Smoking in Bars

[jwbassman]

Ok, replace "rolling ball of nonsmokers rights" with "rolling ball of smoking bans"

I just meant that this idea of smoking bans kind of came out of nowhere, and caught on a little bit, and then more and more, and I just wonder if it has gone, or will go too far without people realizing it.

How far do you think is too far?

Where should I be allowed to smoke? Public park? Outside on my own property? In my car?

The specific "problem" with smoke is that it gets around. Even if I only smoke in my car with the windows up, likely some of it is going to escape when I open the door. If I smoke on my back porch, you may smell it next door. If you are really sensitive maybe you will smell it even further away.

Actually, I don't have air conditioning, and its like 95 degrees here, what if I have a heat stroke trying to smoke in my car with my windows up? Has your right to remove the tiniest traces of smoke that might enter your lungs as I drive by at 55 infringed on my right to cool down?

I realize that is pure hyperbole, no need to point it out. But right now the ball is rolling and it shows no signs of slowing down. Once smoking is banned in all enclosed buildings what will be sighted next? It seems like the goal is not to protect the health of the public at large, but to eliminate smoking alltogether. (hyperbole, I know)

Unfortunately the bans will continue until smoking is deemed illegal.

 

[jwbassman]

Doesn't fit the criteria. I don't get drunk or alcohol poisoning if the person next to me is drinking.

Sure, but a rude drunk can make you feel uncomfortable, and will pose harm to those around him especially if driving.

Just so you know I'm not against drinking by any means, just playing the devils advocate a bit.

 

[tZer]

Drinking Alcohol

Sorry - does not cause immediate problems for anyone. If I drink a beer it does not cause you to cough or trigger an asthma attack or make you have to spontaneously pee. Nor would my drinking a beer force you to decide if you wanted to continue to sit next to me and enjoy yours.

Smoking bans are mostly due to a change in status quo. At one time many people smoked. Slowly over the years smoking became less and less "fashionable". When the majority smoked, it was everywhere, malls, restaurants, hotels, airplanes, buses, etc. As more people dropped it and the majority became non-smokers less and less places allowed smoking. Popular opinion drives what is deemed acceptable. There is overwhelming medical evidence that shows that smoking is harmful. The surgeon general's warning has been on cigarettes since 1965. People have known how bad smoking is for you. It's been a slow progression. So health is the ammunition, the real reason is popularity. Same goes fast food restaurant chains like McDonald's, ect. They are trying to clean up their act not due to overwhelming evidence suggesting their food is terrible for you, they're doing it due to a popular movement.

The facts surrounding smoking and it harmfulness have been slow in coming to the surface and have had to fight their way through very real actions taken by the tobacco companies to keep the truth from, or soften the reality of the harmful nature of cigarette smoking. When the tobacco industry was busted for these very disgusting, and in my opinion, criminal actions, THEN the world began to change much more rapidly.

It's quite amazing what happens when big companies are no longer allowed to lie to the general public about the deadly consequences of using their products, isn't it?

Again, it is true that the reason things are slow to change has connections to fashion and the status quo, but that is still not enough to negate the facts - that smoking IS harmful to not only the smoker, but those around them.

You say "the real reason is popularity" - that is A reason, not the only nor the "real" reason. That's a reason that makes those who want to continue to smoke where ever they like feel more like those who don't want them to be able to do so are just victims of a popularity contest.

The reasons are manifold and cannot be summed up in pithy and dismissive comments like "fashionable" and "popular". And so far in these past few pages, the only "points" that have been put on the table in support of being able to smoke around people in public have been equally rhetorical and unsubstantial.

 

[Meyatch]

Sure, but a rude drunk can make you feel uncomfortable, and will pose harm to those around him especially if driving.

yeah, but drunk driving is illegal, so is smacking the guy next to you upside the head. The fact that drinking alcohol contributed to those crimes does not make drinking alcohol the problem.

The smoking related problem is that if they passed a law prohibiting me from exhaling any smoke, and from letting any smoke escape from the end of my cigarette is exactly the same as banning smoking.

 

[jwbassman]

yeah, but drunk driving is illegal, so is smacking the guy next to you upside the head. The fact that drinking alcohol contributed to those crimes does not make drinking alcohol the problem.

Yes, but smoking doesn't kill you, cancer does. Smoking just contributes to the problem same as alcohol.

Just being a smart a**

 

[CHILDISHGAMBINO]

What's the big deal? Most smokers don't smoke in their houses so who cares if you can't smoke in a bar? The only negative side I see(I smoke)is that I can't take my beer outside with me when I smoke. I think the ban is great. I don't mind being around smoke but I don't enjoy tobacco hotboxes. Other types of hotboxes, on the other hand, are quite enjoyable.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

no matter how you feel about the ban, you'd have to be an idiot to think you should allow smoking in a school. I would hope you don't think I'm an idiot, and since tZer has had such fun pointing out my argument tactics I will point out that your school argument is nothing more than scare tactics and absolutism.

