^ that is your opinion.

if a group of people can't buy their way out of a situation, they'll apply political capital with whatever voice they can muster.

2/26/2008 3:08:29 PM

I think this issue boils down to basic principles, as in:

Do you think property owners have a right to use their property as they see fit?

2/26/2008 3:29:51 PM

Quote :

"imo, it's about not subjecting the service class to undue health hazards"

nobody is forcing them to work in any given place....if I really feared the health risks of a certain job, you can be certain I wouldn't work it.

Quote :

"When one location acts on their own, they risk becoming "the place that smokers can't go.""

if there is enough of a base to support it, they'll have a hell of a niche market...seems like the ideal business situation. not to mention there are more than a few establishments that are smoke free now...they must not have been scared to be "the place smokers can't go"

2/26/2008 3:52:19 PM

they need to ban babies from restaurants. Nothing is worst than taking a girl out to eat, going out with my homies, or having a family dinner and the people next to us have a screeching baby. Hire a fucking babysitter. If I can not smoke at the bar b.c its polluting your lungs then I do not want to forced to accept your noise pollution from your brat

2/26/2008 3:52:44 PM

Quote :

"this is the stupidest reason to be against a ban. It would be valid if smoking bans in general were strictly municipality based, but the majority of bans are put in place on the State level."

This isn't true. The ones that are very popular are often at the state level, but there are many more that are at the municipal level. This kind of distinction is what has made understanding the effects of a smoking ban so difficult to measure. The main difficulties are:

1) In 1998, the tax code that identified establishments as restaurants and bars changed, and therefore makes any data before 1998 either difficult to use or biased

2) The tendency is for local municipalities to first enact smoking bans, and then for this to work its way up into the state level. This happened in Maine, California, New York, and is true in states such as Montana and Nevada where there aren't really state-wide smoking bans necessarily (though NV did just enact one), but the major cities have smoking bans and are therefore a large part of the restaurant tax that the state collects. This small to large distinction without the equivalent distinction in tax collection data makes it very difficult to understand correlation much less causation in this case

2/26/2008 4:02:51 PM

Quote :

"wlb420: nobody is forcing them to work in any given place....if I really feared the health risks of a certain job, you can be certain I wouldn't work it."

If it was the best-paying job you could get, and you had a child to support, you bet your ass you'd work it.

Quote :

"eyedrb: ^or coal miners to iron lung. If its that much a concern go do another job."

Coal miners actually prefer the job to be dangerous and unhealthy. The risk involved with the job is what keeps the wages high enough to support a family. Servers, on the other hand, are not getting paid more because of the risks associated with second-hand smoke.

2/26/2008 4:44:20 PM

also no waitress has ever gotten lung cancer from working in a bar

lots of coal miners have gotten all types of respiratory diseases

whereas no bartender or waitress has ever gotten lung cancer from simply working in a bar

also nobody is forcing them to work there

and nobody forced them to have kids either

2/26/2008 4:50:09 PM

^I can't argue with ignorance.

2/26/2008 4:54:21 PM

Quote :

"If it was the best-paying job you could get, and you had a child to support, you bet your ass you'd work it. "

if the smoke was that big a deal to me i wouldn't....there's always a fast food joint hiring. Don't pull the what if you don't have a choice BS...there is always a choice if your convictions are strong enough.

2/26/2008 4:56:20 PM

^You can make more money serving than you can in fast food.

What's your damage here? Why can't you acknowledge what a dick move it is to walk up into someone's workplace and blow smoke in they face?

2/26/2008 5:17:56 PM

^get two jobs then....point is, nobody is forced to work somewhere if they really don't want to. if they weigh thier options and choose to work at a bar, so be it, but its still their choice.

2/26/2008 5:26:36 PM

Quote :

"no waitress has ever gotten lung cancer from working in a bar"

what? how can you possibly make this assertion? are you some kind of fucking sage?

2/26/2008 5:27:40 PM

Quote :

"nobody is forced to work somewhere if they really don't want to. "

Yep, I escaped the slave labor industry of waiting tables too. I worked there bc it was night hours and good, mostly, tax free money.

