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

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aphexII

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.

When you're stuck in traffic every day, just how far away are those other cars' mufflers?
You don't think that's smog you're breathing?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aphexII

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.

Every day in traffic. The damage caused your lungs by the polution of cars, and in particular, diesel trucks is far, FAR more than you'd get by sitting in a smokey bar a couple nights a week.

Look up ANY study on the dangers of diesel exhaust. Hell, an afternoon at an airport gives one more risk for cancer than a whole year of sitting in smokey bars.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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?

I already stated I did not. It was my choice to cater to the non-smoking crowd. Plus by being non-smoking, I keep loitering down to a minimum in my seating areas.

However, that was MY choice as the owner of the business and property.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

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.

Do you really think laws changed all that, or Unions and employer competition? If laws changed it, where are the laws mandating health benefits be provided workers?

It wasn't laws that brought us out of the abuses of the industrial revolution (the simple minded fall back of liberals when advocating ever increasing and useless regulations) it was employer competition and labor movements.

 

[Harvey]

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

When enforcement is required to provide, I think it does. We enforce driving on the same side of the street. Do you think that's unconstitutional, too?

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

The lessons of the tobacco prohibition in public places in California are that it has improved business for the restaurants, bars, etc., and the health of all employees is better protected. I love those lessons.

AFIC, every tobacco exec for the last fifty years should be tried for crimes against humanity. Fifty years ago, they had hard evidence that nicotine is carcinogenic and addictive. They kept it secret, lied to the public and bribed public officials to hide their dirty secret and keep selling it. DEATH TO TOBACCO COMPANIES! :|

 

[vi edit]

I guess I should summarize my views on this to clarify things.

I don't smoke. I hate it with pretty much every ounce of my being. It's a deadly, filthy habit that affects everyone around you. I HATE having to go into a bar because I smell like ass when I get out. As a potential customer, I won't shed a single tear if/when smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

But...

I also work in the restaurant business and may even possibly have a restaurant/bar of my own in the future. Here's where I have my moral dilema - what's more important - my ability to cater to my customers as I see fit, or the governments ability to restrict a large demographic of people - for my particular industry - as they see fit?

Bars in particular are synomymous with smoking. Go to any bar in a college town and you are going to see more people smoking than non smoking. Banning it probably will have a negative impact on those sorts of businesses.

This is sort of the reason why I was in favor of way that the city council in a town near me made the decisions that they did. It gave many people options.

 

[Shelly21]

Well, I've been to California clubs... you know, the eurodance club with a bar..... And it's always packed.....

I love going to smokeless clubs..... (now, if they can get rid of E pills)

So instead of business losing customers who like to smoke... they get customers who dislike smoke.... and it seems like majority of people doesn't like smoke....

Don't know how this will impact Florida.... I'm suprised that it passed there.

 

[vi edit]

Oh, and this is going to start a whole 'nuther topic, but I don't see california as very representative as the rest of the country.

Dammit...wrong stat...

sorry

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

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.

the difference there is that when you walk into burger king you can't instantly tell if they're using roach parts for their burgers. you can tell if someone is smoking and whether its just a few or the whole damned place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Harvey

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

When enforcement is required to provide, I think it does. We enforce driving on the same side of the street. Do you think that's unconstitutional, too?

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

The lessons of the tobacco prohibition in public places in California are that it has improved business for the restaurants, bars, etc., and the health of all employees is better protected. I love those lessons.

AFIC, every tobacco exec for the last fifty years should be tried for crimes against humanity. Fifty years ago, they had hard evidence that nicotine is carcinogenic and addictive. They kept it secret, lied to the public and bribed public officials to hide their dirty secret and keep selling it. DEATH TO TOBACCO COMPANIES! :|

Business improved in CA because the population grew.

Again, PROVIDE is NOT in the preamble. It says "PROMOTE."

Finally, you keep whining about "tobacco company lies" and expect a business to sabotage their products, but I have yet to see you put the blame where it really belongs: People who smoked after it became common knowledge that it was dangerous in the late 50s and early 60s.

Millions upon millions have successfully quit smoking, Harvey. Me included. To claim they could not is a farce.

 

[Jzero]

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.

At the moment we are talking about removing the rights of the individual in order to appease a special interest group. Yet another step towards a kinder, gentler nanny state.

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.

Health inspectors exist becuase it is impossible for the consumer to see what's going on in the kitchen. I can't tell if the people in the back are using meat that is 2 years old, been thrown on the floor, and has rat turds on it. It's unfortunate, but as a result, we need someone else to be the eyes and ears for us in this case.

