colorado a few years ago, happened before that in my college town (applied to establishments with less than a certain % of alcohol sales...basically anything not a bar).

While I appreciate the effects, being a non-smoker, I never voted for any of the initiatives because I think it should be the owner's choice. Still, they always passed.

In college, a couple bar owners chose to prohibit smoking inside. If anything, their businesses flourished as a result.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I have to say is that everyone in CA complained about the smoking ban before it came in, and now I know very very few people who would ever want to go back.

The power struggle between banning and not banning cigarettes goes back to a power struggle between children wanting to continue playing and their Mom's desire to change their diaper. They will kick and scream but feel much better after it's changed.

So the gov't of a free society should be a nanny?

It already is. Why can't I drink in public? I'm well over 21 so drinking alcohol is legal for me.

But should it be?