• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No smoking

I do not smoke and I used to work at a bar and bowling alley. I was the only person working there that did not smoke. I knew that I was inhaling second-hand smoke but I was not going to tell anyone to stop. A big majority of the bowlers and drinkers that came in also smoked and I did not see anything wrong with that and if it really does bother people to work in a restarant or bar then do not apply for the job!
 
TJS0110 said:
It's been recently announced that a bill may be past to stop smoking in public places. Certain places would be exempt, such as places that have less then 50 seats and places that make 80% of there income from alcohol sales. However bars that do not meet these requirements will not be allowed to set smoking areas, even if they want to. Infringing on rights or protecting our people?
Would a hookah bar be exempt from these laws becuase they serve tea and food so they might be classified as a resaurant? A hookah is a device to smoke tobacco for those who do not know. These are becoming more popular around Chicago but I did not find one in Milwaukee so they are not popular enough to be a clause
 
Ok, a couple of different recurring themes in this thread I want to address:

First, the idea that all smokers are stupid, irrational, out-of-control, or whatever epithets are being heaped upon us today. I will not try to convince you to abandon your prejudices and hatreds. I understand that some people need to look down on others in order to feel superior themselves. It's happened to many minorities in the past, and there will always be people like you (it's really funny when you consider that most of you consider yourselves enlightened progressives - you know who you are so embrace your hypocrisy!)

But let's grant the above supposition. Many of you seem to feel that because smokers are stupid that means they do not have rights that should be protected. I would argue that the main function of government is to protect the rights of the stupid, the lazy, and the irrational. One of you enlightened folks went so far as to suggest that because smokers only represent 30% of the population their rights can safely be ignored. My oh My! - imagine the ramifications of that concept. Jim Crow anyone?

Fantasea has gone to great pains once more to prove with many, many, many fascinating links something that most people already realize. Cigarettes are addictive. But how, upon acknowledging that someone is controlled by a substance and no longer in possesion of their right faculties, can you then punish this person for what you have just told me is out of their control? And are there any other things that have been shown to be addictive, let's see...

Chocolate
Television
Sex
Gambling
Shopping
Celebrity
Work
and last but not least,
The Internet

Then there is the idea that you are somehow guaranteed a workplace free of discomfort and hazards. I would suggest that you are in no way protected from discomfort in your workplace. I am sure that many can cite rulings in which courts have found against employers in cases of either physical or mental discomfort. My only response is that I disagree with those rulings. Simply because a court has made a decision surely does not make that a Constitutional right. We as Americans are free to disagree even with the decisions of the Supreme Court (although it may well do us no good). You are (and should be) protected against unreasonable hazards in your workplace. As others have already pointed out, nearly every job involves an exposure to a hazard of some form or another. I was a land surveyor for several years, and did a fair amount of highway layout. Part of my job involved standing in the center line of a 55 MPH highway with traffic wizzing past inches from me on either side and constantly breathing exhaust gas. If I felt these hazards to be unreasonable or unacceptable one of my options did not include demanding that my employer change the way he did business in order to quit exposing me to this risk. If cigarette smoke is a hazard that you particularly fear, make sure you ask about smoking policies when applying for a job. IF that job will expose you to an unacceptable level of smoke - seek employment elsewhere. And don't give me this crap about the poor single mother working at Waffle House. She knew what the air in WH was like when she took the job just like I knew that cars go really fast on the highway when I took my job. We all have our crosses to bear.

If a community, city, state, or nation holds a public vote and bans cigarettes in public places - then that's the way it is. I would disagree, and I would vote against it; but if it passes I would accept it as the law of the land. I understand that is exactly what has happened in many places. If not being able to smoke in those states, etc... bothers me I simply won't go there. However, here in Atlanta and in many other places these bans have been enacted without vote, because it was widely know that the vote would fail. That is not Democracy, that is a Nanny State.

Finally, I feel the need to restate this in very simple terms. I buy a piece of land from a private citizen. I have a fee simple deed to this land with no encumbrances. This is the most sacred right of any human being, the right to control land. In many states in some circumstances I can actually kill anyone who enters this land without permission. However, I choose to allow people onto my land. I choose to allow them to do certain things on my land, for which I may or may not charge a fee. Can someone tell me what right the freaking government has to tell me what legal activities I can or cannot allow these private citizens on my private land to do!!!!
 
alex said:
You do have that right. Go elsewhere. Stop the government babysitting.

