Woohoo! Smoking banned in restaurants and workplaces in FL! :)

[aphex]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.

Thats different though. What your referring to has to do with the product sold, not with what noxious fumes are emitted from the customers... I dont think your comparing apples and apples here...

 

[vi edit]

Thats different though. What your referring to has to do with the product sold, not with what noxious fumes are emitted from the customers... I dont think your comparing apples and apples here...

Yes, I know it's different. But I feel that it at least is somewhat of a compromise over total banning of smoking. I mentioned it as an alternative. At least for the bar/restaurant issue that most people that most people like to use as examples.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

which is why you work at a smoke-free bar or you find a different way to make money. no one is forcing you to bartend.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

which is why you work at a smoke-free bar or you find a different way to make money. no one is forcing you to bartend.

Why should the smokers be the only ones with rights in this situation?

 

[vi edit]

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

Nearly every single restaurant in my area anyway, has a bar, with a bartender on duty. You can tend a bar without putting up with smoke. Work there.

 

[Jzero]

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

Where is the discrimination? My father works in a phenol plant. He can leave any time. It's [theoretically] HIS choice to work in a phenol plant. If he doesn't want to work in a phenol plant because he could be blinded or killed by leaking gas, it's not because his employer somehow discriminated against him.

Actually, you're better off leaving the "D" word out of this because it opens up possibilities of smokers claiming they are being discriminated against; an equally absurd claim.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

If you agree that cigarette smoking should be banned in the work place then you agree that it should be banned in a Restaurant because a Restaurant is also a work place. It might not be much of a risk to the Patrons but it is for the Waiters, Cooks, Bartender and Cashiers, especially in Restaurants that have a Bar or Cocktail Lounge. When smoking was initially banned in public places here in California some sniveled for about two months but even those who whined about it have gotten over it and life goes on just like before. I also think employers who offer health insurance pay lower rates because of the ban.

It's really no big deal and everybody benefits from it, even the smoker because he's less likely to smoke as much if he has to make an effort to go outside to smoke every time he gets the urge.

Now what's a travesty is the taxes they charge for cigarettes. It would be one thing if those taxes were actually used to offset the alleged extra cost of health care needed because of smoking but it isn't. It's used for what ever the legislature wants to use it for.

It's nice, because if you want to drink and smoke, go to a bar.

Again, a Bar is a workplace so smoking should be banned there too! A person should have the right to work in a safe enviroment more than a person should have a right to smoke!

i changed my exact position on it 30 minutes before this post. to the owner of the establishment, restaurant, bar, phone bank, slaughterhouse, whatnot, has the right to decide if and where smoking would be allowed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

which is why you work at a smoke-free bar or you find a different way to make money. no one is forcing you to bartend.

No one is forcing you to smoke. This will only inconvenience smokers. When this was passed here in California there were those who said it would hurt their businesses. Interestingly the opposite has happened. Many whp avoided bars and nightclubs because of the smokey atmosphere have been going to them in droves and actually increasing the revenue of many of these establishments. It makes sense since most people don't smoke. Insisting that you be allowed to smoke in a bar is actually insisting that you as a minority should have the right to do so even if it offends the vast majority.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
come to think of it, why is prostitution illegal then private business

It's legal in Nevada

why aren't bars only legal in nevada

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

Nearly every single restaurant in my area anyway, has a bar, with a bartender on duty. You can tend a bar without putting up with smoke. Work there.

You can always step outside for a smoke or is that to inconvenient for you?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: vi_edit

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

which is why you work at a smoke-free bar or you find a different way to make money. no one is forcing you to bartend.

Why should the smokers be the only ones with rights in this situation?

you have the exact same right as the smokers, which is to take your money elsewhere if you don't agree with the policies. vote with your dollars and we get an efficient market solution to the problem. if you don't like the food, you go elsewhere. if you don't like the music, you go elsewhere. if they don't like prices they charge for drinks, you go elsewhere. if you don't like the fact that its full of smoke, you go elsewhere. if you'd like to smoke but the establishment doesn't allow it, you go elsewhere.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Red, I see where you're coming from, but what kind of idiot thinks that if he pursues a career in bartending that he won't have to work anywhere with smoke? I mean, smoking and bars are synonymous, you can't tell me that people who choose to become bartenders aren't aware that they will be around smoke. Using your logic we should ban all the chemicals I used at the park I worked for this summer because they were all hazardous. A career is a choice, and when one makes a choice he should make sure that he's aware of all the consequences, one of which may be working in a smoky environment or working with hazardous chemicals.

ZV

 

[Jzero]

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

Well in that case, we better shut down the mining and oil drilling industries. Oh, and commercial fishing. And working in the circus.
Some jobs have inherent risks that you must accept if you wish to work in those fields.
You can't be a lifeguard if you're scared of drowning.
You can't be a coal miner if you're afraid of being killed in a cave-in, explosion or exposure to coal dust.
You can't be a bartender in a restaurant that allows smoking if you're afraid of exposure to smoker.

