I don’t buy that smoking bans are just Liberal do-gooders. I liken cigarette smoking in bars to working in a coal mine. How come coal mines have limits on the amount of filtration that they must do and on air quality, but bars and restaurants do not?
Smoking in restaurants and bars has been a fact for decades and centuries. But as we have seen, although it is inconvenient for people to go outside to smoke, most folks can survive the minor inconvenience of not being able to smoke during their 30 minute long indoor meal. I am sorry that Bingo parlors are less friendly places for old people that want to sit, gamble, drink, and smoke, but if the 5 minute inconvenience of going outside for a smoke is too much for the bingo industry to bear, then damn, sorry buddy.
Justin B - 10:04pm on 04/25/2006
Oh, yeah, and if people have to ride on airplanes for hours at a time and cannot smoke, I am surprised that the airline industry hasn’t suffered the same effects as the North Dakota bingo industry.
Justin B - 10:04pm on 04/25/2006
Invalids have to pay for their wheel-chairs? Yours is the most wealthy nation on the planet. A simple solution shouts from the rooftops.
Ledger White - 11:04pm on 04/25/2006
I let my dollars decide the smoking and non-smoking issues, I do not want my elected officials dealing with this at all, I mean come on balance a budget consistently, fix the income tax system, get all of that shit fixed and then take on smoking because you have nothing else to do.
richard - 03:04am on 04/26/2006
This happened in CA when I lived there. All the smoker’s are mad at first. But, they always come back!
SurfinKC - 04:04am on 04/26/2006
Justin, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
If I own the restaurant I should be able to make the decision about smoking, not you the customer. If you don’t like the smokey atmosphere my restaurant provides, go somewhere else as it is certainly no excuse to get meddling politicians involved.
Rob - 05:04am on 04/26/2006
Rob, exactly.
The Whistler - 05:04am on 04/26/2006
It almost defeats the purpose of having a no smoking building when you walk outside and immediately are bombarded with smokers outside the front door. Even so, the Govt. needs to leave that decision to the owner of the establishment. Go work on Soc.Sec. reform instead of trying to infringe another law on us…
Zsa Zsa - 06:04am on 04/26/2006
If I own the restaurant I should be able to make the decision about smoking, not you the customer.
And leave you liable for public claims of health problems they suffer from your atmosphere and leave your employees able to file lawsuits for health problems. IF you can make a valid argument that smoke filled work environments are a good thing or that employees should not be able to sue every restaurant that offers smoking environments for the health effects they suffer, I might buy that.
The net is that this is not just about customers but also about employee safety. There are minimum regulatory requirements that companies should have to comply with for internal air quality. Smoke is a very nasty thing and unless a company is willing to install sufficient air purification to ensure that their air quality meets safety standards, they should have the liability associated with the risk.
This is not suing McDonalds for making you fat. This is more like suing a coal mine for negligently ignoring the effects of black lung. This is not just for the customers, but for the employees. NO WORKPLACE should have unsafe or unhealthy work conditions just because it allows the employer to attract a few extra customers. The filtration required to provide healthy work conditions is prohibitively expensive.
That said, I believe there should be exemptions for private clubs, etc., such as Utah has. Just meet the air quality standards and have sufficiently safe work conditions for the employees and apply for an exemption. But it clearly is the responsibility of the government to provide both zoning and workplace safety laws as well as to provide a mechanism for employees or customers to recover damages caused by companies negligently failing to protect them from risks associated with unsafe and unhealthy air conditions.
I am normally not a proponent of government nannyship, but a cheeseburger from McDonalds only makes me fat. Smoking causes health problems for other customers and for the employees. And just like black lung, most employees do not recognize the risks until they have cancer. They are not adequately warned of the risks of which the owners of the places derive higher profits. So owners place employees at additional health risk all so that they can attract more customers and incur no liability for the issues associated with that?