How is it scare tactics when this was not only legal but was a common occurance?

You can argue the health risks/benefits all day long if you like, but its a purely academic argument. There is NO reason whatsoever why you would have to sit in a bar full of cigarette smoke unless you are an employee (or performer which is pretty much an employee) There is not a SINGLE thing preventing you from leaving if you do not like the service/band/prices/chicks/smoke.

Just like there's not a single thing preventing you from leaving a bar that serves sour beef if you don't like the taste, or from leaving a bar that allows patrons to punch gays if you're gay. Thing is, it's not the public's job to avoid getting hurt from a place open to public business. It's a business' job to avoid hurting the public if it opens its doors to public business.

 

[tZer]

How far do you think is too far?

Good question!

I believe people should be able to do what ever they want to themselves in the privacy of their own homes - so any sort of ban that would make it illegal to do it at home would be too far.

Also,

I think banning people from doing it outside - as long as it's not immediately outside an entry or some other zone where people HAVE to pass through in order to gain access or exit a public place would be too far.

I am not opposed to people smoking. I chose to stop many years ago. I am opposed to not being able to go inside a public place and breathe relatively smoke-free, if not completely smoke-free air.

I do not think smoking should be illegal. I do not think drugs should be illegal.

Unfortunately the bans will continue until smoking is deemed illegal.

This slippery slope logic is fear-mongering and only serves to, again, obfuscate the facts. jwbassman, I am not accusing you of this, but typically when these sort of "doom and gloom/it's an unavoidable conclusion" comments only serve to try to make people say, "Well, I don't like smoking, but if it's going to lead to the elimination of my civil rights, well, I can't get behind this cause..."

Again, it's not dealing with the facts nor is there precedent to support such a conclusion.

 

[Meyatch]

How is it scare tactics when this was not only legal but was a common occurance?

I'm sorry, but I simply can't answer your question. I've never known a time when smoking was allowed in schools. I am aware that it used to be, but I don't know the facts. What was the legal age to smoke then? Was there one? I have no idea.

Just like there's not a single thing preventing you from leaving a bar that serves sour beef if you don't like the taste, or from leaving a bar that allows patrons to punch gays if you're gay. Thing is, it's not the public's job to avoid getting hurt from a place open to public business. It's a business' job to avoid hurting the public if it opens its doors to public business.

Yes and no. I don't care what restaurants serve. If they only serve sour beef, and they warn you that they do, then fine.

I will never understand this logic of protecting people from themselves. If you drink milk that is 6 months expired, its not the milk companies fault for not making self destructing milk cartons. There comes a point where YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN behavior. I don't know if that responsibility extends to cigarette smoke or not, but I do know that you are perfectly able to leave if it bothers you, and you absolutely cannot convince me otherwise.

There is no such thing as an establishment that allows "punching gays" and the argument doesn't hold water. You can't have an establishment that allows punching anybody, and as gays are "anybody" they are exempt from being punched. I'm not saying they should make a special device causing my cigarette smoke to only travel up the noses of people I don't like.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

The only issue I could see having with smoking at home is that as a small kid, my mother and her family smoked in our house for years before they found out I was asthmatic and it caused me some problems. But until we re-evaluate what parents can and can't do with their own children (which is its own crazy mess), I don't think smoking in your own home would be made illegal.

 

[jwbassman]

This slippery slope logic is fear-mongering and only serves to, again, obfuscate the facts. jwbassman, I am not accusing you of this, but typically when these sort of "doom and gloom/it's an unavoidable conclusion" comments only serve to try to make people say, "Well, I don't like smoking, but if it's going to lead to the elimination of my civil rights, well, I can't get behind this cause..."

Again, it's not dealing with the facts nor is there precedent to support such a conclusion.

I know your not accusing me of anything.

Just my personal opinion that the bans will continue until smoking is out the door.

http://www.cigarjack.net/2007/09/12/belmont-ca-passes-nations-toughest-smoking-ban/

Invalid Link Removed

My opinion is that it is just a matter of time. Remember, had someone suggested an all out smoking ban in restaurants say, 10 years ago, I probably would have gotten the same response you gave me above. Once, again, this is just my opinion.

 

[tZer]

I will never understand this logic of protecting people from themselves. If you drink milk that is 6 months expired, its not the milk companies fault for not making self destructing milk cartons. There comes a point where YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN behavior. I don't know if that responsibility extends to cigarette smoke or not, but I do know that you are perfectly able to leave if it bothers you, and you absolutely cannot convince me otherwise.

