Smoke-free Hawaii

[Elaina]

I hate to bust some bubbles here but I was a waitress for 15 years, really thinking of doing it on the weekends again. A good majority of your serving staff indulges in cancer sticks. Trust me, the job is so stressful that it's smoking or spitting in your food.

 

[Paisley]

Denver has recently banned cigarette smoking in various public places, and I heard on the news that business at bars is up around 20%. A lot more non-smokers are going out.

I remember when there weren't non-smoking sections in restaurants, when smoking was allowed in workplaces, and a lot more of the population smoked. I was allergic to cigarette smoke as a child. (I am still mildly allergic to it.) When someone at the next table in a restaurant lit up, my family simply had to get up and leave. If I had to work around cigarette smoke, I'd have to put up with not only stinking clothes and hair but a runny nose and watering eyes--all so smokers could indulge their nicotine habit. For those with allergies or asthma, it's not merely a matter of disliking cigarette smoke, it's a matter of our health.

I normally don't approve of the government inserting itself into business matters, but it does have a legitimate concern when it regards public health. My hometown has a regulation that everyone has to have trash collection service. Practically every dog and schoolchild in America has to have certain vaccinations. The government comes up with guidelines for healthy weight and tracks certain diseases. This isn't that different in my book.

 

[jamespowers]

OK, I'll keep this to the topic, not general libertarian theory.

Context is the key here. In a public setting, as opposed to in a private room or home, it is polite to ask your companions if they mind if you smoke. That would be your party, at your table, in a smoking establishment.

If you choose, knowing that you dislike other people's smoke, to enter an establishment that allows smoking, you have to accept that some folks will smoke. All you can ask is courtesy from the smokers you are with.

As for the other smokers? They aren't "forcing" it on you, you freely chose to enter that location, knowing full well smoking was allowed.

If you want to mention to the owner that you would prefer he not allow smoking, go ahead, if enough people tell him that, he might change.

If you want to go to another place that doesn't allow smoking, great. if it becomes a success then other owners will take note and join the trend.

If there aren't any privately owned (remember, bars are private property) places that are "smoke free" and you think one would succeed... open it. Don't demand other people change their business because you, in the end, lack the gumption to do what they did and assume the risk of opening your own nightspot (for example).

I have no problem with private businesses voluntarily banning smoking (like airlines or hospitals, that made perfect sense for their business model and situation). I have no real problem with our elected representatives deciding to make the public buildings under their control smoke-free, if enough people don't like it they can vote the buggers out.

I do have a problem with people wanting laws telling business owners that they can't allow a legal activity on their property when those same people can avoid the smoke by simply not going through the doors.

If you feel deprived of a smoke-free nightlife, be a grownup and open your own dang bar.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[MrBern]

`20s signs

this is all making me think of old signs in the subways : No littering, No smoking, No spitting.
I believe it was considered that all 3 promoted unsafe conditions inthe subway.
I've never seen anyone get a ticket for spitting or littering, but I have seen the cops scoop up kids who were smoking.

an update from Shanghai

 

[RedPop4]

Let's not forget that the militant non-smokers have become much less than gracious. They don't ask nicely anymore. They walk in the door and begin fanning the air in front of their faces in a quite exaggerated and obnoxious manner.

Once that fails, by itself, then comes the loud, deliberate hacking cough. You can tell by the sound of it that they really don't need to cough, but are, rather forcing themselves to do it loudly to generate sympathy and support from the rest of the establishment. Oft times it's combined with the fanning motion with the hand or hands, and possible with a menu, large napkin or whatever else is available at hand.

If that fails then the demands begin. Many times it's women who put on this comic opera, then they dispatch their male companion first. If he fails to get results, they'll come over and get quite belligerent. Some of you on this very thread have exhibited this type of belligerence, which is really unbecoming gracious and kind people.

I've seen it happen, MANY of my cigar-smoking friends have experienced it first hand, in every state of the Union.

The only thing worse is the bartender who waits until you light up, then apporaches and asks you to extinguish it. It's easy to stub out a cigarette, but a fine, premium hand-rolled cigar, which may have cost a princely sum, this I fear, is designed to enrage the smoker intentionally. Remember, it's rare that a cigar will still be good once extinguished and relit at a later time. Basically, once you stub it out.....which is a cardinal sin to a cigar smoker...it's shot and you've just wasted your money.

