http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/10/20/5689

This debate has been hashed out here numerous times, but feel free to discuss it again.

As a matter of national health, I have a hard time allowing smoking inside bars and restaurants (when the outdoors works just fine, despite what Gore says) when studies like this show how much health is gained.

10/23/2006 2:49:00 PM

if a bar or restaurant wants to be a non-smoking establishment then let them

but the government has no business passing laws about it

10/23/2006 2:56:51 PM

These workers chose to work in a smoking bar/restaurants, and your study doesn't even say anything about long term effects, just stuff like eye and throat irritation and such.

10/23/2006 2:59:04 PM

If a farmer wants to use cancer causing agent pesticides, then let them.

but the government has no business passing laws about it

Quote :

"and your study doesn't even say anything about long term effects, just stuff like eye and throat irritation and such"

And lung capacity going up 8% in an amazingly short amount of time. I guess that really doesn't matter to your health.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:00 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 2:59:40 PM

Quote :

"If a farmer wants to use cancer causing agent pesticides, then let them."

You're an idiot.

10/23/2006 3:11:48 PM

Please leave the thread.

10/23/2006 3:12:47 PM

I hope they didn't spend a lot of money on this study.

10/23/2006 3:13:55 PM

Just explain how pesticide use is analogous to smoking, you know, just to show that you aren't making an idiotic strawman comparison.

10/23/2006 3:16:02 PM

Quote :

"As a matter of national health, I have a hard time allowing smoking inside bars and restaurants (when the outdoors works just fine, despite what Gore says) when studies like this show how much health is gained."

I agree, though I do sometimes worry about laws like these. Selfishly, it's nice to go to bars and not wake up the next morning stinking like smoke.

10/23/2006 3:27:08 PM

It's not pesticide use is analogous to smoking (who is the idiot?)

It is a business having the right to operate in a manner that is potentially harmful to human health (be it their employees or their patrons).

Granted, it's a very valid point in my opinion to say that the workers chose to work there, but thats a pretty slippery slope to traverse.

10/23/2006 3:31:13 PM

In the end, the solution is to avoid the bar. Unlike your horrible pestiside example, it is obvious when you walk into a place that allows smoking. If you don't like it leave. Clearly there's demand for this, else you wouldn't hear commercials about local bars and places that offer "smoke free" environments. Why do you need a law forbidding it?

10/23/2006 3:33:37 PM

It's really not that big of an inconvenience. You walk outside the door, on the sidewalk, and have your smoke. Hell, most places here in CA you can bring your beer with you.

Given the obvious health benefits from that article I don't see a problem with it.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : x]

10/23/2006 3:35:35 PM

find me someone that has no idea that smoke is bad for them

then find me produce with a warning label on the side that warns you of the risk of cancer because of the pesticide used

if you want to talk about slippery slopes i could point out that these same businesses serve alcohol and fatty foods, both of which are harmful to health.

10/23/2006 3:36:44 PM

This isn't even about the patrons. This is about the right to work in a healthy and safe environment.

I suppose if employees of the bar signed waivers, then so be it. But if that's the case, why don't we just eliminate all work place safety regulation? Clearly, folks would only want to work at the safest companies, and those that aren't safe would be out to pasture when trying to employ new people.

10/23/2006 3:36:45 PM

Quote :

"if you want to talk about slippery slopes i could point out that these same businesses serve alcohol and fatty foods, both of which are harmful to health. "

Not really. In one case you're talking about potentially hurting yourself and the other you are talking about potentially huring others.

Unless of course you think me eating a biggie size french fries could potentially affect you.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : x]

10/23/2006 3:37:56 PM

Quote :

"These workers chose to work in a smoking bar/restaurants, and your study doesn't even say anything about long term effects, just stuff like eye and throat irritation and such. "

Holy balls Kris, you are down with freedom? lol jk


People choose to work in hazardous professions all the time. Maybe you should tell the longshoremen they can't work there anymore.