Anyone who believe this debate is about smokers' rights v. non-smokers' rights has missed the point.
This debate is about the business owners' rights v. the government's rights.

Edit: Just this weekend I was hanging lights for a stage show, and I thought maybe I missed my calling.
Until they asked me to carry lights 25 feet up an extension ladder and hang them.

I guess we should have a referendum to require all theatres to have all lightbars on flies, now?

No...if I'm too scared to climb a 25-foot ladder, I either need to find a new job, or find (or set up) a theatre that I consider appropriate in which to ply my trade.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Red, I see where you're coming from, but what kind of idiot thinks that if he pursues a career in bartending that he won't have to work anywhere with smoke? I mean, smoking and bars are synonymous, you can't tell me that people who choose to become bartenders aren't aware that they will be around smoke. Using your logic we should ban all the chemicals I used at the park I worked for this summer because they were all hazardous. A career is a choice, and when one makes a choice he should make sure that he's aware of all the consequences, one of which may be working in a smoky environment or working with hazardous chemicals.

ZV

That use to be the case here in CA but it isn't anymore. Anyways, we are talking about Floriduh. That measure was passed by the voters, not mandated by Government officials. The Majority spoke and what they had to say was no to smoking in public places and workplaces. I'm sorry but ones health has a much higher priority with me than ones habits, even if I happen to share that habit.

 

[Harvey]

yup, i know of at least one business that is moving out of florida asap.

Hasta la vista, baby. Tell them they aren't welcome in California or New York.

Where in the Constitution do you derive the right to force business owners to do business on YOUR terms only?

It's called public health regulations, and they have been Constitutional since day one. The Preamble to the Constitutions states in part,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, ... promote the general welfare,...

BTW, for all of you who claim that restaurant/bar owners will be hurt by this, In California, since smoking has been banned in restaurants and bars, business has increased. Non-smokers are still the majority, and more people are willing to partronize these establishments in a smoke-free environment.

Smokers, you are welcome to screw yourself. If you're a personal friend, I will feel bad for your captivity and suffering, but please don't inflict the effects of your addiction on me. For those idiots among you who don't believe tobacco is an addictive killer, I found out, yesterday, that I have lost yet another friend to smoking-related illness. He survived the surgury to remove his bladder and prostate, only to suffer a massive coronary while still in the hospital. That's eight friends in six years. And before you babble about his "choices" and "personal responsiblity," I'll remind you that I'm old enough that my friends started smoking at a time when there were no warnings on the packs. There were only lying asshole tobacco companies promoting their addictive, carcinogenic drug to teens and selling the relative "health benefits" of one brand of cancer stick over another. :|

No need to comment on the rest, as my friend, Red has so ably covered it.

 

[Amused]

Do not make the mistake...of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission - but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job; a slave cannot.
-- Ayn Rand, "Textbook of Americanism"

This issue has nothing to do with "workers rights." A worker goes into a job knowing full well what the conditions are. Who's fault is it if a person gains employment at a workplace that allows smoking, THEN complains about the smoking?

It's just as stupid as the idiots who build a house next to an airport, then complain about the noise.

Nor is this about the rights of consumers. They have a choice to NOT go to stores that allow smoking. However, by passing this law, they violate the rights of PRIVATE business owners to conduct business as they see fit on their PRIVATE property.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: amdskip
Second hand smoke is nasty and it harms everyone, no proof needed. I'm glad they passed this, sure wish Illinois or Iowa would do this too.

Do you drive and/or ride in a car? The average car spews out more carcinogens in one minute than a roomful of chain-smokers can in an entire day.
In 1970, while testifying before Congress, Ralph Nader said that "... within 25 years, more than 50,000 Americans will die every year from the harmful effects of automobile pollution." 1995, the AMA announced that 50,000 non-smoking Americans died every year from lung cancer and without scientific proof, announced that the cause must be second-hand cigarette smoke. This statement has since more or less been debunked, but the damage is done. The government now practically owns the tobacco industry, and the states are drunk on cigarette taxes.
As the secondhand smoke argument has faded, the new argument became rising health care costs, and the best argument ever against socialism has been all but overlooked. Those who provide, have control. Dolph can spew all the Berkeley articles he wants about how cigarette smoking makes socialized medicine more expensive, but the reality is that we shouldn't have socialized medicine in the first place. And the reason that people will use the government to attempt to force changes on others' lives and moral decisions, restricting their freedoms, is obviously the biggest reason for it.
Before the laws passed here in Oregon banning cigarette smoking entirely in restaurants, several chains experimented with all non-smoking establishments. They were (and still are) wildly successful. One is a Dennys-type chain that went non-smoking while Dennys was still a smokehouse. The other began as a single microbrew tavern that went big with their no-smoking policy. Now they have restaurants, hotels, and trippy 2nd-run movie theaters where adults can eat and drink while watching the movie.
Oh well, smokers are the big pariah right now (makes me glad I don't smoke ), and I'm more than well aware how (1) witless emotional reactions control most of the people on this earth and (2) it feels good to blame someone doesn't it?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Harvey

yup, i know of at least one business that is moving out of florida asap.