I've read your responses and this is the one that gets down to your entire argument.

If we even agree on the percentages; 30% smoke, 70% don't - then you think the government is babysitting when it requires regulation? Those bars you talk about sell a legal substance and those under 21 or 18 can't partake. Vehicles transport men, women and children and yet there are regulations on who can drive. Children are created by sex but are denied entrance to theaters showing films with sexual content.

I say you have it backwards. The majority of Americans have the right to not inhale your smoke. You go elsewhere. Your attitude creates the need for babysitters.
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
I've read your responses and this is the one that gets down to your entire argument.

If we even agree on the percentages; 30% smoke, 70% don't - then you think the government is babysitting when it requires regulation? Those bars you talk about sell a legal substance and those under 21 or 18 can't partake. Vehicles transport men, women and children and yet there are regulations on who can drive. Children are created by sex but are denied entrance to theaters showing films with sexual content.

I say you have it backwards. The majority of Americans have the right to not inhale your smoke. You go elsewhere. Your attitude creates the need for babysitters.
:duel :cool:

You don't like it don't go in the bar. I don't know a single bar owner that would prefer to have a bar full of people not smoking and not drinking then smoking and drinking. In the areas around here that have done this virtually all the owners have said they are losing money. Whenever possible people just go to an area where they can smoke and the bar owners are out of luck. You don't like to smell smoke then don't go to the bar. If you think thats to tough then close the bars. Why should someone that owns an establishment be forced to make less money or threaten there business for your choice. I opt to not go to places that don't allow smoking. Its an easy process to find someplace that will. so why can't you do the same. Why should the owner be forced to cater to you?
 
walrus said:
Ok, a couple of different recurring themes in this thread I want to address:

First, the idea that all smokers are stupid, irrational, out-of-control, or whatever epithets are being heaped upon us today. I will not try to convince you to abandon your prejudices and hatreds. I understand that some people need to look down on others in order to feel superior themselves. It's happened to many minorities in the past, and there will always be people like you (it's really funny when you consider that most of you consider yourselves enlightened progressives - you know who you are so embrace your hypocrisy!)

But let's grant the above supposition. Many of you seem to feel that because smokers are stupid that means they do not have rights that should be protected. I would argue that the main function of government is to protect the rights of the stupid, the lazy, and the irrational. One of you enlightened folks went so far as to suggest that because smokers only represent 30% of the population their rights can safely be ignored. My oh My! - imagine the ramifications of that concept. Jim Crow anyone?

Fantasea has gone to great pains once more to prove with many, many, many fascinating links something that most people already realize. Cigarettes are addictive. But how, upon acknowledging that someone is controlled by a substance and no longer in possesion of their right faculties, can you then punish this person for what you have just told me is out of their control? And are there any other things that have been shown to be addictive, let's see...

Chocolate
Television
Sex
Gambling
Shopping
Celebrity
Work
and last but not least,
The Internet

Then there is the idea that you are somehow guaranteed a workplace free of discomfort and hazards. I would suggest that you are in no way protected from discomfort in your workplace. I am sure that many can cite rulings in which courts have found against employers in cases of either physical or mental discomfort. My only response is that I disagree with those rulings. Simply because a court has made a decision surely does not make that a Constitutional right. We as Americans are free to disagree even with the decisions of the Supreme Court (although it may well do us no good). You are (and should be) protected against unreasonable hazards in your workplace. As others have already pointed out, nearly every job involves an exposure to a hazard of some form or another. I was a land surveyor for several years, and did a fair amount of highway layout. Part of my job involved standing in the center line of a 55 MPH highway with traffic wizzing past inches from me on either side and constantly breathing exhaust gas. If I felt these hazards to be unreasonable or unacceptable one of my options did not include demanding that my employer change the way he did business in order to quit exposing me to this risk. If cigarette smoke is a hazard that you particularly fear, make sure you ask about smoking policies when applying for a job. IF that job will expose you to an unacceptable level of smoke - seek employment elsewhere. And don't give me this crap about the poor single mother working at Waffle House. She knew what the air in WH was like when she took the job just like I knew that cars go really fast on the highway when I took my job. We all have our crosses to bear.