That's a bit of a digression - what we are talking about is not to protect the smoker's from themselves - it's to protect others from the smoke that the smoker causes to be in the breathable air.

As for the "punching gays - blacks - women" comparison -the fact is that there was a time when such behavior was condoned and would not have been thought twice about. The thing is, as we evolve as a society and discover these obvious flaws in our ways we try to fix them. Yes, this particular example has all the markings of a flame-starter, but making laws that made it illegal to discriminate against people based on race or gender or to protect people who are being openly attacked with no apparent recourse is what a civil society does.

Smokers, like it or not, are contributing to more than just a foul smell on clothing, they are making places that would be otherwise perfectly OK for EVERYONE into places that only people who don't care about inhaling noxious fumes or people whose systems can tolerate such irritants without causing some sort of dangerous respiratory reaction can comfortably patronize.

How is a policy (ban) that fixes that situation a bad thing?

 

[tZer]

My opinion is that it is just a matter of time. Remember, had someone suggested an all out smoking ban in restaurants say, 10 years ago, I probably would have gotten the same response you gave me above. Once, again, this is just my opinion.

You may be right. I certainly hope it does not go that route. As I said before, I am not in favor of criminalizing smoking. I am not even all that much in favor of these bans. I am in favor of having a more smoke free public inner space and I wish it were a more naturally occurring phenomena. I have many friends who still smoke and even they choose not to do so in their own homes, cars and when we go out - even if smoking is allowed they tend to take themselves to places where it minimizes the impact.

If everyone who smoked adopted these ways, the idea of a ban would not be necessary. But since people refuse to accept that smoking makes other people's air less than breathable, something has to be done.

When I used to smoke, I was very unaware of exactly how irritating it really was for non-smokers. I grew up in a smoking house and was very used to the smell and breathing the air around my dad. It never bothered me that much. On occasion I'd wave it away from my face, but otherwise it seemed pretty harmless.

After I stopped smoking, I suddenly became very aware of how much an impact my second-hand smoke must have had on people around me and I was sort of shocked. I knew it was there, but I never realized exactly how nasty it really was. But since it was socially acceptable and those around me were used to dealing with it, no one ever really said anything about it - except the occasional "pain in the butt militant non-smoker" who'd say, "Aw, come on... do you really need to do that here?"

That's what I should have been asking myself from the start. It should never have been their issue to either say something about or for them to have to chose to move to get away from.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

I'm sorry, but I simply can't answer your question. I've never known a time when smoking was allowed in schools. I am aware that it used to be, but I don't know the facts. What was the legal age to smoke then? Was there one? I have no idea.

I'm talking about teachers smoking in class, and that was just a few decades ago. There has also been smoking sections for students right next to entranceways (speaking of my old high school)- not sure if those are all forbidden now, but I imagine they should be.

Yes and no. I don't care what restaurants serve. If they only serve sour beef, and they warn you that they do, then fine.

Really? And for the family that accidentally misses the sign saying they may add something toxic to the soup?

I will never understand this logic of protecting people from themselves. If you drink milk that is 6 months expired, its not the milk companies fault for not making self destructing milk cartons.

You're not forcing that milk on anyone else. Serve your guests 6 month-old milk and they can sue you (and would win).

There comes a point where YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN behavior. I don't know if that responsibility extends to cigarette smoke or not, but I do know that you are perfectly able to leave if it bothers you, and you absolutely cannot convince me otherwise.

That's the thing- the smoke IS your responsibility, and your responsibility to end it if it is bothering someone. Since people and business don't want to take on that responsibility, the government has to. Again, it's not the public's job to avoid harm in a place open to the public. It's the place's job to avoid hurting the public. I could stand outside your grocery store and slap you every time you open the door- should the answer to that be that you are perfectly able to either go to a different store or just take the slap when you enter? It's not my job to leave- it's yours to not do something that harms me.

There is no such thing as an establishment that allows "punching gays" and the argument doesn't hold water.

Wanna bet on that? There have been many bars that have had no gays/blacks/etc. policies over the years, and their presence would be met with forced removal. If your idea of bar owners being able to decide whether or not they allow a policy that lets one portion of their clientele do something that harms another part of it, then it would have to allow for this sort of behavior that used to occur. Either all publicly open business owners have to follow the laws set out for them or they can all pick and choose.

 

[Visirale]

I just wanted to say sorry to the parties I was arguing with yesterday. I am capable of intelligent debate, counter to what my behavior yesterday suggested. I just get caught up in this debate a lot in a lot of different places and it never is resolved and always ends up the same... it's just frustrating, that is all.

Sorry again.

-Ted

 

[tZer]

No worries, Ted. A lively debate - even one where people aren't necessarily great to each other - is a fine thing.

