Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

vesper · Nov 21, 2013

Carjosse said:
I have to strongly disagree smoking is horrible for the person smoking and everyone around them, we need to do everything to discourage it by making it socially unacceptable and keep all public places smoke free.

Fine then start a movement to ban them. And that way the sin taxes will cease and you can step in and help fill the void starting with your own wallet.

And since I know of no person on this earth who is free of vices, whether it is cigarettes, alcohol, drugs (illegal or prescription), food, sex, coffee, tea, chocolate etc. who knows the way things are going, your vice may be taxed or banned next.

Oozlefinch · Nov 21, 2013

ChezC3 said:
What's further, these vile cretins in Illinois have passed a law making a habit basically that I've done for 25 years a felony! Whenever there is an ashtray around, I toss my butts in it. But if there isn't one? FLICK! Off into the wind it goes. Now, I have to worry about a felony for doing something people have been doing since cigarettes began...

And what's worse, cars? yeah, they don't come with ashtrays in them anymore...

This crap is getting out of hand...

Just do like anybody in the military does... field strip your cigarette.

Basically right before you smoke the last bit, you squeeze and roll it between your fingers, forcing out the tip and any tobacco still in it, then drop the filter in your pocket to dispose of later.

If you look in most butt cans in the military, they are full of field stripped cigarettes.

PirateMk1 · Nov 21, 2013

ChrisL said:
Personally, I think it sounds like a good reason. Second-hand smoke can be deadly and cause emphysema and other lung diseases. In restaurants, there are kids working who are not even old enough to buy cigarettes for themselves and they shouldn't be forced to be exposed to other people's smoke at the workplace just because they happen to work at a restaurant.

In bars, I don't really have much of a problem with it, but in restaurants where people are eating? Disgusting. I don't think it's a big deal to wait until after dinner and go outside to smoke.

Just remember if YOU impose on others, THEY will impose upon you.

ChezC3 · Nov 21, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
Just do like anybody in the military does... field strip your cigarette.

Basically right before you smoke the last bit, you squeeze and roll it between your fingers, forcing out the tip and any tobacco still in it, then drop the filter in your pocket to dispose of later.

If you look in most butt cans in the military, they are full of field stripped cigarettes.

Yeah, in I'm some places I do that, but walking down the street, I just flick it in the street.

Actually if I read the law correctly, I can simply break off the tip and toss it but have to pocket the butt...

ChrisL · Nov 21, 2013

PirateMk1 said:
Just remember if YOU impose on others, THEY will impose upon you.

If a restaurant owner wants his or her restaurant to be smoke free, then it really isn't an imposition.

vesper · Nov 21, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
What if I find the idea of pork products, or combining meat and dairy offensive? Do I have the right to demand that everybody adopt a kosher lifestyle just because I personally find that not doing so is offensive?

That is the problem with most of the arguments by the "ban it all" crowd. They have no problem banning something because they agree with the ban, but would fight tooth and nail if they were against such a ban.

Personally, when those laws started to get passed in California I did not smoke. I did not care for smoking, but I also saw it as a restriction placed by force upon business owners on what is a legal substance.

But hey, let's just crank everything down. I say we ban the sales of alcohol in any place that people under 21 can see them, because it glorifies alcohol.
And require liquor stores to have opaque windows, and follow all the laws of porn shops to keep our kids safe.

And ban all movies that show a vehicle used in an unsafe manner, because it can encourage kids to do the same thing when they start to drive.

This "ban it all" attitude is something which greatly disturbs me. We even have cities where perfume is banned because of people with "environmental allergies". And I have been in parks where dogs were not allowed.

WTF ever happened to personal responsibility, and minding your own business?

Wow! I had the same thoughts about kosher foods as you when reading some of these comments. Crap I don't eat pork, but I would be damn if I would demand all kitchens in restaurants be set up Kosher.

