Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances

[sevfiv]

here is the PDF of the September 2007 ban (ordinance 2006-1054)

http://www.houstontx.gov/health/Environmen...2007smoking.pdf

Sec . 21-247.

Violations and penalties.

( a ) A person commits an offense if he is smoking in an area where

smoking is prohibited by the provisions of this article .

U:\WPFILES\ORDINANC\gcd06047a .wpd

( b ) It shall be the duty of every person in control of an area where

smoking is prohibited by the provisions of this article to request any person

known to be smoking in such area to extinguish the burning tobacco product.

Any knowing or intentional failure to maintain compliance with such duty shall

constitute an offense.

( c ) Whenever in this article an act is prohibited or is made or declared

to be unlawful or an offense or misdemeanor, or whenever in this article the

doing of any thing or act is required or the failure to do any thing or act is

prohibited, the violation of the provision shall be and constitute a

misdemeanor punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not to exceed

$2,000 .00. Each violation shall constitute and be punishable as a separate

offense. Prosecution or conviction under this provision is cumulative of and

shall never be a bar to any other civil or administrative remedy provided or

allowed in this article or by law.

Edited August 2, 2007 by sevfiv

[Vertigo58]

I know Simi Valley (and most of LA county) had the ban in effect for near 10 years now. It was funny, when you would go to a nightclub or bar like in Thousand Oaks, you'd see a big crowd outside just smoking & chatting.

Once inside just a hand full of partiers dancing, mingling. A bit Twilight Zone-ish. Can you picture Houstonian's on Main Street corridor with a big crowd outside chatting? Homeless are going to love it!

Something is puffing in the wind.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Vertigo58

[gwilson]

I love the smoking ban in bars. I don't think it should go so far as tobacco shops or places that are specifically smoking lounges (Richmond Avenue Cigar, Robustos, Tobacco Habana, etc).

I know places that don't allow smoking certainly aren't hurting, so there is no financial reason to do away with the ban. Johnny's is a no smoking place. Get there at about 1030 tonight, and as you elbow your way through to the bar, tell me if you really think no smoking is hurting their bottom line.

The smokers simply head out to the deck.

[Subdude]

there's another thread on this here. malls have not always been smoke free.

Combined topics.

If you see duplicate topics or other problems, please report instead of just posting about it. That way we can be sure to correct.

Thx.

[Guest Marty]

Combined topics.

If you see duplicate topics or other problems, please report instead of just posting about it. That way we can be sure to correct.

Thx.

Do we use the report button/tab or a PM?

I think i will take a cigarette break while im waiting .

Edited August 3, 2007 by Marty

[Subdude]

Again this smoking ban is STUPID. This is a capitalist society! How about supporting capitalism by encouraging entrepenuers that are against smoking to open up smoke free bars instead of stifling capitalism by creating these STUPID AND RIDICULOUS ordinances!!!!

I'm having a hard time seeing how smoking bans stifle capitalism.

[musicman]

Seems a lawsuit has been file against the smoking ban by several bar owners.

Price and a coalition of bar, nightclub and cabaret owners last week challenged Houston's smoking ordinance in a federal lawsuit. They argue that city officials overstepped their authority last fall in passing the ordinance, scheduled to take effect next month, creating an unfair competitive environment for them to operate.

The ordinance bans smoking in most public places, but exempts bars with significant tobacco sales or outdoor patios. The lawsuit claims the city does not have the authority under state law to regulate differently businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption.

full article

[lockmat]

Seems a lawsuit has been file against the smoking ban by several bar owners.

Price and a coalition of bar, nightclub and cabaret owners last week challenged Houston's smoking ordinance in a federal lawsuit. They argue that city officials overstepped their authority last fall in passing the ordinance, scheduled to take effect next month, creating an unfair competitive environment for them to operate.

The ordinance bans smoking in most public places, but exempts bars with significant tobacco sales or outdoor patios. The lawsuit claims the city does not have the authority under state law to regulate differently businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption.

full article

Houston is behind in implementing a smoking ban. What makes these people think that a federal lawsuit will do anything if others around the country have already done this?

[Guest Marty]

I know that all of the grocery, Dollar and liquor stores where I live in Spring has COH tax papers on the windows. I wonder if the city will enforce there regulations this far north?

[Reefmonkey]

Seems a lawsuit has been file against the smoking ban by several bar owners.

Price and a coalition of bar, nightclub and cabaret owners last week challenged Houston's smoking ordinance in a federal lawsuit. They argue that city officials overstepped their authority last fall in passing the ordinance, scheduled to take effect next month, creating an unfair competitive environment for them to operate.

The ordinance bans smoking in most public places, but exempts bars with significant tobacco sales or outdoor patios. The lawsuit claims the city does not have the authority under state law to regulate differently businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption.

full article

I don't understand how the lawsuit can claim Houston is overstepping its authority in regulat[ing] differently" businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption. I don't see how this is regulating bars any differently from any other business. And what does the alcohol consuption have to do with anything? If anything, this is leveling the playing field, making bars adhere to the same regulations every store, office, etc in Houston already adheres to. Bars are a place of work for the bar employees. Anti-smoking ordinances are meant to protect workers from smoke in the work environment, among other things. Why should bar employees have less protection than anyone else?

[gwilson]

Smokers need to quit complaining. It's very simple.

If you can keep your smoke out of my lungs, great. If you can't, don't do it next to me.