Are you seriously saying that some people can only work as a waitress? Or that those jobs are the only ones available?

2/26/2008 5:31:50 PM

according to bridget, waiting tables is the only job some people can get

maybe they shouldve studied a little harder in school so they could get a better job than waiting tables

but its not their fault they didnt study in school, they probably couldnt study harder cause they had to raise a kid...and of course its not their fault for having a kid either

jwb, find me one single instance of a nonsmoker getting lung cancer from simply working in a bar or restaurant...not a coal mine...not a factory...and not someone with bad asthma who had an asthma attack...i'm talking about show me one single instance where the DANGEROUS air in a bar or restaurant has caused some type of respiratory disease cause i dont buy it

i've smoked for years and don't have any significant health problems (yet)

but the person merely exposed to the smoke that i'm literally inhaling and absorbing into my tissues is getting sick? its like that bs chance would say, where if he was at a stop light with his windows down and smelled a whiff of cigarette, his throat would tighten up...course the deadly chemicals in all the auto exhaust at a red light were no big deal...just the cigarettes

2/26/2008 5:53:21 PM

^^^^A lot of servers are already waiting tables as their second job. It's the ideal second job because you can pick up shifts around your full-time job. I assumed you guys would want to encourage that kind of motivation.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 5:57 PM. Reason : sss]

2/26/2008 5:57:22 PM

i'd encourage them to get a better first job that would make the amount of money as their current 1st job + waiting tables...i'd then encourage them to spend that time that they currently spend waiting tables, spending some time with the kids they're trying to raise

and the only reason i'm slightly changing the subject is you keep acting like people are FORCED to work in bars and restaurants, which THEY ARE NOT

2/26/2008 6:02:32 PM

Quote :

"maybe they shouldve studied a little harder in school so they could get a better job than waiting tables"

somebody's going to be waiting our tables regardless

2/26/2008 6:04:12 PM

^The divorced math teacher who pays out half his income to his wife and children and waits tables at night to get by...yeah, he really needs to reevaluate his life.

He's the one with the problem, not the people who insist on smoking up his workplace.

2/26/2008 6:04:57 PM

let him take it up with his boss

if patrons want to go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, and they want to smoke a few cigarettes over the course of the night, they are allowed to do that

no amount of playing to our sympathies on TWW is going to change that simple fact of business and free enterprise

besides there are bars and restaurants that are no smoking all over the place...why must they insist on getting a job at a place that still allows smoking?

and didnt you mention something about coal miners WANTING dangerous/unhealthy work? While I completely disagree with that reason, your logic was because, in a simple sense, risk = reward

well maybe the smoke risk is why a waitress can pull in $250 in a night and not pay taxes on it...sounds pretty nice to me

2/26/2008 6:07:32 PM

^What I said about coal mining is documented. They repeatedly come out against extreme safety measures on their jobs. That is not the case in the service industry.

And this isn't me appealing to TWW's sympathies; you can ignore the class issues I mentioned. This is about occupational and public health, and the right of employees to reasonably healthy working environments. The precedent is there, and no amount of ignorance or free market rhetoric is going to stop the bans.

2/26/2008 6:36:16 PM

Quote :

"the right of employees to reasonably healthy working environments"

i'd say a bar is a reasonably healthy work environment

nobody in the thread has come up with a single instance yet of a non smoker who developed any kind of respiratory disease from working at a restaurant/bar

and when someone applies to work at a restaurant or bar, i'm sure they know whether or not the place allows smoking or doesn't allow smoking...and the owner sure as hell isn't going to change their existing policy based on what one server wants...the server knows from the get go if they're going to get exposed to smoke or not, hence the people saying they have a choice as to where to work

and the bans you're mentioning...certain cities and states have adopted those bans...meaning there are more and more restaurants and bars that don't allow smoking...why can't they work at one of those places...and of course its worth mentioning again, there are plenty of places with job openings that aren't bars that allow smoking...i've worked a few jobs in my day before landing at my current career...none of those jobs were in bars/restaurants...because there are a lot more options out there

2/26/2008 7:26:19 PM

It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property.

