Now I'm mad

[morf]

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

You're absolutly right, and until the places each have a room for smokers we will keep smoking in the places allowing it. You want to get rid of smoke in bars you have two way of doing so: dont come to the bar, or build us smoker rooms, making laws banning smoking everywhere will just have smokers go for a quick hidden smoke anyway.

 

[Cambass]

Whilst some-what logical to stay away from a place because it allows smoking, it's not always that simple.

 

[vindy500]

Yeah, and I was just swingin my fist around, that you were in the way isn't my fault either

morf thats what were saying. the right to extend your arm ends where my nose begins. i.e you can extend your arm all you want but if you touch my nose. i.e smack me in the face you just violated my rights. you can smoke all you like, but when your smoke touches me, thats when you violate my rights.

 

[morf]

morf thats what were saying. the right to extend your arm ends where my nose begins. i.e you can extend your arm all you want but if you touch my nose. i.e smack me in the face you just violated my rights. you can smoke all you like, but when your smoke touches me, thats when you violate my rights.

First of all my comment was ironical. Second of all I dont control where my smoke goes the wind does. Lets put the wind in jail for blowing smoke yer way shall we

 

[morf]

Whilst some-what logical to stay away from a place because it allows smoking, it's not always that simple.

Not always, but most of the time. And going to a smoke filled room once a month isnt going to do much damage to your health, if any.

 

[baba]

While I agree public places should be safe, this is a bar we're talking about, not a roller coaster. There are tons of bars out there and there are non smoking bars out there. If you prefer those then stick to them, you willingly make the choice to put yourself in harm's way, dont come telling us smokers it's our fault for putting you in danger. If you felt so obligated to save your health you would not hesitate to not set a foot in such a place, if you do and still complain about smokers, you're nothing but a hypocrite in my book. "Oh my health is the most important thing I have but hey, when it comes to wether or not I should go have a drink with my buddies I'll gladly put my health at risk" - if you really believed smokers were slowly but surely KILLING you and there was such a HIGH RISK for your health, surely you would think of your health first and foremost and simply not go to places that allow smoking, however few there are out there.

This doesn't address a safe workplace for employees. Employees don't have a choice. This is why we have OSHA to help ensure a safe workplace. That is a major argument for the cause that I have yet to see someone get around.

 

[vindy500]

First of all my comment was ironical. Second of all I dont control where my smoke goes the wind does. Lets put the wind in jail for blowing smoke yer way shall we

yes but you are blowing your smoke around, if it hits me then its my fault? i chose to stand where your smoke goes. i chose to stand were your waving your fists around, see the link there? and theres not usually much wind inside bars...

 

[tr68gt]

I have to agree with the "common decency" argument. I am a smoker, but if it offends someone around me, I either walk away from them, or don't smoke. It's as simple as that. The people of today just don't care about others, and that's a really bad reflection on the state of our society as a whole.

 

[morf]

There is a line to be drawn though. To walk away or not smoke when it offends people is normal, but not in a bar when you're drinking a pint, IMHO.

 

[olps]

Uhhh... pursuit of happiness mean anything to you. Anyway, I don't smoke and yes... it is not argueable, the govt. has overstepped boundries on personal freedoms. It has for many years.

Name one case of person who has been diagnosed and treated for cancer or disease due to second-hand smoke from public dining areas, bars, or shops...

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

There's one case of someone who died of second hand smoke.

 

[Cambass]

There is a line to be drawn though. To walk away or not smoke when it offends people is normal, but not in a bar when you're drinking a pint, IMHO.

Why? Because it's your right to smoke there? It's also the non-smoker's right to not have smoke in their face. It goes both ways, both parties can move away.

 

[iplaybassguitar]

If you eat a burger while I'm sitting next to you, then that doesn't affect me.

If you smoke a cigarette while I'm sitting next to you, then that DOES affect me. It makes me feel ill, my eyes start burning, my throat hurts, my clothes smell, and oh yeah, it increases the risk of ME getting cancer.


So, think a little longer before you start piling everything up.

my response to that would be to have certain places that allow smoking and certain places that dont, chosen by the owner of that place...if you dont like smoking, go to the other place.

i think this might be getting a little too political though, so i wont say more.

 

[txbasschik]

That's kind of a strw man excuse... People have the choice...