Smoking? It's pretty damn easy to tell which places allow smoking and which don't. Patronize the places as you see fit. When owners realize that making their establishments smoke-free increases their business, they'll make the move. It's one of the pillars of a capitalist economy.

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

Once again, you have missed the point. You have bastardized business with a sense of entitlement. The only entitlement should be the choice of whether you go to the smoking bar or the non-smoking bar.

IMO this measure should not have even been on the ballot to begin with. I don't know how issues get on the FL ballot...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You guys using the argument that businesses have benefitted from smoking bans are missing the just-as-valid counter argument, that a business can benefit just as much (and more so now) by catering specifically to smokers, which they have now been banned from doing.

 

[BoberFett]

It's an unfortunate decision IMO, but ultimately it is the state's right. The people of Florida have decided it's the way to go, so they have to live with the outcome, whatever it may be.

I've never smoked, BTW.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You guys using the argument that businesses have benefitted from smoking bans are missing the just-as-valid counter argument, that a business can benefit just as much (and more so now) by catering specifically to smokers, which they have now been banned from doing.

Yep, there's another thing they refuse to accept. If ONE bar opened in the LA area that allowed smoking, how fast do you think it's business would grow?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

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.

Do you really think laws changed all that, or Unions and employer competition? If laws changed it, where are the laws mandating health benefits be provided workers? It wasn't laws that brought us out of the abuses of the industrial revolution (the simple minded fall back of liberals when advocating ever increasing and useless regulations) it was employer competition and labor movements.

What changed the misuses were the combined efforts of people of good will. Yes, regulation AND unions, and perhaps competiton changed it. No, workers are not "entitled" to everything, but what were excuses for mistreatment and who made them? They were businessmen who said the government had no place in providing for safety of workers because it interfered with their private business and profits. It was the RIGHT of business to set the conditions of workers, and everyone else be damned. When things changed, it was because these people were FORCED to do it, not because of sudden enlightenment. The attitude of businessmen was by and large summarized by Dickens. "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?" and "if they be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population". You might have point as to what is an appropriate level of control, but to say that the people have no right to regulate what is a health issue holds no water.

 

[vi edit]

My earlier stat should have stated that there are more establishments in CA than the next THREE states combined.

DOH!

I think Aneheim(or howerver you spell) it has more itself than the entire state of Iowa.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

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.

Do you really think laws changed all that, or Unions and employer competition? If laws changed it, where are the laws mandating health benefits be provided workers? It wasn't laws that brought us out of the abuses of the industrial revolution (the simple minded fall back of liberals when advocating ever increasing and useless regulations) it was employer competition and labor movements.

What changed the misuses were the combined efforts of people of good will. Yes, regulation AND unions, and perhaps competiton changed it. No, workers are not "entitled" to everything, but what were excuses for mistreatment and who made them? They were businessmen who said the government had no place in providing for safety of workers because it interfered with their private business and profits. It was the RIGHT of business to set the conditions of workers, and everyone else be damned. When things changed, it was because these people were FORCED to do it, not because of sudden enlightenment. The attitude of businessmen was by and large summarized by Dickens. "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?" and "if they be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population". You might have point as to what is an appropriate level of control, but to say that the people have no right to regulate what is a health issue holds no water.

henry ford always paid top dollar because he could get better employees for it. you make your workplace safer and you have a larger base of labor to choose from, and you can pick better employees. when all your employees decide that the place is unsafe and they all walk out and you can't get anyone to work for you you make your place safer. thats what happened. unionization was very important back in the days of the factory town and low labor-mobility, it gave the worker a much bigger voice with which to act. they were forced by the market to do it, not by the gov't. the gov't merely played tag-along. this law is the gov't taking initiative in its own hand to change society as they see fit, which isn't what gov't should do.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
My earlier stat should have stated that there are more establishments in CA than the next THREE states combined.

DOH!

I think Aneheim(or howerver you spell) it has more itself than the entire state of Iowa.

i know houston and dallas both have a ton of places so i knew it wasn't 50... though more than the next three? texas has a lot of places... and houstonians eat out more than anyone else...

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

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.

Do you really think laws changed all that, or Unions and employer competition? If laws changed it, where are the laws mandating health benefits be provided workers? It wasn't laws that brought us out of the abuses of the industrial revolution (the simple minded fall back of liberals when advocating ever increasing and useless regulations) it was employer competition and labor movements.