Therefore, it is not the fault of the smoking patrons if the employees are upset about smokers coming in. The employees were not ignorant of the smoking policy when hired. They simply thought that higher pay in a nonsmoking place was worth whatever detriment second-hand smoke caused them. The employees can leave anytime they like, they are not forced to work in a smoking environment.

2/26/2008 8:20:13 PM

i use to hate smoking bans but now that i quit smoking i kinda support them


funny how that works

2/26/2008 8:21:53 PM

this rigid Ayn Randian bullshit is why libertarians never get anywhere.

Quote :

"Do you think property owners have a right to use their property as they see fit?"

they do until it becomes a place where the public can freely gather and associate. the moment you open your private property for the exchange of goods or services you invite regulation.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 8:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 8:33:21 PM

^^
uh, having no principles isn't very funny

good job losing all of your TSB credibility

Quote :

"It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property."

Quote :

"It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property."

Quote :

"It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property."

Quote :

"It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property."

Quote :

"It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property."

Quote :

"It should be the restaurant owner who decides whether or not smoking is allowed on their property."

wins



listen bridget: you're wrong

I'm not even gonna waste my time arguing with your clear lack of understanding of right and wrong

good luck in life

oh, be sure to reply to this post with some more bitchy bullshit like you know what the fuck your talking about

Quote :

"But, when the ban was forced on them, they realized that it wasn't the worst thing in the world and that, in some ways, they appreciated the ban."

OMG I LOOOOOVE YOU BIG BROTHER

YES! OH! RULE ME LIKE A KING!

YEAH, PUNISH ME, I'VE BEEN BAD

I think we know where bridget's politics come from -- her bleeding masochist heart

2/26/2008 8:45:20 PM

Quote :

"uh, having no principles isn't very funny"

??? aren't there more important things to have principles on than smoking in restaurants?

2/26/2008 8:48:34 PM

the principle isn't on "smoking in restaurants"

it's on where your policy opinions come from

iow, it's in the fact that you changed your support for a policy simply to convenience your current habits

if you were principled,

your support or opposition to a policy wouldn't be affected by your comfort, convenience, emotion or personal benefit


example:

say affirmative action for women was ended, but was kept for racial minorities

if some white girl that used to support affirmative action (in general) ends her support for it based on that, well....

ya see?

2/26/2008 9:00:28 PM

I'm a smker and I support smoking bans.

2/26/2008 9:12:36 PM

Quote :

"this rigid Ayn Randian bullshit is why libertarians never get anywhere"

I ain't a libertarian!

2/26/2008 9:39:02 PM

if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walk likes a duck...

2/26/2008 9:44:11 PM

Quote :

"they do until it becomes a place where the public can freely gather and associate. the moment you open your private property for the exchange of goods or services you invite regulation."

I didn't realize the local brewpub was the new City Hall. I suppose the sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason" is now there for decoration?

2/26/2008 10:37:30 PM

^Yes, actually it is.

2/26/2008 11:36:47 PM

^^ you have a difficult time with reading comprehension?

how is to "invite regulation" of a business establishment is equivalent to forcing a business to provide particular services? at the very least, businesses have to comply with regulatory laws and public health codes.

and for the record, a business can NOT refuse service to "anyone", no matter what their decorative signage suggests.... if your neighborhood grocer doesnt like Jews, blacks or cripples, they still have to allow them in to patronize their business.





[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2008 11:38:58 PM

Quote :

"if your neighborhood grocer doesnt like Jews, blacks or cripples, they still have to allow them in to patronize their business. "

Just because things are this way doesn't mean they should be

2/26/2008 11:40:59 PM

2/26/2008 11:43:15 PM

why do liberals scream about civil rights and the gov't acting like big brother (which i support) until the issue turns into guns or cigarettes. I am all about civil rights, fuck bush's FISA bill but then you want to tell private restaurant owners "no smoking".

Fuck the gov't if i want to open Nathan's Smokey Cigarette Bar that is my entrepreneurial initiative. I should have to tell my patrons "no smoking" because some whiny hypochondriac anti-smoking hippy doesn't like cigarette smoke. If this is you props for not smoking but i am not making you visit my establishment.

2/26/2008 11:47:35 PM

I don't have a problem smoking lounges.