 

[Meyatch]

Wanna bet on that? There have been many bars that have had no gays/blacks/etc. policies over the years, and their presence would be met with forced removal. If your idea of bar owners being able to decide whether or not they allow a policy that lets one portion of their clientele do something that harms another part of it, then it would have to allow for this sort of behavior that used to occur. Either all publicly open business owners have to follow the laws set out for them or they can all pick and choose.

Civil rights is not the same thing as freedom from being annoyed, or public health.

You keep trying to cram this argument down my throat, and I keep trying to not accept it.

I'm not discriminating against anyone, If its a public health concern, I'm hurting everyone around my and myself equally. Stop trying the civil rights argument, its not the same thing.

Really? And for the family that accidentally misses the sign saying they may add something toxic to the soup?

Yes. What about the family that misses the bridge is out sign? It is not the governments responsibility to hold everyone's hand. At some point the responsibility does move from simply warning to banning. Some people think that line is in a different place than other people.

That's the thing- the smoke IS your responsibility, and your responsibility to end it if it is bothering someone. Since people and business don't want to take on that responsibility, the government has to. Again, it's not the public's job to avoid harm in a place open to the public. It's the place's job to avoid hurting the public. I could stand outside your grocery store and slap you every time you open the door- should the answer to that be that you are perfectly able to either go to a different store or just take the slap when you enter? It's not my job to leave- it's yours to not do something that harms me.

You seem bound and determined to completely ignore the law when it comes to this discussion. Slapping me anywhere, in anyone's store is not legal.
In PA, it is legal to smoke in a bar, and its legal for me to follow you just close enough to really annoy the heck out of you with my smoke.
In a lot of places it isn't.

Right now, your only option in PA is to leave if you don't like it.

I seriously doubt this policy has resulted in any deaths.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Civil rights is not the same thing as freedom from being annoyed, or public health.

If leaving a bar if you don't like it as simple a thing to do as you are saying, then you obviously shouldn't find a problem with it.

You keep trying to cram this argument down my throat, and I keep trying to not accept it.

I'm not discriminating against anyone, If its a public health concern, I'm hurting everyone around my and myself equally. Stop trying the civil rights argument, its not the same thing.

You not liking the arguement does not take away from its validity. Either a bar owner can pick and choose which laws he follows or he has to follow them all like every other business. Either a bar is such a magical place that people should be allowed to harm others because they feel like it or it's not.

Yes. What about the family that misses the bridge is out sign? It is not the governments responsibility to hold everyone's hand. At some point the responsibility does move from simply warning to banning. Some people think that line is in a different place than other people.

Bridge out is necessity- poison soup is not. It's the government's job to create an equal and safe environment for all of us.

You seem bound and determined to completely ignore the law when it comes to this discussion. Slapping me anywhere, in anyone's store is not legal.

I'm not ignoring it- I'm pointing it out to you because you seem to be missing the point of why it is illegal. It's illegal because I am not allowed to go out of my way to harm you. Smoking is being made illegal in anyone's stores because it's doing the same thing, yet you think that there's no reason to make it illegal- you think people should just avoid it.

 

[Meyatch]

You not liking the arguement does not take away from its validity. Either a bar owner can pick and choose which laws he follows or he has to follow them all like every other business. Either a bar is such a magical place that people should be allowed to harm others because they feel like it or it's not.

No. Its not illegal here. I don't think a bar should be able to choose what laws it follows, or any other place. But smoking in bars is legal here. Which makes PA one of the few places you can actually have a legitimate discussion of the subject. I don't advocate anyone break the law.

Smoking is legal here. Beating blacks and gays is not.

Smoking is legal here. Slapping me in the face is not.

Did I mention smoking is legal here? And therefore not against the law?

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

No. Its not illegal here. I don't think a bar should be able to choose what laws it follows, or any other place. But smoking in bars is legal here. Which makes PA one of the few places you can actually have a legitimate discussion of the subject. I don't advocate anyone break the law.

Smoking is legal here. Beating blacks and gays is not.

Smoking is legal here. Slapping me in the face is not.

Did I mention smoking is legal here? And therefore not against the law?

Still not getting it? Smoking is legal there. You are saying that the law shouldn't be able to make it illegal. You are saying that the bar owners should decide. The reason the law wants to make it illegal is for the same reason it has made other things illegal. If the bar owners had the power to decide whether they want smoking in their bars or not (rather than the government telling them they can't), then the other things such as discrimination, etc., should not be illegal either and should be left up to the bar owner to decide. Thinking the bar owners should be able to choose to allow smoking or not (something harmful to others) but also thinking they should NOT be able to choose to allow discrimination, use of dangerous chemicals, etc. or not (something harmful to others) is completely hypocritical.