Quote :

"again, if it is sooooo good for business, owners would do it themselves."

Did you read my post? Have you read tragedy of the commons?
Simple version: It's only good for business and economy as a whole if EVERY bar does it. Therefore it stifles slow natural progression that a free market economy usually provides.

TreeTwista10:
Here's a straightforward answer. No I don't think he should be able to smoke in his bar unless he provides a portion that is also smokefree (physical barrier and seperate ventilation). If he opens his business to the public he gives up his "private property" rights because businesses are subject to regulation.

3/23/2007 1:13:01 PM

I'd like to see documentation of the major health problems inflicted on someone b/c they eat once a week at a place that has a smoking section.....


I'm amazed they are even able to walk out with the devestation it causes

Quote :

"Simple version: It's only good for business and economy as a whole if EVERY bar does it. Therefore it stifles slow natural progression that a free market economy usually provides"

commie much?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:13:08 PM

the biggest health effects are for the employees of restaurants and bars

3/23/2007 1:13:49 PM

again, they're not forced to work there.

3/23/2007 1:14:30 PM

Quote :

"2) drinking alocohol by itself doesn't harm anyone else"

riiiiiiiiiiiight

Quote :

"No I don't think he should be able to smoke in his bar unless he provides a portion that is also smokefree (physical barrier and seperate ventilation). "

Is the govt going to pay for him to install the barriers and ventilation? if they did i'm sure he wouldnt have a problem with it

Quote :

"If he opens his business to the public he gives up his "private property" rights because businesses are subject to regulation."

so basically the govt runs his business now?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:14:50 PM

^^people aren't forced to work in sweatshops either.
^do you disagree?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:14:54 PM

yeah, they pretty much are.

3/23/2007 1:15:25 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to see documentation of the major health problems inflicted on someone b/c they eat once a week at a place that has a smoking section....."

here

Quote :

"The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. "

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

and

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj%3b328/7446/980

wlb420: I must be a communist because I believe there should be regulations on industrial polution also . Don't exagerate things past what they are.

3/23/2007 1:18:55 PM

Quote :

"do you disagree?"

how many people die from drunk driving accidents?

how many people are directly affected by alcoholics?

oh but "by itself" its harmless

Quote :

"I must be a communist because I believe there should be regulations on industrial polution"

no but you must be a socialist since you want govt regulation of anything since apparently you dont think people are capable to decide what bars and restaurants they want to go to

didnt yalls parents teach you that smoking is not good for you and that you should stay away from bars?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:19:25 PM

yes people aren't forced to work in bars, nor are people forced to be garbage collectors. The fact remains that those jobs are required. You'll always have someone who will be working there.

^drunk driving is illegal. At least create a germane argument.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:19:50 PM

^^the point is: if someone drinks responsibly, it doesn't hurt anyone else. for instance: i've never hurt anyone else's health because of drinking.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:20:20 PM

i've never given anyone lung cancer from my smoking

so whats your point

if someone is responsible about what bars they go to...

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:21:31 PM

i'd beg to differ. i would imagine you've negatively impacted someone's health through second-hand smoke.

also: the biggest concern is for the employees of bars and restaurants.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:22:06 PM

Quote :

"i'd beg to differ. i would imagine you've negatively impacted someone's health through second-hand smoke"

any thing substantive to back up that claim? of course not

Quote :

"the biggest concern is for the employees of bars and restaurants. "

most people i know who work in bars smoke...but thats beside the point...ALL PEOPLE who work in bars know that smoking goes on...I've overheard plenty of bartenders or waitresses, at the sight of a couple bringing their child in, on some "gosh why would you bring a child in here"

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:23:17 PM

lots of studies saying that second-hand smoke is harmful to one's health.

that combined with the fact that you've said that you have smoked in bars recently.

so you acknowledge that second-hand smoke is bad?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:24:09 PM

do you fucking acknowledge that nobody is forcing anyone to work or go to a bar?

because THAT is THE BIGGEST issue here...nobody is being forced to do ANYTHING

3/23/2007 1:25:59 PM

so the restaurant and bar staff should just take the health risk in stride?

no one's forcing your representative body to pass this either.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:28:06 PM

Quote :

"so the restaurant and bar staff should just take the health risk in stride?"

they have the CHOICE of what to do

just like i have the CHOICE to vote or not...and bars have the CHOICE of what to serve on their menu...and you have the CHOICE of where to go...AND YOU HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHERE NOT TO WORK

so if they dont want to take the health risk in stride, they can get another job

you think when somebody applies for a job at a bar they are like "holy shit do people actually smoke in here?" and if they actually were astounded at something so obvious, do you think they would still take the job?

NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING except for trying to force bars to ban smoking

3/23/2007 1:30:49 PM

Quote :

"so now you're saying the world should cater to you the 4 or 5 nights a year you decide to grace the bar scene with your presence? I figure most of the support for this will be from people like you, who don't even go out but just think the world should operate the way they see fit."

This may come as a shock to you. But smokers are in the minority, it just that a ton of people that don't smoke tolerate your shit so they can have a beer and be in a social atmosphere. Furthermore, I'd be in these establishments a shit ton more than 4-5 nights a year if they were non smoking.

Quote :

"If he opens his business to the public he gives up his "private property" rights because businesses are subject to regulation."

Why have I seen this comment multiple times in this thread? I can only imagine the Queen Trollista keeps making dumb comments about it.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM. Reason : a]

3/23/2007 1:43:31 PM

^so now you're saying there aren't any non-smoking establishments?

3/23/2007 1:45:02 PM

Quote :

"The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke"

what is an activity that is at a risk-free level? nothing.

3/23/2007 1:46:51 PM

There are a few, but the market is extremely slow, and in a group of 5 people, if there is a single smoker, then most often the non smoking bar doesn't get frequented.

^ That comment means nothing to the debate.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : a]

3/23/2007 1:47:33 PM

maybe people need to restrict their friend before they go for society as a whole.

Quote :

"That comment means nothing to the debate"

yes it does. Nothing you can do is risk free, so i could have applied that stement to anything

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 1:48:29 PM

I'd say sitting on my couch right now is risk free.

3/23/2007 1:56:12 PM

nope, your house could catch on fire, a car could crash into it (did you see the story about the guy waking up to a car on his bed pinning him down?)

nothing is "risk free"

3/23/2007 1:58:41 PM

Quote :

"Here is an anecdote for you. I am a bastion of health."

State409c

So, (1) you have presented anecdotal evidence. Do you have anything concrete? And (2) are you a "bastion" of mental health? I mean, perhaps you are experiencing some form of phobia-induced anxiety--or simply neurosis.

3/23/2007 2:00:16 PM

Quote :

"nope, your house could catch on fire, a car could crash into it (did you see the story about the guy waking up to a car on his bed pinning him down?) nothing is "risk free""

But these aren't real risks. For one. Unless I fall asleep, even if the house were to catch fire, I could walk outside, risk free.

And based on the layout of my property and my neighbors property, the risk of a car crashing into it, and actually hurting me is so close to zero that it might as well be zero.

Feel free to play the typical trollista position and say that even if that risk is infinitesimally small (and I literally mean infinitesimal), it is still a risk.

3/23/2007 2:23:30 PM

it was meant to show how the semantics of the article, while not incorrect, are highly vague....and used to sway opinion. not to mention the fact that the words "can" or "may" are more prevalent in the articles than the words "secondhand smoke."

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 2:32:00 PM

I know common sense doesn't mean much in arguments, but durr, inhaling smoke is going to affect your health. Period.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 2:36 PM. Reason : Just ask coal miners, or folks living in high smog cities]

3/23/2007 2:36:14 PM

yup, which is why I would not go to smoking establishments if I cared soooo much....

that seems like common sense to me.

3/23/2007 2:40:37 PM

Quote :

"But smokers are in the minority, it just that a ton of people that don't smoke tolerate your shit so they can have a beer and be in a social atmosphere."

Beer drinkers arent in the minority?

Quote :

"I know common sense doesn't mean much in arguments, but durr, inhaling smoke is going to affect your health. Period."

And durr, nobody is forcing you to go out to bars to drink

3/23/2007 2:50:29 PM

well i'm glad people who matter in this state agree with me. i'm also glad you don't vote, twista.

3/23/2007 2:58:57 PM

good thing all the restaurant owners in washington agreed with you

Quote :

"The restaurant industry lobbied heavily against the bill. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031502004.html

3/23/2007 3:00:03 PM

Quote :

"yup, which is why I would not go to smoking establishments if I cared soooo much.... that seems like common sense to me."