2/26/2008 11:56:16 PM

Quote :

"^^ you have a difficult time with reading comprehension?"

The irony!

Quote :

"how is to "invite regulation" of a business establishment is equivalent to forcing a business to provide particular services? at the very least, businesses have to comply with regulatory laws and public health codes."

Somehow, I just don't see bans on smoking being equivalent to making sure folks don't spit in your food or that the cooks have to wear pants. Maybe it's that part where you know exactly what you're walking into when you open the door.

Quote :

"and for the record, a business can NOT refuse service to "anyone", no matter what their decorative signage suggests.... if your neighborhood grocer doesnt like Jews, blacks or cripples, they still have to allow them in to patronize their business."

I am well aware of the Civil Rights Act, but I am also aware of the fact that a private establishment can come up with any number of reasons to refuse service that have nothing to do with "No Jews Allowed." They can also set any number of their own conditions for entry (ever been to a mall, lately? Ever read the signs at the door?), because - and get this - they're private property!

2/27/2008 12:16:48 AM

Quote :

"they do until it becomes a place where the public can freely gather and associate. the moment you open your private property for the exchange of goods or services you invite regulation"

so if one opposes this

are they necessarily a racist, sexist or "religionist"?

I mean, I see where it could go -- racist business owners could deny on the basis of race, etc

but why does anti-racism legislation (read: legislating morality) trump property rights?

I'm about as far as one can get from being racist, sexist, etc.

yet I'm beginning to wonder if forcing property owners to refrain from racist or sexist business practices is right

I mean, a long time ago, 99% of everything would have remained white and male, duh

but nowadays, if we let businesses do as they please, I think the market would take of it

that is, good people would boycott them (for good reason,) and they might have to change their ways

but even they managed to survive, how many whites-only businesses would you expect to find?

maybe one or two, off the highway, on the edge of town, (that would constantly be egged and vandalized in protest)

but is allowing them to exist legally really a problem? (it's despicable, yeah, but where's the legal harm?)

is it worse than systematically denying EVERY business owner the right to do as they please on THEIR PROPERTY?

again, I'm no bigot, but maybe we need to go back in time a bit, you know, for justice and liberty

(I don't think it's unjust for a racist to deny someone service because of their race, but I do think it's wrong)

iow, something wrong can still be just (legally)

like calling random old ladies names as they walk by

wrong, but protected by the 1st amendment

get it?

Quote :

"Somehow, I just don't see bans on smoking being equivalent to making sure folks don't spit in your food or that the cooks have to wear pants. Maybe it's that part where you know exactly what you're walking into when you open the door."

excellent point sir



[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 12:27 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 12:25:03 AM

Quote :

"Somehow, I just don't see bans on smoking being equivalent to making sure folks don't spit in your food or that the cooks have to wear pants. Maybe it's that part where you know exactly what you're walking into when you open the door. "

They are one n the same. Both are public health issues.

2/27/2008 12:31:56 AM

Just how elastic is our definition of "public health" now? Do we get to legally prescribe a few laps around the tracks for fatties? (Public health burden, after all). Forcible intervention for lifestyles deemed "risky" or otherwise unhealthy?

There's a difference between making sure the conditions in a food service establishment are sanitary and whether folks are smoking there. If the choices individuals make now fall under the category of "public health" issues, just where do we draw the line?

2/27/2008 12:49:20 AM

You being a fat ass sitting at home doesn't affect anyone else physically. Somone who partakes in sky diving doesn't affect anyone. You smoking in a restaurant affects everyone who is in the restaurant. So yes, it is a public health issue.

And no, I'm not being elastic with the definition.

2/27/2008 12:52:10 AM

That logic holds up for anywhere where someone's participation is involuntary. Civic buildings? Check. Airplanes? Check. Busses? Check.

You choose to walk into a bar where smoke is present. This is an assumed risk, one which is present when you open the door. The same way you take an assumed risk when you bite into a triple-bacon cheeseburger.

Thus, I return back to my question - just how elastic is your definition of public health? Which assumed risks get culled under this definition of public health, and which ones do we leave alone?