Most smokers I know, take great pains to smoke in their designated areas, and work very hard to not offend the aggrieved non-smoker who shows some grace and gentility. I can't tell you how many times we've been smoking....even OUTSIDE, and we all get up and shift when the wind changes directions.

 

[carebear]

I'd like to point out that this law also protects the WORKERS. Not everyone is in a bar or restaurant to enjoy their evening. The smoke free laws provide the staff w/ safer work conditions.

I have not read about any establishments closing down due to any impact of smoking restrictions....

They are not forced at gunpoint to take a job there. They can find work somewhere else or doing something else. Exposure to smoke in a smoking establishment is purely voluntary for employees and patrons.

The problem here is non-smokers want, in the end, convenience. No one is forced to go to a bar, or restaurant or work therein. Just because someone wants to go out AND not be around smoke, doesn't trump the right of the guy who owns the bar, restaurant or dancefloor to allow smoking.

If you aren't willing to breathe smoke as a worker or patron, stay home, go somewhere else or open your own business. None of these options allows you to whine.

 

[Feraud]

They are not forced at gunpoint to take a job there. They can find work somewhere else or doing something else. Exposure to smoke in a smoking establishment is purely voluntary for employees and patrons.

The problem here is non-smokers want, in the end, convenience. No one is forced to go to a bar, or restaurant or work therein. Just because someone wants to go out AND not be around smoke, doesn't trump the right of the guy who owns the bar, restaurant or dancefloor to allow smoking.

If you aren't willing to breathe smoke as a worker or patron, stay home, go somewhere else or open your own business. None of these options allows you to whine.

Some people do not have the financial means to turn down a job based solely on co-workers who smoke!
People want convenience but all people want it. Not just the non smokers. Smokers have done their fair share of whining about their "Rights" to smoke anywhere, anytime, and anyplace! When you talk about forcing someone to work in an environment then what about those generations of children who had no rights to live and grow healthy in a smoke free environment? How many of us have memories of Summer family trips with the car windows rolled up, the air conditioner at full blast, and relatives smoking up a storm in the car? When we talk about selfishness, whining, or providing a safe, healthy envirnoment then certain groups have a lot to answer for.

The current legislation against smoking is only the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction from years of smoking abuses.

 

[Paisley]

They are not forced at gunpoint to take a job there. They can find work somewhere else or doing something else. Exposure to smoke in a smoking establishment is purely voluntary for employees and patrons.

The problem here is non-smokers want, in the end, convenience. No one is forced to go to a bar, or restaurant or work therein. Just because someone wants to go out AND not be around smoke, doesn't trump the right of the guy who owns the bar, restaurant or dancefloor to allow smoking.

If you aren't willing to breathe smoke as a worker or patron, stay home, go somewhere else or open your own business. None of these options allows you to whine.

Smoking is a purely voluntary activity. Earning a living is something that most of us need to do. So is going to a restaurant if you are away from home. Being free of an allergy or asthma attack brought on by cigarette smoke is more of a need than a convenience, and not reeking of eau de ashtray is, for me, a matter of hygiene.

Smoking being a purely voluntary and self-indulgent activity that can cause other people harm, let the smokers stay home if they cannot go a few hours without a cigarette.

 

[Elaina]

And that is exactly what many smokers do is stay home. Most smokers don't need the garbage from non-smokers, and since many say that, repeatedly, then a smokers money is not good at any locale that feels that way. Can't do anything other then blow smoke at them, and really, for my momey not dealing with a foppish non-smoker is better put to use.

I worked as a waitress. In terms of restaurants, when I worked non-smoking sections, I made nearly half less then when I worked the smoking section. As the smoking sections go away, so do the servers. No tips=better servers finding other jobs. The last restaurant I worked at I was making about $120 a night, then they got rid of the smoking section and I dropped to a little less then $70. Three of the four of us quit, because we made 2 bucks an hour, and the tips died. All three of us were smokers, and all three of us very frequently never smoked at work because we were too busy. In this restaurant, after a month it went from pulling in roughly about 6K a day to about $2200 a day. Since he's reopened the restaurant in an adjacent town, with smoking, he's doubled his profits again.