10/23/2006 3:39:28 PM

Quote :

"it is obvious when you walk into a place that allows smoking"

this study isn't about patrons of a bar - it's about employees, people who are there every day for hours at a time.
The government has long been involved in creating safe(r) work environments.

10/23/2006 3:40:04 PM

Quote :

"People choose to work in hazardous professions all the time. Maybe you should tell the longshoremen they can't work there anymore."

That's very true but the goal is to make those dangerous jobs as safe as possible with regulations.

10/23/2006 3:41:33 PM

Quote :

"This is about the right to work in a healthy and safe environment."

You know how they can exercise that right? Work someplace else.

Quote :

"Not really. In one case you're talking about potentially hurting yourself and the other you are talking about potentially huring others."

So its cool for me to sell people beverages that cause cancer but not to let them breathe smoke?

10/23/2006 3:41:54 PM

But it is reasonable for me to assume that companies with dangerous work environments are undertaking as many precautions as possible to make their environment as safe as possible to some threshold level, and many of those safety requirements have been regulated/legislated.

Why is it unreasonable to think banning smoking is any different from these other forms of regulation?

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:46 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 3:43:20 PM

As was said before this isn't about the patrons.

However, I would answer your question by saying that in the case of drinking the beverage, that is a personal choice one makes whereas breathing in second hand smoke isn't.

Yes, you can counter by saying you can choose not to go to the bar, but that is essentially the same as saying you can choose to have a brew at home and smoke all you want there.

10/23/2006 3:43:55 PM

Does the US Constitution guarantee the right to go to a bar and not be subjected to cigarette smoking?

simple solution:

let the restaurant/bar decide if they want to allow smoking or not

10/23/2006 3:44:13 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you should tell the longshoremen they can't work there anymore"

the longshoremen 1) are represented by large unions who battle for as safe environments as possible given the nature of their work, and 2) get paid a hell of a lot more than people serving food and drinks.
Their work is inherently dangerous - there are always ways to make it safer, but in the end, it's still a dangerous profession. Workers accept that danger, and get rewarded for it.

Serving food and cocktails is not inherently dangerous work. smoking in the bars makes it dangerous. eliminating this danger to the workers health should be a priority

10/23/2006 3:44:19 PM

"No baby, I live on the edge. My job is dangerous. It could kill me one day."

"Oh wow. What do you do?

"I'm a bar back at TGI Fridays."

10/23/2006 3:46:14 PM

smoking is inherent in bars

At least it should be

And I don't even smoke. But when I go to a bar, I want to come back smelling like a fucking ashtray and stale beer. Because that's what a bar is for.

If the government would lay the fuck off it, some bars would have smoking allowed (where I would go) and others would not allow it (where I wouldn't go)

Then, waitresses will prefer to work at the non-smokey bars and so the smokey bars will have to pay better relative to the non-smoking bars in order to get help.

Thus, they'll be justly compensated for the added risk.

10/23/2006 3:47:15 PM

Quote :

"smoking is inherent in bars At least it should be "

no and no.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:48 PM. Reason : df]

10/23/2006 3:47:48 PM

Quote :

"If the government would lay the fuck off it, some bars would have smoking allowed (where I would go) and others would not allow it (where I wouldn't go)"

The free market theories don't always hold up.

10/23/2006 3:48:44 PM

I WANT TO GO POISON MY BLOODSTREAM WITH ALCOHOL BUT GOD FORBID I GET SOME 2ND HAND SMOKE

^there are smoking bars and non smoking bars...so i dont see what doesnt hold up

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 3:48:59 PM

Quote :

"If the government would lay the fuck off it, some bars would have smoking allowed (where I would go) and others would not allow it (where I wouldn't go) "

it's like this now. wtf are you talking about

i.e. "the government is laying the fuck off now" in most places, and to what effect? see the article

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 3:49:22 PM

^^christ you're an idiot

this whole thing is about WORKERS not patrons.

10/23/2006 3:49:46 PM

^it doesnt matter

nobody says you have to work at a bar

fucking moron

pay more attention to my obviously sarcastic caps-locked remark instead of realizing the OWNER has the RIGHT to determine what happens at his bar and the workers have a CHOICE of where to work

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 3:50:55 PM

an owner does not have the right to determine what happens at his bar.