If we were to have any kind of regulation, there ought to be hard wall dividers between smoking and non smoking. A local mexican place had (until the city banned smoking) a separate smoking section with a filter unit on the ceiling. I sat IN the smoking section and could not smell smoke. I have NO problem with that. Also, if waiters do not want to serve a smoking section, then they should not have to. If they get fired for expressing that, then the business should be fined heavily, and the person gets their job compensation, or their job back.

As with anything, it should be a choice. When I don't want to go to a place where smoke is, I just don't. That's all.

Before Austin banned smoking in bars, the bars were required to have very good air filtering systems, with minimum standard requirements.

I sat in crowded Austin bars and could not even smell smokers next to me (this when I was not, myself, a smoker). That was enough.

Banning goes too far.

Cherie

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

my response to that would be to have certain places that allow smoking and certain places that dont, chosen by the owner of that place...if you dont like smoking, go to the other place.

i think this might be getting a little too political though, so i wont say more.

That doesn't work at all though. When an owner has the right to choose whether or not he can ignore the health of the customers and employees, then no bar owner will choose to limit their business. When smoking is not allowed in any bars, there isn't an imbalance and both smokers and non-smokers can go to any bar. It's forbidden in any bar or restaurant here in CT, NY, and a dozen other states, and no one loses business this way and people can go out without fear for their health (it takes a pretty hardcore smoker to not go out because they can't have a cigarette CONSTANTLY in hand).

It's strange how many people confuse "want" with "right." There is no ammendment saying people have the right to smoke that bar owners have the right to chose whether to allow smoking or not. They're not losing any rights because they never had any in regards to the subject to begin with. All they're doing now is enforcing the rights that the employees and customers do have.

 

[Vorago]

my response to that would be to have certain places that allow smoking and certain places that dont, chosen by the owner of that place...if you dont like smoking, go to the other place.

i think this might be getting a little too political though, so i wont say more.

If I were to leave every bar were people are smoking, I wouldn't be able to see a single gig! Ever! I would never go to a pub or a party!

Why should a smoker have the right to smoke and a non smoker not have the right to 'not smoke' in a venue?

 

[morf]

Why? Because it's your right to smoke there? It's also the non-smoker's right to not have smoke in their face. It goes both ways, both parties can move away.

Indeed both can, the thing is, there are non smoking places, and according to your ideal, no places allowing smoking. The difference is us smokers have something taken from us, while you have a choice to put yourself at risk, or not. Of course we can also choose never to go ANYPLACE public, but you can simply choose not to go to the FEW places left that allow smoking. It's not as much a hassle for you as it is for us.

 

[morf]

If I were to leave every bar were people are smoking, I wouldn't be able to see a single gig! Ever! I would never go to a pub or a party!

So lets also ban alcohol from all bars and pubs as well because IMHO there are far more chances of a drunk killing you by smacking a beer bottle on your head than you dying of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke.

 

[vindy500]

if someone hit you in the head with a bottle, they should go to jail. its illegal. whats your point?

 

[FireBug]

morf, you seem more than a little upset over the whole deal and you have the right to be, but things are getting out of perspective. I was under the impression that we were all working to try and find a reasonable solution, not fuel an arguement. I think the smoking discussion is pretty much exhausted.

Even more rediculous are the fat people who sued MacDonalds for "making them fat". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jared from Subway make an appearance before before the yellow clown got sued? This has to be one of the stupidest and most frivolous cases I've ever heard. It's fast food, not some gourmet fancy crap. Of course it's going to cause you bodily harm. What was their case anyway? That the food made them fat or that it caused health complications?

Whatever, I can't stand people like that. With all that money they got, they damn well have better gotten liposuction.

 

[Cambass]

Indeed both can, the thing is, there are non smoking places, and according to your ideal, no places allowing smoking. The difference is us smokers have something taken from us, while you have a choice to put yourself at risk, or not. Of course we can also choose never to go ANYPLACE public, but you can simply choose not to go to the FEW places left that allow smoking. It's not as much a hassle for you as it is for us.

I never mentioned my 'ideal'. My point was that in an establishment that allows smoking, both parties have a right to be there.

Having said that I support the logic that one has a choice not to frequent those places (I try not to go to the local pub for those reasons). I hope smoking bans do come in (as they are) but would also support a comprimise with filtration systems, divided areas etc.