Justin B - 06:04am on 04/26/2006
And who is making an employee work in the smokey bar? They choose to do so.
The waitressing job or barkeep job is not the only job, it may only be the best job.
Now if the barkeep doesn’t work in the bar they can maybe get paid less to clean toilets. That’s his or her choice.
I don’t buy that smoking bans are just Liberal do-gooders. I liken cigarette smoking in bars to working in a coal mine. How come coal mines have limits on the amount of filtration that they must do and on air quality, but bars and restaurants do not?
Smoking in restaurants and bars has been a fact for decades and centuries. But as we have seen, although it is inconvenient for people to go outside to smoke, most folks can survive the minor inconvenience of not being able to smoke during their 30 minute long indoor meal. I am sorry that Bingo parlors are less friendly places for old people that want to sit, gamble, drink, and smoke, but if the 5 minute inconvenience of going outside for a smoke is too much for the bingo industry to bear, then damn, sorry buddy.
Oh, yeah, and if people have to ride on airplanes for hours at a time and cannot smoke, I am surprised that the airline industry hasn’t suffered the same effects as the North Dakota bingo industry.
Invalids have to pay for their wheel-chairs? Yours is the most wealthy nation on the planet. A simple solution shouts from the rooftops.
I let my dollars decide the smoking and non-smoking issues, I do not want my elected officials dealing with this at all, I mean come on balance a budget consistently, fix the income tax system, get all of that shit fixed and then take on smoking because you have nothing else to do.
This happened in CA when I lived there. All the smoker’s are mad at first. But, they always come back!
Justin, I couldn’t disagree with you more.
If I own the restaurant I should be able to make the decision about smoking, not you the customer. If you don’t like the smokey atmosphere my restaurant provides, go somewhere else as it is certainly no excuse to get meddling politicians involved.
Rob, exactly.
It almost defeats the purpose of having a no smoking building when you walk outside and immediately are bombarded with smokers outside the front door. Even so, the Govt. needs to leave that decision to the owner of the establishment. Go work on Soc.Sec. reform instead of trying to infringe another law on us…
And leave you liable for public claims of health problems they suffer from your atmosphere and leave your employees able to file lawsuits for health problems. IF you can make a valid argument that smoke filled work environments are a good thing or that employees should not be able to sue every restaurant that offers smoking environments for the health effects they suffer, I might buy that.
The net is that this is not just about customers but also about employee safety. There are minimum regulatory requirements that companies should have to comply with for internal air quality. Smoke is a very nasty thing and unless a company is willing to install sufficient air purification to ensure that their air quality meets safety standards, they should have the liability associated with the risk.
This is not suing McDonalds for making you fat. This is more like suing a coal mine for negligently ignoring the effects of black lung. This is not just for the customers, but for the employees. NO WORKPLACE should have unsafe or unhealthy work conditions just because it allows the employer to attract a few extra customers. The filtration required to provide healthy work conditions is prohibitively expensive.
That said, I believe there should be exemptions for private clubs, etc., such as Utah has. Just meet the air quality standards and have sufficiently safe work conditions for the employees and apply for an exemption. But it clearly is the responsibility of the government to provide both zoning and workplace safety laws as well as to provide a mechanism for employees or customers to recover damages caused by companies negligently failing to protect them from risks associated with unsafe and unhealthy air conditions.
I am normally not a proponent of government nannyship, but a cheeseburger from McDonalds only makes me fat. Smoking causes health problems for other customers and for the employees. And just like black lung, most employees do not recognize the risks until they have cancer. They are not adequately warned of the risks of which the owners of the places derive higher profits. So owners place employees at additional health risk all so that they can attract more customers and incur no liability for the issues associated with that?
And who is making an employee work in the smokey bar? They choose to do so.
The waitressing job or barkeep job is not the only job, it may only be the best job.
Now if the barkeep doesn’t work in the bar they can maybe get paid less to clean toilets. That’s his or her choice.