I thought about how kids in my neighborhood have to wear helmets, knee pads and elbow pads just to ride a ****ing bicycle because of some moronic zealots decided every child needs to be protected from injury. Now through the summer months you hardly find a kid riding a bike, who the **** would want to with all that crap on in 90 degree weather?

I think of being raised in the 60's and many people smoked. My parents did and they did it in our home and car in front of us kids. Today my parents would be portrayed as those who committed child abuse because they smoked in front of us. I had the most loving parents a child could ever dream of getting. I find their rhetoric quite offensive. I have even read in one instance in Arizona where their ordinance forbid a person to drive through their city in their car smoking. If caught it will result in a fine. I don't know what happened to personal responsibility and minding your own business because there are sure a lot of control freaks out there who have pretty long noses.

lizzie · Nov 21, 2013

vesper said:
I think of being raised in the 60's and many people smoked. My parents did and they did it in our home and car in front of us kids. Today my parents would be portrayed as those who committed child abuse because they smoked in front of us. I had the most loving parents a child could ever dream of getting. I find their rhetoric quite offensive. I have even read in one instance in Arizona where their ordinance forbid a person to drive through their city in their car smoking. If caught it will result in a fine. I don't know what happened to personal responsibility and minding your own business because there are sure a lot of control freaks out there who have pretty long noses.

It's because so many people are insecure, and living in fear these days. People who live in fear like to control other people.

Amandi · Nov 21, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
What if I find the idea of pork products, or combining meat and dairy offensive? Do I have the right to demand that everybody adopt a kosher lifestyle just because I personally find that not doing so is offensive?

That is the problem with most of the arguments by the "ban it all" crowd. They have no problem banning something because they agree with the ban, but would fight tooth and nail if they were against such a ban.

Personally, when those laws started to get passed in California I did not smoke. I did not care for smoking, but I also saw it as a restriction placed by force upon business owners on what is a legal substance.

But hey, let's just crank everything down. I say we ban the sales of alcohol in any place that people under 21 can see them, because it glorifies alcohol.
And require liquor stores to have opaque windows, and follow all the laws of porn shops to keep our kids safe.

And ban all movies that show a vehicle used in an unsafe manner, because it can encourage kids to do the same thing when they start to drive.

This "ban it all" attitude is something which greatly disturbs me. We even have cities where perfume is banned because of people with "environmental allergies". And I have been in parks where dogs were not allowed.

WTF ever happened to personal responsibility, and minding your own business?

Second hand smoke makes your argument invalid.

Carjosse · Nov 21, 2013

vesper said:
Fine then start a movement to ban them. And that way the sin taxes will cease and you can step in and help fill the void starting with your own wallet.

And since I know of no person on this earth who is free of vices, whether it is cigarettes, alcohol, drugs (illegal or prescription), food, sex, coffee, tea, chocolate etc. who knows the way things are going, your vice may be taxed or banned next.

Usually when I have a coffee or eat a chocolate bar I don't give people lung cancer; and it only affects me not the rest of society.

vesper · Nov 21, 2013

Amandi said:
Second hand smoke makes your argument invalid.

No it doesn't make his argument invalid. You want a smoke free home then you have that choice. You want to eat in restaurants that are smoke free then you have that choice too. But what you don't have is the right to force on others your choices. When you cross that line you are violating their rights and their choices. If a business owner wants to allow smoking then there is no good reason for you to give a flying flip because you need not enter and give your business elsewhere. If workers are offended by an establishment that allows smoking they can move on and seek employment in a place that is smoke free. If parents smoke it is none of your damn business. Take care of your own business and keep your nose out of everyone else's.

MarineTpartier · Nov 21, 2013

Definitely. All private establishments should be allowed to have smoking within the premises if they see fit. They should be required to post on all exterior doors that they allow it though.

Phil_Osophy · Nov 21, 2013

That should be up to the owners

ChrisL · Nov 21, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
Definitely. All private establishments should be allowed to have smoking within the premises if they see fit. They should be required to post on all exterior doors that they allow it though.