If a community, city, state, or nation holds a public vote and bans cigarettes in public places - then that's the way it is. I would disagree, and I would vote against it; but if it passes I would accept it as the law of the land. I understand that is exactly what has happened in many places. If not being able to smoke in those states, etc... bothers me I simply won't go there. However, here in Atlanta and in many other places these bans have been enacted without vote, because it was widely know that the vote would fail. That is not Democracy, that is a Nanny State.

Finally, I feel the need to restate this in very simple terms. I buy a piece of land from a private citizen. I have a fee simple deed to this land with no encumbrances. This is the most sacred right of any human being, the right to control land. In many states in some circumstances I can actually kill anyone who enters this land without permission. However, I choose to allow people onto my land. I choose to allow them to do certain things on my land, for which I may or may not charge a fee. Can someone tell me what right the freaking government has to tell me what legal activities I can or cannot allow these private citizens on my private land to do!!!!
I agree in general, though I would vote for a smoking ban. The only fair way to solve this issue is to have the people vote on it. Its impossible to appease everybody's wishes, so you have to try to make the most people happy.
 
rudy0908 said:
I agree in general, though I would vote for a smoking ban. The only fair way to solve this issue is to have the people vote on it. Its impossible to appease everybody's wishes, so you have to try to make the most people happy.

But what about the owners. They didn't buy the establishments on a vote. And you are going to hurt business regaurdless.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
But what about the owners. They didn't buy the establishments on a vote. And you are going to hurt business regaurdless.
I was talking about a vote for a smoking ban in public places, not private. I think private businesses can decide for themselves.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
But what about the owners. They didn't buy the establishments on a vote. And you are going to hurt business regaurdless.

It DOES NOT hurt their business. CA and NY did not see a drop in bar sales at all after the smoking ban.
 
TJS0110 said:
It's been recently announced that a bill may be past to stop smoking in public places. Certain places would be exempt, such as places that have less then 50 seats and places that make 80% of there income from alcohol sales. However bars that do not meet these requirements will not be allowed to set smoking areas, even if they want to. Infringing on rights or protecting our people?

GOOD. Smoking is bad for your health, not to mention for all who are inadvertantly subjected to it. I think if people are to negligent to heed the warning on the package, than obviously they need some help. My brother is a "smoker", and at some point I always have to ask, "why are you paying some fat corporation your hard earned money, just to promote the decline of your own health." The problem is that smokers do not really comprehend what it's like to have throat cancer. They do not understand what it's like to have a tracheotomy. They can not fathom being buried waste-high in medical bills. What it's like to live the long-term consequences of their actions.
 
Kelzie said:
It DOES NOT hurt their business. CA and NY did not see a drop in bar sales at all after the smoking ban.

Anti-smoking organizations insist that bans are somehow good for people in hospitality businesses. This chart shows otherwise. These businesses have lost a significant amount of business as a direct result of smoking bans. Many are closed. Many that are still open have told us they doubt they'll survive much longer

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html
 
Realy you haven't answered the question, its not a matter of the smokers health. The question was conserning whether it is right ir nit ti tell a bar owner that he cannot have smokeing in his bar whether he wants to or not.
 
Re: No smokeing

gordontravels said:
Well watch out. I hear New Jersey is considering a law to outlaw smoking in your car. It isn't for your internal health but because they say it is distracting to the driver when the driver smokes. Now I don't know if it applies to the passenger but who knows.

I think it's a good idea though. And then if this works we can outlaw AM/FM Radios, cassette players and CD/mp3 players. Oh and don't forget that gas guage. That one really distracts.
:duel :cool:

Good, because in Austin, TX they passed a law stating that you could not drive and talk on your cell phone at the same time, without the aid of a headset. I think doing anything in your car besides driving should be subject to a fine. That goes for ladies putting on lipstick, parents reprimanding their children, etc.
 
Re: No smokeing

ban.the.electoral.college said:
Good, because in Austin, TX they passed a law stating that you could not drive and talk on your cell phone at the same time, without the aid of a headset. I think doing anything in your car besides driving should be subject to a fine. That goes for ladies putting on lipstick, parents reprimanding their children, etc.