Well, if the status quo wasn't that 98% of the places allowed smoking, then the majority people that don't smoke might be getting their fair end of the bargain.

This is before we go back in the circle of talking about the health of the employees.

3/23/2007 3:00:16 PM

I SHOULD HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GO DRINK BEER IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S BAR WITHOUT DEALING WITH SMOKERS EVEN IF THE BAR OWNER WANTS TO ALLOW SMOKING

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED AS SOON AS HE OPENS HIS BAR UP TO THE PUBLIC, ITS THE GOVT'S BAR, NOT THE BAR OWNERS

3/23/2007 3:01:08 PM

Quote :

"There are a few, but the market is extremely slow, and in a group of 5 people, if there is a single smoker, then most often the non smoking bar doesn't get frequented."

It isn't the smoking world's fault if you can't keep your friend in check. His ass can suck it up if the group decides to go to a non-smoking bar. But if he decides to go to a smoking bar, then there should be bars availble for him to go to.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:01:19 PM

Quote :

"well i'm glad people who matter have money in this state agree with me"

I vote, but the voters have little to do with most legislation that passes through the state congress.

3/23/2007 3:01:42 PM

Quote :

"Well, if the status quo wasn't that 98% of the places allowed smoking, then the majority people that don't smoke might be getting their fair end of the bargain"

which is why the exemption for private establishments would be a very fair comprimise.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : not totally disagreening with you, i'm just not in favor of banning all together.]

3/23/2007 3:02:46 PM

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2005/01/10/story2.html?t=printable

Quote :

"Restaurant owners said a statewide ban would even the playing field. In communities that have a smoking ban, restaurant owners fear they will lose business to establishments in neighboring cities and townships where smoking is allowed."

Prisoners dilemma, or what have you. The funny thing is, smokers can still smoke AFTER they leave the restaurant.

3/23/2007 3:04:34 PM

I personally am fine with banning it in (for example) any govt building...any public office building...any schools (though i'm NOT for outdoor bans on college campuses)...movie theaters, airplanes, buses, taxis, etc

i just want an individual bar owner to be able to decide if he wants to allow it in his bar

*awaits someone to tell me that all the places i mentioned where i would be fine with the ban are "just not enough"*

Quote :

"The funny thing is, smokers can still smoke AFTER they leave the restaurant"

you know what else is funny? (for the 10th time) NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO GO TO A SPECIFIC BAR

3/23/2007 3:05:02 PM

why can't a movie theater owner decide if he wants to allow smoking?

3/23/2007 3:06:16 PM

totally agree^^

^^^which seems to state the majority want to smoke?

^children frequent movie theaters, not (or shouldn't) bars.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:06:19 PM

the bar exemption just seems entirely arbitrary.

3/23/2007 3:08:14 PM

.^^^movie theaters are for people of all ages (including children < 18 who cant legally smoke)

bars are for adults

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM. Reason : yeah what wlb420 said about the kids]


[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM. Reason : /]

3/23/2007 3:08:17 PM

so only the health of children is worthy of protection? only the "property rights" of people who cater to only adults should be protected?

what about an adult theater? should there be an exemption?

3/23/2007 3:09:55 PM

although if a movie theater had 12 individual theaters...and you happened to have one of the 12 dedicated for only R-rated movies or something where they did allow smoking, I wouldnt have a problem with it...there would still be 11 out of 12 non smoking alternatives

point being, if a theater wanted to go smoking i would not care

Quote :

"so only the health of children is worthy of protection?"

no, but by the time you're 18 you shouldnt be some complete moron like state409c who doesnt understand that you have a choice of where you go and what you do

3/23/2007 3:12:12 PM

well, why don't you go vote about it?

3/23/2007 3:13:06 PM

how bout you take responsibility for yourself instead of depending on the govt to do everything for you

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 3:13:31 PM

b/c the votes don't really matter....if they had a vote on this specific issue with the public it would be different.

3/23/2007 3:14:29 PM

but i'm serious. you obviously don't think it's wrong for the state limit places that can allow smoking (movie theaters, etc) they've just pushed it further than you think is right. you should make your opinion count if you care.

3/23/2007 3:14:34 PM