The only problem is that the restaurants who don't allow smoking will lose a customer base, so more than likely there would be very few nonsmoking establishments.

lizzie · Nov 21, 2013

Amandi said:
Second hand smoke makes your argument invalid.

Much of the SHS hype is overrated.

In addition, the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well recognized toxicological principle is, “the dose makes the poison.” We physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as ‘pack-years smoked’ (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around ten pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.7,8 Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can only show correlation but cannot prove causation. One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. A RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300% to 400%, which is a RR of 3.0 to 4.0.9 For example, the studies that linked direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence

Several years later, in 2003, a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal by Enstrom and Kabat.13 It is the largest and most detailed ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Truth about Secondhand Smoke | Heartland Institute

vesper · Nov 21, 2013

Carjosse said:
Usually when I have a coffee or eat a chocolate bar I don't give people lung cancer; and it only affects me not the rest of society.

No one said you have to stand next to someone that smokes or sit in an establishment that would allow it. What makes you so morally superior that allows you the right to deny another the use of a legal substance in a restaurant or bar or deny a business owner the choice of offering a smoke free establishment or allow smoking?

Keridan · Nov 21, 2013

If only people had the power to decide for themselves. I know that it is a radical thought, but I like to dream.

This is a huge failure on the part of government. The minority of people who don't smoke and felt the need to whimper and moan about it always had the option to go to another place of business during the many decades where smokers weren't punished. Many businesses even found a a niche catering to those cry babies. Turns out, they didn't need to be coddled.

Unfortunately, the government decided that it knew better than everyone who had found their own solutions. It decided that the freedoms should be stripped and they could decide for everyone how to run a business and their lives.

I understand government properties and places that couldn't be avoided, but a blanket ban is an overreach of power. Since there was always the option for a consumer to take their money elsewhere, no one's rights were being infringed until these laws were enstated.

Unfortunately, dozens of examples could be cited of this type of completely unnecessary government excess of control and we will never see our freedoms returned, but at least I have the right to be upset and complain (for now).

Oozlefinch · Nov 21, 2013

Amandi said:
Second hand smoke makes your argument invalid.

What about perfume? I have allergies, and perfumes set it off so I want a law passed that bans all perfumes, colognes, or other forms of "scent hazards".

That has just as much validity as your claims do.

And if you would notice what 90% of us are saying, it should be the choice of the business owner, not a "free for all with smoking allowed anywhere". If you do not smoke, simply pick a location that does not allow it.

See, it is that simple!

And if you think I am joking, I am not. Sausalito is already a "fragrance free zone", with no scents allowed in public venues. And many communities have laws of varying degrees, with New Hampshire trying to pass one now.

Businesses, governments ban scents to accommodate allergy sufferers

And these people can claim just as much of a right to ban scents as you do tobacco. So, do we just ban everything?

TurtleDude · Nov 21, 2013

I hate smoking. my father-a cigar smoker-died of a MRSA he contracted during his cancer treatment. My mom-a cigarette smoker died of a terrible combination of emphysema, COPD and Pneumonia after beating throat cancer. While I could tolerate the smell as a kid, my sinuses lock shut around the crap now. A pub near a shop my wife ran had good food but I hated the fact that it was a smoking establishment. Ohio passed a law that basically banned smoking in such places. Now I can eat there all the time. Now I can go to my favorite TGIF and not worry about being near the smoking section

however, that being said, I think owners of diners or bars or restaurants should have the right to have smoking in their establishments. If I don't want to eat there, I don't.
I am sick of the nanny state BS

Oozlefinch · Nov 21, 2013

ChrisL said:
The only problem is that the restaurants who don't allow smoking will lose a customer base, so more than likely there would be very few nonsmoking establishments.

If the zealots are correct, 80% of the people would flock to those non-smoking places - and the ones that allow smoking will be virtual ghost towns that nobody will go to and nobody will work in.