Great idea! I just thank God that we live in a country so free of ills and with such a low crime rate that we can spare legions of police officers to patrol our highways seeking out parents reprimanding their children while they drive.

Do you ever worry that you are just a little bit too concerned with what your fellow citizens are doing?
 
The majority does not rule in this country thank goodness, or we still might have slavery today. I am no ones b**ch, and I will do as I want in my establishment, as long as it's legal, no one should tell me otherwise. We are fighting this in Chicago, and I think we'll win, if we don't, shame on you that hate freedom, it might be something you enjoy next time.:doh
 
Kelzie said:
It DOES NOT hurt their business. CA and NY did not see a drop in bar sales at all after the smoking ban.
Maybe thats so when it applies to an entire state. But here in St. Louis, the bill would only affect St. Louis County (not the city itself or anything in Illinois), so it could potentially really hurt businesses.
 
I don't mind staying out of places that allow smoking or patronizing places that don't allow smoking. What I do mind is being in the majority and having to skip going to places I want because others have a destructive habit. I say majority rules and put it to a vote. If it's universal then no business owner will suffer because of a healthier environment. :duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
I don't mind staying out of places that allow smoking or patronizing places that don't allow smoking. What I do mind is being in the majority and having to skip going to places I want because others have a destructive habit. I say majority rules and put it to a vote. If it's universal then no business owner will suffer because of a healthier environment. :duel :cool:

Four words..tyranny of the majority.
 
walrus said:
And are there any other things that have been shown to be addictive, let's see.... . .and last but not least, The Internet [/B]

There are days that I could certainly benefit from a 12 step program for internet users ;)
 
Kelzie said:
It DOES NOT hurt their business. CA and NY did not see a drop in bar sales at all after the smoking ban.

Are they state-wide bans or bans by individual communities. Because those are two very different things. If a single community enacts a ban - but none of the surrounding communities do, then absolutely - their business can be affected. Multiple restaurant/bar owners in Toledo had a drop in business until the voters revised the smoking ban.
[/COLOR]
 
Last edited:
Re: No smokeing

walrus said:
Great idea! I just thank God that we live in a country so free of ills and with such a low crime rate that we can spare legions of police officers to patrol our highways seeking out parents reprimanding their children while they drive.

The city of Toledo put police officers in bars in order to fine both the bar owners and customers who violated the smoking ban. Talk about a waste of tax payers dollars!!!
 
Kelzie said:
It DOES NOT hurt their business. CA and NY did not see a drop in bar sales at all after the smoking ban.


It DOES SO hurt business. It destroyed some businesses in Delaware. People had the ability to go over state lines and avoid the band and they did. Things went into the toilet, there was a marked decline in buisness and some were even lost. Sorry someone forgot to tell them that there business was going to be taken from them because you couldn't find someplace else to go
 
alex said:
Preaching to people only works on Christians.

173,770 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed in 2004? That is 0.06% of the population. 0.2% of the population of smokers. We should outlaw smoking in public places for this? Fattening foods are a bigger health risk than lung cancer.
Obviously you're a smoker who is mighty addicted to his friend "Nicci."

The good news for the vast majority of Americans is that every day it gets harder and harder for the pro-cancer crowd to smoke anywhere.

Let 'em whine I say! I could give a rat's ass if they think their rights are being trampled on. Too fuc&ing bad that due to the tough anti-smoking laws society will force them to live longer...poor oppressed smokers! :boohoo:

My favorite people are the ones who are anti-abortion, pro-death penalty & pro-smoking! What a great trifecta!

It's kind of fun to watch all the "Niccis" squirm and get all offended about anti-smoking laws. Where will they be able to smoke? How will they make it through the day without their cancer sticks? :boohoo:
 
alex said:
My smoking does not affect your health either. Go somewhere else. Do you realize that you have choices? Stop the government babysitting.
I choose to make it as damn difficult for you to light up as possible. I choose to make it near impossible for me to be exposed to your polution. I choose to make every smoker in America as miserable as possible if they want to smoke near me....and I choose to tax the hell out of them like we do here in NYC where a pack of death costs $8.00.

What a joy to see people who smoke bitch and moan, especially when everyone knows that from now on it's going to get harder and harder for them to smoke.....Happy Happy Joy Joy.....
 
Back
Top Bottom