So, don't mind me while I don't help the economy with any of my disposable income. I've been told I had to stay home.

 

[RedPop4]

Smoking is a purely voluntary activity. Earning a living is something that most of us need to do. So is going to a restaurant if you are away from home. Being free of an allergy or asthma attack brought on by cigarette smoke is more of a need than a convenience, and not reeking of eau de ashtray is, for me, a matter of hygiene.

Smoking being a purely voluntary and self-indulgent activity that can cause other people harm, let the smokers stay home if they cannot go a few hours without a cigarette.

Order room service. Go to a non-smoking establishment. Don't tell me there aren't any, because there are certainly more of them now, than ones that accommodate smokers.

Going by the arguments I read here, non-smokers' rights seem to trump smokers' rights. Elaina just gave empirical evidence, I don't expect that to get in the way of emotional rants, though.

 

[Feraud]

Going by the arguments I read here, non-smokers' rights seem to trump smokers' rights.

For now, for now. Every decade or so brings about change. Whether you think change is good or bad depends on your perspective.
This is the beauty of Democracy. Opinions change and we have the ability to make our laws reflect society's needs.

 

[jamespowers]

For now, for now. Every decade or so brings about change. Whether you think change is good or bad depends on your perspective.
This is the beauty of Democracy. Opinions change and we have the ability to make our laws reflect society's needs.

Here I go again. Actually we have a Republic not a Democracy---fortunately. In this case, a pure democracy would have already voted themselves into a smoke free, christian, gun toting country based on the rule of the majority as a Democracy entails.
In our Democratic Republic the tyranny of the majority is averted. The rights of the few are protected from the many. You know the old two wolves and a sheep voting to see who gets eaten for dinner scenario.
Let's wrap this up as it is moving in the political direction---closing comments all.

Regards,

J

 

[MrBern]

health issue-shirt term & long term

Current scientific evidence shows that passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke

in the UK:
One of the following general warnings must be displayed, covering at least 30% of the surface of the pack:
Smoking kills / Smoking can kill
Smoking seriously harms you and others around you

The Australian warnings had previously consisted of six rotating messages occupying 25% of the front of the box. These warnings were:
smoking causes lung cancer
smoking is addictive
smoking kills
smoking causes heart disease
smoking when pregnant harms your baby
your smoking can harm others

 

[Baron Kurtz]

My final (only? I can't remember) word

the recent smoking-in-public-places ban in Scotland has had negligable, if any, effect on business. I believe this is the same in the other places which have banned smoking in confined public spaces.

The theory is that this should help reduce the health effects (very real, as Mr. Bern pointed out above) caused in non-smokers breathing in someone else's second-hand smoke. Whether this is the case will only be known in the long term. Government has a duty to protect its citizens from the ills imposed upon them by other citizens.

bk

 

[RedPop4]

The WHO report had debunked much of the second-hand smoke kills argument, as has a little-known report from the U.S. EPA. That report from the EPA also admits that the EPA study that is the impetus for all the smoking bans was not impartial, in fact, the opposite is true, they had their desired result and skewed the studies to support it.

Since this is the closing statement, I don't have time to go back and track down the links. I know that I'm a pariah to many who are supposedly sooooo tolerant on every other issue out there, and that the emotionalism of this issue wins over facts every time. In fact fftopic: I can hear Meryl Streep in front of Congress "We're KILLING our children...." when in fact Alar was found to be not harmful at all.

Not saying smoke isn't harmful at all, not by a long shot. But constantly beating the drum that this will kill everyone, everywhere if they even have to smell it once, and the venom with which it is said seem to trump any and all facts to the contrary. I said Elaina's factual statements would go ignored.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

 

[Feraud]

This would be a good time to end this one.
Let us respect the bartender's comments above because I don't want to hear any whining when a thread get locked down!

 

[MrBern]

None of these options allows you to whine.

Hey, I dont think I've ever been to an office where the workers didnt whine!

 

[jamespowers]

Ok that about rounds it out.

Thanks,

J