10/23/2006 3:52:44 PM

let me be more specific since you are looking to be a pain in the ass

A bar owner has the right to determine if cigarette smoking is allowed at his bar or not

10/23/2006 3:53:28 PM

not if its against the law. as of right now he does....but if a law is passed, then he won't.

10/23/2006 3:53:57 PM

What about this bar owner

Did he have a right to do as he pleased with his bar

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/23/deadly.nightclub.fire/

10/23/2006 3:54:00 PM

Quote :

"as of right now he does"

thanks for admitting im right

^A. that fire wasnt caused by an irresponsible smoker

and B. if you are looking at deaths, why dont you look at the number of DUI related deaths from people who drink at bars and leave and drive drunk and kill people

10/23/2006 3:55:00 PM

and at one point restaurant owners were able to prepare food however they wanted to...without adhering to sanitary rules and regulations.

10/23/2006 3:55:58 PM

were people forced to eat at certain restaurants?

or did they have the choice to go where they wanted if they wanted to go out at all

plus you have to be at least 18 to get into any bars after a certain hour, and many/most places require you to be 21...its not like innocent children are being subjected to this at night...and in the daytime, if you dont want your kids around smoke, dont take them to a fucking bar

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 3:56:27 PM

i dont know...but obviously a law was passed to insure the safery of workers and patrons.

i don't see how this is any different.

10/23/2006 3:57:11 PM

Quote :

"^A. that fire wasnt caused by an irresponsible smoker"

You didn't answer the question.

Did the bar owner have the right to do as he pleased at his establishment?

10/23/2006 3:57:51 PM

well lets pass a law limiting automobile speeds to 20 mph

that will insure the safety of more people

i dont see how thats any different

^the bar owner had the right to have a concert and he had the right to tell his patrons if they could or couldnt smoke

i dont see what you're asking...you're comparing a pyrotechnics accident to a smoking ban

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ./]

10/23/2006 3:58:15 PM

Sanitary rules exist so that I can eat assured that there won't be pubes or specks of shit in my food.

However, people know exactly what is in cigarettes and are aware of the dangers of smoking.

10/23/2006 3:58:45 PM

^

10/23/2006 3:59:12 PM

Quote :

"Sanitary rules exist so that I can eat assured that there won't be pubes or specks of shit in my food. "

they also exist for the safety of the workers who have to work in that kind of environment.

10/23/2006 3:59:44 PM

Quote :

"have to work "

who has to work in a bar?

people being forced to work there?

i always thought people had a choice...

10/23/2006 4:00:52 PM

^^ no they don't

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2006 4:01:08 PM

Quote :

"i dont see what you're asking...you're comparing a pyrotechnics accident to a smoking ban"

I am comparing one bar owner having the right the right to operate his establishment how he wanted, safety concerns be damned, to another bar owner having the right to operate his establishment how he wanted, safety concerns be damned.

I don't see how the two are any different. Would you care to tell me?

Quote :

"who has to work in a bar? people being forced to work there? i always thought people had a choice..."

But you see the slippery slope of what you are suggesting right?

In that case. I think we should bring back child labor.

[Edited on October 23, 2006 at 4:02 PM. Reason : a]

10/23/2006 4:01:40 PM

Quote :

"no they don't "

yeah, i worded that poorly. this is better:

they also exist for the safety of the workers who work in that kind of environment.

my point, was that sanitary laws were not put in place for the patrons alone.

10/23/2006 4:02:52 PM

People go into a bar knowing that there will be cigarette smoke and are aware of the potential health risks.

No one went into that club knowing that there would be a horrific pyrotechnic fire that would kill dozens of people.

See the difference?

Fun Fact: sanitary laws have nothing to do with worker safety.

10/23/2006 4:05:29 PM

Quote :

"Fun Fact: sanitary laws have nothing to do with worker safety. "

of course they do.

10/23/2006 4:06:58 PM