Hasta la vista, baby. Tell ththem they aren't welcome in California or New York.

Or Oregon, for that matter. You can't smoke in any public building in Oregon with the exception of a few restricted-access bars.

nik

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: aphexII
Amendment 6 -- Passed


Bans smoking in restaurants and virtually all workplaces.



Finally, an amendment i actually AGREE with!

You are so lucky,

"Smoking is like a peeing section in a swimming pool"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jzero

So you believe that a persons right to smoke is more important than a persons right to work in a healthy enviroment. Even as a smoker myself I can't agree with you. Bartending is an occupation and a person who chooses to pursue that occupation, no matter how you look upon them, has the right to do so without putting his health at risk.

Well in that case, we better shut down the mining and oil drilling industries. Oh, and commercial fishing. And working in the circus.
Some jobs have inherent risks that you must accept if you wish to work in those fields.
You can't be a lifeguard if you're scared of drowning.
You can't be a coal miner if you're afraid of being killed in a cave-in, explosion or exposure to coal dust.
You can't be a bartender in a restaurant that allows smoking if you're afraid of exposure to smoker.

Anyone who believe this debate is about smokers' rights v. non-smokers' rights has missed the point.
This debate is about the business owners' rights v. the government's rights.

Nice try. You can serve Liquor without having to breath smoke where as the other occupations you mention you can't do away with those risks and still perform those duties. We are talking about appeasing the minority at a risk to the majority.

As for the Owners rights vs the Governments rights, well this has always been the case. Why do we have Health Inspectors? To make sure that Resteruant owners keep their estabkishments clean and healthy for patrons. It would be a lot cheaper for the Owners is they didn't have to follow the Health Regulations but it would also be disaterous for the patrons. Well smoking in a bar or Resteruant is also a health risk for the patrons.

Your rights to enjoy your habit doesn't superceed the health of other patrons and employees, at least in Florida and California.

 

[Amused]

Harvey, "promote" does not mean "enforce" or "provide."

Or do you have a different thesaurus than I do?

Promote: An ad campaign telling the dangers of smoking

Enforce: you wont smoke, and we'll put you in jail if you do

Provide: We'll make sure no one smokes around you, even on THEIR private property.

Sorry, the three are light years apart from each other.

I know you are angry, cannot put the blame where it rests (with the individual) and you want to save the world from itself (but you cloak it in saving the world from tobacco and tobacco companies).

It's been tried, Harvey. Or did the lessons of prohibition mean nothing to you?

 

[aphex]

Do you drive and/or ride in a car? The average car spews out more carcinogens in one minute than a roomful of chain-smokers can in an entire day.

Do i sit next to a running cars muffler? No.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused
Harvey, "promote" does not mean "enforce" or "provide."

Or do you have a different thesaurus than I do?

Promote: An ad campaign telling the dangers of smoking

Enforce: you wont smoke, and we'll put you in jail if you do

Provide: We'll make sure no one smokes around you, even on THEIR private property.

Sorry, the three are light years apart from each other.

I know you are angry, cannot put the blame where it rests (with the individual) and you want to save the world from itself (but you cloak it in saving the world from tobacco and tobacco companies).

It's been tried, Harvey. Or did the lessons of prohibition mean nothing to you?

Do you allow smoking in your Sandwich Shops?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused
Do not make the mistake...of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission - but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job; a slave cannot. -- Ayn Rand, "Textbook of Americanism" This issue has nothing to do with "workers rights." A worker goes into a job knowing full well what the conditions are. Who's fault is it if a person gains employment at a workplace that allows smoking, THEN complains about the smoking? It's just as stupid as the idiots who build a house next to an airport, then complain about the noise. Nor is this about the rights of consumers. They have a choice to NOT go to stores that allow smoking. However, by passing this law, they violate the rights of PRIVATE business owners to conduct business as they see fit on their PRIVATE property.

So your argument is that the rights of PRIVATE business owners supercedes the safety of "ordinary" non-business owners? It's a damn good thing that this line of reasoning failed when it was used the industrial revolution when children were killed in the machinery. Workers dont like it? Well there is the street for them then. If there is no bread, then let them eat cake. FYI I believe paying many taxes is optional. You very well may have the right to not pay income taxes. I suggest you withhold sending the IRS a check. You can stand on principle then when they come for you just as the unemployed can stand on principle in the bread line. It's called a Hobson's choice.