ChrisL · Nov 21, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
If the zealots are correct, 80% of the people would flock to those non-smoking places - and the ones that allow smoking will be virtual ghost towns that nobody will go to and nobody will work in.

You have a point. I don't know. I'm a nonsmoker and would rather eat at a restaurant where there isn't smoking, but at the same time I wouldn't necessarily NOT eat at a restaurant where there was smoking if it was convenient or whatever. I don't know what would happen.

radioman · Nov 21, 2013

lizzie said:
Much of the SHS hype is overrated.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Truth about Secondhand Smoke | Heartland Institute

Okay.
I've heard the same thing.
Truthfully, I think a lot of the anti-smoking sentiment comes from former smokers.
A whiff of smokes gets 'em jonesing.
Having said that, some people are allergic to smoke.
Common courtesy says smoking should be done outside.

radcen · Nov 21, 2013

Some random thoughts:

1) I just don't buy into the "but what about the employees who have no choice?" argument. They DO have a choice. They have the same choice as customers do. And the same thing will happen. Smokers will gravitate to places that allow smoking and non-smokers will gravitate to places that do not allow smoking.

Why does either side of the issue feel that their side is so special that they get to have all the choices in their favor? Why can't we have a happy medium where everybody gets a little of something?

2) As far as air circulation systems, yeah technology has advanced, but that doesn't do much regarding the person sitting at the next table whose smoke gets to you first before the air circulation system even has a chance to filter it.

3) If non-smoking places were gaining so much more business *because* they're non-smoking, then owners would be doing this on their own simply as a business decision. They're never did because it was all BS hyperbole.

Oozlefinch · Nov 21, 2013

radcen said:
Some random thoughts:

1) I just don't buy into the "but whet about the employees who have no choice?" argument. They DO have a choice. They have the same choice as customers do. And the same thing will happen. Smokers will gravitate to places that allow smoking and non-smokers will gravitate to places that do not allow smoking.

Why does either side of the issue feel that their side is so special that they get to have all the choices in their favor? Why can't we have a happy medium where everybody gets a little of something?

Personally, I thought Alabama had some of the best laws in that area.

A business could allow smoking, or not allow smoking. If they did allow smoking, it had to be in a separate area from the non-smoking area.

Then people simply made the choice on where to go to eat. And maybe 30% of the businesses in 2007 still allowed smoking. But it was their choice, nobody forced them to outright end it.

TurtleDude · Nov 21, 2013

radcen said:
Some random thoughts:

1) I just don't buy into the "but what about the employees who have no choice?" argument. They DO have a choice. They have the same choice as customers do. And the same thing will happen. Smokers will gravitate to places that allow smoking and non-smokers will gravitate to places that do not allow smoking.

Why does either side of the issue feel that their side is so special that they get to have all the choices in their favor? Why can't we have a happy medium where everybody gets a little of something?

2) As far as air circulation systems, yeah technology has advanced, but that doesn't do much regarding the person sitting at the next table whose smoke gets to you first before the air circulation system even has a chance to filter it.

3) If non-smoking places were gaining so much more business *because* they're non-smoking, then owners would be doing this on their own simply as a business decision. They're never did because it was all BS hyperbole.

my second favorite waitress of all time at a TGIF was a former nurse (she waited tables after her husband got transferred to Cincinnati). She hated smoking but she always worked in the smoking section. I said-Jenny why do you work in that section-she said easy-smokers tip a lot better-especially 28 year old really gorgeous servers

vesper · Nov 21, 2013

lizzie said:
Much of the SHS hype is overrated.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Truth about Secondhand Smoke | Heartland Institute

Yes Lizzie these days scientific integrity is truly over-rated. For every scientific study that says second hand smoke is dangerous there are just as many that state otherwise. But isn't it the same with the whole man made global warming saga and other issues? Unfortunately Science has been tainted because of the amount of funding they receive through special interests. Scientists are looking for jobs too and often rely on funding to provide those jobs. Whoever is providing the funding for those jobs taints their so called findings.

Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?