Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Now I'm mad
- Thread starter mike phillips
- Start date
My definition would be to allow the property/business owners, who paid for the establishment, to be able to decide what otherwise legal activities they can allow or prohibit on their premises. If non-smoking venues are so popular, then it the free market will force them monetarily to change their business practice. Or you can open up your own non-smoking venue and clean up the profits while the savages down the street insist on allowing smoking, and drive them out of business since everyone supposedly wants non-smoking.
SMASH said:
That does not apply here. You're in a place that ALLOWS people to smoke. That means the OWNER OF THE BUSINESS YOU ARE IN puts down the law that PEOPLE CAN SMOKE THERE. Unless you my friend own 51% of more of the place you have no say in what goes in that place when it comes to smoking.
Let me put it this way: you go to a friend's house whos a smoker n he lights one up in front of you - what do you do? Smack him in the face? Complain about him smoking in his own home? Or do you, if you cant take it, just leave and thats that? If you want people to stop smoking in the bar you like to hang out in then try convincing the owner to ban smoking, and see the bar end up closed and the owner looking for work.
Point is, indeed second hand smoke is bad for you, but you choose to put yourself in its way. I understand how people who are non smokers can be annoyed by a smoke-filled bar, but if you fear for your health so much as to create new laws fixing whats bothering you, maybe you should start thinking about how you could fix it on your own by not going to those places in the first place. It's not like there are many public places that allow smoking anyway, so it won't be such a big loss for you, but more importantly it wont piss off the smokers who already can't smoke pretty much everywhere else.
How do you deal with the people working in those places.
Because you will always have people in really bad financial situation that they would take any kind of job, so because they are poor, they should increase their potential for getting a cancer that they would be able to pay for.
That is not a way a civilized society should treat its people.
If you think that's fair you'll have more jobs accidents, and people sick, because in my company, I don't want my workers to use any kind of protection to clean those chlorine (choose your favorite chemical) tanks. And you'll always find people too desparate that will do it for there kids to go to school.
This is what happens in undevelopped countries, and I'm not sure it's something you want to happen here.
Because you will always have people in really bad financial situation that they would take any kind of job, so because they are poor, they should increase their potential for getting a cancer that they would be able to pay for.
That is not a way a civilized society should treat its people.
If you think that's fair you'll have more jobs accidents, and people sick, because in my company, I don't want my workers to use any kind of protection to clean those chlorine (choose your favorite chemical) tanks. And you'll always find people too desparate that will do it for there kids to go to school.
This is what happens in undevelopped countries, and I'm not sure it's something you want to happen here.
julo:
My compromise for that situation is to enforce existing workplace air quality laws. If you can filter the air to a safe level that would be permissible in any factory or other workplace, then smoking would be allowed. Random spot checks would occur, or when a complaint happens. If you can't meet the requirements, you'll have to disallow smoking until you can install adequate filtration.
A few weeks ago we went to a bar that didn't have any filtration. It was bad. I haven't seen it that bad in years. My eyes were burning and I couldn't stand it. You know what we did? We left and went to another bar that was filtered. I didn't petition city council, file lawsuits or whatever. I voted with my feet.
My compromise for that situation is to enforce existing workplace air quality laws. If you can filter the air to a safe level that would be permissible in any factory or other workplace, then smoking would be allowed. Random spot checks would occur, or when a complaint happens. If you can't meet the requirements, you'll have to disallow smoking until you can install adequate filtration.
A few weeks ago we went to a bar that didn't have any filtration. It was bad. I haven't seen it that bad in years. My eyes were burning and I couldn't stand it. You know what we did? We left and went to another bar that was filtered. I didn't petition city council, file lawsuits or whatever. I voted with my feet.
morf said:
Well that all the problem of bar being public places: would you let your kid go in a class where the teacher smokes?
Do you think that is normal?
I'm all for the separate room, with employes willing to work in the smoked room (even though, financial pressure may push them to accept those types of working conditions).
The solution would be a separate room, where you are not served, you'll have to get up and take your beer for non-smoked area to he smoked area
Diggler said:
Let's compromise :a separate highly filtered room sounds like a solution.
But the discussion ( not necessarily from you) was the right to smoke in bars and if you're not haapy don't go in bars.
Your point is different and you're looking for a compromise by stating that 2nd hand smoking is bad, so let's prevent it.
A classroom is truly 'public', owned by the taxpayers/government. Although a bar is open to the public, it is, or should be, a little different. Sort of like the "we reserve the right to refuse service." You can be banned from a bar or other business.
you mean public schools.
I'm not familiar with the education system here so I may be wrong.
There should be no laws in privatly owned places : no obligation for seat belts in you car (you could just kill yourself), but you may agree with that.
My point is that usually laws are made to help you not arm you. but compromise can be made (see my separate highly filtered smoker room).
I'm not familiar with the education system here so I may be wrong.
There should be no laws in privatly owned places : no obligation for seat belts in you car (you could just kill yourself), but you may agree with that.
My point is that usually laws are made to help you not arm you. but compromise can be made (see my separate highly filtered smoker room).
sure but then bars are gonna have to pay for a new room with ventilators and the like, the ones who cant afford it will lose alot of business, making it even harder for small joints to run. the smokers go to the bars with the smoking rooms, these bars earn more money and get the better bands, so the non smokers also go, little bar cant afford, gets no customers.
julo:
Right.
If it were a privately owned school, I would accept that the owner of the school would have the option to allow/disallow smoking, and the parents would either allow/disallow their children to go there. Hopefully disallow.
Right.
If it were a privately owned school, I would accept that the owner of the school would have the option to allow/disallow smoking, and the parents would either allow/disallow their children to go there. Hopefully disallow.
julo said:
You can't just attack smoking then. You have to deal with the thousands of jobs that have risk factors.
I often end up driving documents to places for my company. There is a degree of risk involved in that even.
Invalid Link Removed
I can find no reports for totals dealing with second hand smoke. Should they exist it's difficult to include other factors that may have been present. So, at least we have an averaged number for vehicular fatalaties.
vindy500 said:
I ran out of business, when I had to buy helmets for my construction workers, suits and gas masks for my chlorine tanks cleaners, and at some point I even had to pay my workers for the work they do (those slaves were so nice, you feed them a little, whip them a lot and they'd work). what a shame!!!
I'm rich and I wish there were no work regulation and laws, life would be so simple.
I'm poor and I'm happy I'm not forced to work in really cr@ppy situations, I think that's call progress.
PS!!!! : I AM BEING EXTREMELY SARCASTIC AND PUSHING THE ARGUMENTATION TO THE EXTREME, NOT WHAT I THINK
SnoMan said:
I do think it's reasonnable, I live in a state where helmets are not mandatory for motorbikes, so why should seat belts be?
that's absolutly not logical, and reasonnable.
It's proven that helmets save life as seat belts, so why a difference (another debate).
but the argument is valid (I think)
vindy500 said:
Give a transitional period.
Say two or three years.
That would give time for a business to set aside cash for the building of a simple wall and a few purifier units.
Depend on regulation, you could accomplish that at a very reasonable expense.