What changed the misuses were the combined efforts of people of good will. Yes, regulation AND unions, and perhaps competiton changed it. No, workers are not "entitled" to everything, but what were excuses for mistreatment and who made them? They were businessmen who said the government had no place in providing for safety of workers because it interfered with their private business and profits. It was the RIGHT of business to set the conditions of workers, and everyone else be damned. When things changed, it was because these people were FORCED to do it, not because of sudden enlightenment. The attitude of businessmen was by and large summarized by Dickens. "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?" and "if they be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population". You might have point as to what is an appropriate level of control, but to say that the people have no right to regulate what is a health issue holds no water.

henry ford always paid top dollar because he could get better employees for it. you make your workplace safer and you have a larger base of labor to choose from, and you can pick better employees. when all your employees decide that the place is unsafe and they all walk out and you can't get anyone to work for you you make your place safer. thats what happened. unionization was very important back in the days of the factory town and low labor-mobility, it gave the worker a much bigger voice with which to act. they were forced by the market to do it, not by the gov't. the gov't merely played tag-along. this law is the gov't taking initiative in its own hand to change society as they see fit, which isn't what gov't should do.

Henry Ford hired minorities and gave them equal wages as the whites, but he hated Jews and thought they were bad, like Hitler. Just a little tid-bit of info for you.

 

[Pepsei]

if you don't like the policy.. move out of the state with the said business owner....

or

write your congress dude to make sure this doesn't happen.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey you know what guys? What is or is not allowed in your state is of no concern to me. I'm just debating this issue for the sake of debating it

I am bothered by the taxes charged for cigarettes just for the sake of soaking smokers to fill up the coffers of the Government. Here in Ca they said that they needed to tax cigarettes to help offset the health cost of cigarette smoking. What a lie (hey that's what politicians do, lie) they use that extra money for anything they want and it's never for the extra cost of health care due to smoking.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

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.

Do you really think laws changed all that, or Unions and employer competition? If laws changed it, where are the laws mandating health benefits be provided workers? It wasn't laws that brought us out of the abuses of the industrial revolution (the simple minded fall back of liberals when advocating ever increasing and useless regulations) it was employer competition and labor movements.

What changed the misuses were the combined efforts of people of good will. Yes, regulation AND unions, and perhaps competiton changed it. No, workers are not "entitled" to everything, but what were excuses for mistreatment and who made them? They were businessmen who said the government had no place in providing for safety of workers because it interfered with their private business and profits. It was the RIGHT of business to set the conditions of workers, and everyone else be damned. When things changed, it was because these people were FORCED to do it, not because of sudden enlightenment. The attitude of businessmen was by and large summarized by Dickens. "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?" and "if they be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population". You might have point as to what is an appropriate level of control, but to say that the people have no right to regulate what is a health issue holds no water.

henry ford always paid top dollar because he could get better employees for it. you make your workplace safer and you have a larger base of labor to choose from, and you can pick better employees. when all your employees decide that the place is unsafe and they all walk out and you can't get anyone to work for you you make your place safer. thats what happened. unionization was very important back in the days of the factory town and low labor-mobility, it gave the worker a much bigger voice with which to act. they were forced by the market to do it, not by the gov't. the gov't merely played tag-along. this law is the gov't taking initiative in its own hand to change society as they see fit, which isn't what gov't should do.

Remember that when Ford came along, the Industrial Revolution had been going on quite a while. When the textile mills and coal mines in England were in full vigor, there weren't other jobs to go to. Do you think that 11 year olds worked 16 hours shifts in their own filth because of company loyalty? It was work or die. Often as not working was dying. That Ford and others were men of vision, doe not relieve the government of it's responsibility to the public. Frankly, I think many, many, restrictions on businesses (especially small ones) are ridiculous, and have been put there as a result of what unions eventually became. That said, not all regulations if fairly applied are bad. This banning of smoking in these places falls in that category IMO

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey you know what guys? What is or is not allowed in your state is of no concern to me. I'm just debating this issue for the sake of debating it.

Hear, hear!
I don't smoke cigarettes, and since even places that allow cigs are still often pissy about pipes, I don't bother to smoke pipes in restaurants anyway.

And I don't live in CA or FL.

But I do like to hear all the points of view and evangelize my own!

 

[bGIveNs33]

Well, overall I'm very disappointed in the Florida voters. A mandatory class-size reduction amendment was passed that will cost the state in the neigborhood of 20 billion dollars over the next 8 years or so. They also passed mandatory pre-kindergarten, as in, the state has to offer it... but its voluntary to attend. Starting in March, Florida is going to be 7 billion dollars in the hole already. I can't wait for the b!tching and complaining to start when they increase the sales tax.

 

[dleiss]

Where does it say in the Constitution that a business should be allowed to screw its customers?

Should we abandon the food health laws?

BTW, in Maryland the non-smoking rules were applied to protect the employees. Forget the customers!!

I think the smokers should eat out behind the restaurant with the other scum dogs.