2/27/2008 12:57:24 AM

Quote :

"They are one n the same. Both are public health issues"

what the holy god damn fuck ever dude

one of those issues is objected to by every patron

another is only objected to by some patrons

that are only patrons because they choose to be

when they could very easily choose not to be

thus solving the problem



nice try though


damn nutsmack, you are too fucking easy -- are you even trying? (I mean, you usually don't troll)

Quote :

"You smoking in a restaurant affects everyone who is CHOOSES TO BE in the restaurant. So yes ABSOLUTELY NO, it is ISN'T a public health issue."

2/27/2008 1:02:57 AM

Quote :

"JoeSchmoe: if your neighborhood grocer doesnt like Jews, blacks or cripples, they still have to allow them in to patronize their business."

Quote :

"Vix: Just because things are this way doesn't mean they should be"

WOW

2/27/2008 1:22:24 AM

Quote :

"392: so if one opposes this are they necessarily a racist, sexist or "religionist"? I mean, I see where it could go -- racist business owners could deny on the basis of race, etc but why does anti-racism legislation (read: legislating morality) trump property rights? I'm about as far as one can get from being racist, sexist, etc. yet I'm beginning to wonder if forcing property owners to refrain from racist or sexist business practices is right I mean, a long time ago, 99% of everything would have remained white and male, duh but nowadays, if we let businesses do as they please, I think the market would take of it that is, good people would boycott them (for good reason,) and they might have to change their ways but even they managed to survive, how many whites-only businesses would you expect to find? maybe one or two, off the highway, on the edge of town, (that would constantly be egged and vandalized in protest) but is allowing them to exist legally really a problem? (it's despicable, yeah, but where's the legal harm?) is it worse than systematically denying EVERY business owner the right to do as they please on THEIR PROPERTY? again, I'm no bigot, but maybe we need to go back in time a bit, you know, for justice and liberty (I don't think it's unjust for a racist to deny someone service because of their race, but I do think it's wrong) iow, something wrong can still be just (legally) like calling random old ladies names as they walk by wrong, but protected by the 1st amendment get it?"

WOW

I hope you and Vix understand that your lack of conviction when it comes to asserting the necessity of the Civil Rights Act is a bit of a problem that you need to mend ASAP. You're not thinking outside the box or being particularly thoughtful. You're just being wrong.

2/27/2008 1:28:53 AM

This rigid adherence to property rights does not find its history in any political thought. Rather it is the creation of a half-rate b author.

I honestly believe the libertarian party has been over run by the Ayn Rand fruitbags who do not understand the political thought process that goes into forming coherent workable political ideologies.

2/27/2008 1:38:43 AM

Quote :

"the necessity of the Civil Rights Act "

Just because some people think this is needed and it's a law doesn't mean it's right.

Maybe you should counter the ideas that have been set forth rather than just saying "you're wrong". That's not an argument.

Most "Ayn Rand fruitbags" refuse to associate with the libertarian party. Libertarianism is at odds with the ideas Rand set forth in her fiction and non-fiction.

2/27/2008 1:40:27 AM

Quote :

"This rigid adherence to property rights does not find its history in any political thought. Rather it is the creation of a half-rate b author."

I know John Locke is a dense read, but if you just give him half a chance...

Oh wait - you're talking out of your ass. My error.

2/27/2008 1:46:40 AM

Quote :

"Somehow, I just don't see bans on smoking being equivalent to making sure folks don't spit in your food or that the cooks have to wear pants"

hell yea it is. now we're finally getting somewhere.

Quote :

"what the holy god damn fuck ever dude one of those issues is objected to by every patron"

oh really, who determines that? you? ever been to small-town midwestern bars? you got 15 cowboys/ranch hands standing around drinking beer and chewing tobacco. damned if they all wouldn't spit on the floors if you didnt have a law against it. hell they still do if they can get away with it. I mean, it's a fucking issue to them.

and what do you care if a cook is behind the counter with no pants on. if you cant see him below his waist, and if he doesnt touch his dick, who's it hurting?

public health codes are laws that business have to follow, so take your nasty habits and go stand behind the dumpster.

2/27/2008 1:49:08 AM