next »

[xn]

I have to wonder how popular these bans really are.  If non-smoking establishments were generally preferable, why weren't there been too many popping up before the bans started sweeping the nation.  It seems a keen entrepreneur would have already capitalized on the anti-smoking clamoring.  I really think this is a case of a vocal minority getting their way over a generally apathetic population. 

[Phil Is Phil]

Correct!

[Grade Master Flash]

Seconded.

[OR Chasms]

I have to wonder how popular these bans really are.  If non-smoking establishments were generally preferable, why weren't there been too many popping up before the bans started sweeping the nation.  It seems a keen entrepreneur would have already capitalized on the anti-smoking clamoring.  I really think this is a case of a vocal minority getting their way over a generally apathetic population. 

At least up here, many bars were already non smoking before the ban took affect, and others had very cloistered smoking areas. I think one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of losers don't have health insurance, and smoke or just breath other peeps' smoke, and get sick and cancerous, and expect treatment even though they did it to themselves, and drive up the cost of health care, insurance, medicare, blah blah, etc. so it is kind of a public health issue.

I know this issue seems to make everyone get all libertarian, but seriously, it ain't ganja, it's a goddamn cancer-stick!

All the same, it would seem a bit myopic for the government to be all uptight about smoking, while the nation happens to have the fattest population worldwide...time to smoke More cigarettes, I'd say!

[xn]

I pretty much get all libertarian about a lot of things, Cord. 

"At least up here, many bars were already non smoking before the ban took affect, and others had very cloistered smoking areas."

If this is the is the case, why pass a ban at all? Sounds like commercial habits took care of it.  Folks can just head to the bars that don't have the smoke.  I don't think that market solutions can solve everything, but I am suspicious that particular case is an imposition without referenda or popular votes.   

I'm not sure exactly how you plan on legislating other cultural habits (viz. obesity).  People got to be allowed to make their own mistakes. 

[Jake Spoon]

If this is the is the case, why pass a ban at all? Sounds like commercial habits took care of it.  Folks can just head to the bars that don't have the smoke.  

Exactly! Thank you!

[Akbar Shabazz Jenkins]

Should've banned smoking in general a long time ago.

[christopher_slim]

I'm not sure exactly how you plan on legislating other cultural habits (viz. obesity).  People got to be allowed to make their own mistakes. 

i'm sorta with you on this. they can't legislate cultural habits that don't directly affect anyone else in the public (obesity, etc.)...but they feel they can do something about people's habits that can (and do) affect the rest of the public.
i reckon they are of the opinion that non-smokers have the right to go to the same places (bars) and enjoy themselves without risk of being exposed to a health hazard.

many of these bans are fought by the businesses with the loss of revenue argument. Unfortunately, a lot of decisions in this world are made because of the direct influence of money (or loss of, etc.). In the places where this ban has passed, i'd like to think that the politicians realized that this is an issue that is more important than the almighty dollar and refused to be influenced by it.

I was playing a show in Austin, TX the night that their smoking ban was passed. It was all over the TVs in the venue and the main topic of discussion that night among bar employees, owners, patrons. No one there seemed to be too upset and i was quite suprised by that.
Most places just build a huge outdoor smoking patio and the problem is solved.

Now when you talk specifically about Caffe Cottage, i've always thought it was a little backwards that the non-smokers had to go outside for fresh air, in lieu of smokers having to step outside to do their thing.

[xn]

I understand the benefits as far as public is concerned.  I question primarily the methodology and the origin of the fight.  While I can respect "backwardness" of having to to go outside for fresh instead of a smoker going outside for shitty air, it doesn't translate that private business owners shouldn't be allowed to operate the inside of their business as they please.  I can bend here: restaurants that have kids coming in and out should not have smoking.  But a bar that is ostensibly patronized and staffed by consenting adults shouldn't need a local authority telling them what's best for them.

xn

[eschaton47]

It didn't pass. 

[christopher_slim]

money money money money..........MONEY!

[OR Chasms]

I'm not sure exactly how you plan on legislating other cultural habits (viz. obesity).  People got to be allowed to make their own mistakes.

Smoking is more problematic in this sense than obesity because its harm spills over to other people. Like, for instance, getting drunk is a mistake that I'm ok with people being allowed to make, but drunk driving notsomuch.  And the "you can choose not to go to a smoky bar" argument is fatuous, because no one tells their friends, "Oh, don't come to the bar, dude, it's a smoky environment" or "Oh, you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke--well, let's meet at CCs!"

You know every one of you would give your friends a bunch of shit if they refused to hang out with you at a bar where there was smoke, so the "choice" argument seems kinda disingenuous.

Truly, I don't mind if a person chooses to smoke, in general, but should bar owners be allowed to facilitate harmful environments in order to make money (as they may be financially prudent to do under the market-based approach to indoor smoking advocated here)? Maybe my logic here is a stretch, and anyway it's a moot point, since the ban didn't pass. Smoke em up!

[xn]

I don't think it's fatuous if you have choices.  If the options are "go to a smoky bar" or "don't go to a bar at all" I think you have a point.  But in cities where non-smoking options exist, I don't that holds water.  Peer pressure like what you describe seems really only effective when the majority are smokers, which is most of often not the case.  For me its falls on that ol libertarian standby: its your private property.  The bar owner should be allowed to run his business how he sees fit.  The health standard applies to situations that are unavoidable.  No smoking in public buildings, in kid-friendly restaurants, at hospitals.  But a bar?  They're already making money fostering alcoholism, I don't think its a moral stretch to say people know what trouble they get into going to bar either way. 

[Akbar Shabazz Jenkins]

This seems like a pretty cut and dry argument. Alcohol is not a physical addiction like smoking. I only drink when I want to. I hate smoking and can't stop doing it. If less options exist for me to smoke, I'm all for it.

This seems like a common sense situation. I wish smoking were illegal. The only thing that has ever come from me smoking cigarettes is I can't play basketball for more than 5 minutes and I really like playing basketball. Now, I'm relegated to being really badass at horse

[alicia]

Hey, this thread is getting pretty long!