[musicman]

I don't understand how the lawsuit can claim Houston is overstepping its authority in regulat[ing] differently" businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption. I don't see how this is regulating bars any differently from any other business. And what does the alcohol consuption have to do with anything? If anything, this is leveling the playing field, making bars adhere to the same regulations every store, office, etc in Houston already adheres to. Bars are a place of work for the bar employees. Anti-smoking ordinances are meant to protect workers from smoke in the work environment, among other things. Why should bar employees have less protection than anyone else?

there's an article in today's paper where some of the "cigar bars" are worried that the increase in smokers at their establishments will cause them not to meet their tobacco sales quota and therefore they won't be considered a cigar bar anymore so smoking will be banned there too.

[Reefmonkey]

there's an article in today's paper where some of the "cigar bars" are worried that the increase in smokers at their establishments will cause them not to meet their tobacco sales quota and therefore they won't be considered a cigar bar anymore so smoking will be banned there too.

I am not a cigar smoker so I don't understand the cigar bar business - does a cigar bar have to retain some ratio of liquor sales/tobacco sales in order to be considered a "cigar bar"?

Even so, bar owners' concerns that smoking bans would reduce their revenues have proven unfounded in NYC, LA, Dallas, and so my gut tells me that cigar-bar owners' fears that non-cigar-smoking drinkers will innundate their bars are just as foundless. As the exlosion of the myth that bar revenues would go down with a smoking ban demonstrates, smokers haven't stopped going to bars just because they can't smoke there, and they aren't going to flock to cigar bars because they can smoke there. People go to bars for a variety of reasons - atmosphere, good drinks, cheap drinks, the crowd that goes there, because their friends like the bar, because good-looking members of the opposite sex go there. Just as smokers didn't give up chances to meet women/men at bars so they could stay home and smoke, they aren't going to give up chances to meet men/women at traditional bars so they can smoke in cigar bars. In general, a lot more men than women like to smoke cigars, and from my trips to Downing Street, most of the girls there were on the arm of a cigar-smoking sugar daddy, so guys aren't about to sequester themselves off in cigar bars where there are no available women. What is more likely to happen is what happened in LA, etc - people choose not to smoke when they go out drinking, or catch a smoke between bars. I think this will be a good thing. Pretty much everyone I know who is a smoker now started because they would go out to bars with people who smoked while drinking, and most started out saying "I only smoke when I drink" and are now full-blown smokers. Smokers are already in the minority. Separate the social connectedness of smoking and drinking, and the smokers will choose to not smoke so they can hang out at bars with their nonsmoking friends and potential hookups. In ten years you'll see smoking become some strange anarchronism that no one does anymore, like wearing Members Only jackets.

If you can keep your smoke out of my lungs, great. If you can't, don't do it next to me.

You reminded me of an episode of The Simpsons, where Marge's sister Patty is dating actor Troy McClure, and on a date to a trendy restaurant, she lights up a cigarette, to the horrified gasps of the other patrons. A Waiter comes up to her and says "we don't serve contemporary California cuisine in yours lungs, so don't smoke in our restaurant."

[musicman]

I am not a cigar smoker so I don't understand the cigar bar business - does a cigar bar have to retain some ratio of liquor sales/tobacco sales in order to be considered a "cigar bar"?

yep. at least 20% of sales have to be from tobacco products.

[dbigtex56]

If you can keep your smoke out of my lungs, great. If you can't, don't do it next to me.

That's how I feel about automobiles.

[RedScare]

I am not a cigar smoker so I don't understand the cigar bar business - does a cigar bar have to retain some ratio of liquor sales/tobacco sales in order to be considered a "cigar bar"?

Even so, bar owners' concerns that smoking bans would reduce their revenues have proven unfounded in NYC, LA, Dallas, and so my gut tells me that cigar-bar owners' fears that non-cigar-smoking drinkers will innundate their bars are just as foundless. As the exlosion of the myth that bar revenues would go down with a smoking ban demonstrates, smokers haven't stopped going to bars just because they can't smoke there, and they aren't going to flock to cigar bars because they can smoke there. People go to bars for a variety of reasons - atmosphere, good drinks, cheap drinks, the crowd that goes there, because their friends like the bar, because good-looking members of the opposite sex go there. Just as smokers didn't give up chances to meet women/men at bars so they could stay home and smoke, they aren't going to give up chances to meet men/women at traditional bars so they can smoke in cigar bars. In general, a lot more men than women like to smoke cigars, and from my trips to Downing Street, most of the girls there were on the arm of a cigar-smoking sugar daddy, so guys aren't about to sequester themselves off in cigar bars where there are no available women. What is more likely to happen is what happened in LA, etc - people choose not to smoke when they go out drinking, or catch a smoke between bars. I think this will be a good thing. Pretty much everyone I know who is a smoker now started because they would go out to bars with people who smoked while drinking, and most started out saying "I only smoke when I drink" and are now full-blown smokers. Smokers are already in the minority. Separate the social connectedness of smoking and drinking, and the smokers will choose to not smoke so they can hang out at bars with their nonsmoking friends and potential hookups. In ten years you'll see smoking become some strange anarchronism that no one does anymore, like wearing Members Only jackets.

You reminded me of an episode of The Simpsons, where Marge's sister Patty is dating actor Troy McClure, and on a date to a trendy restaurant, she lights up a cigarette, to the horrified gasps of the other patrons. A Waiter comes up to her and says "we don't serve contemporary California cuisine in yours lungs, so don't smoke in our restaurant."

I love it when non-smokers explain to me why I smoke, why I go to bars, and what I will do once smoking is outlawed in bars. Frankly, my concern is not so much that I will not be able to light up when I drink, but that, with smoking outlawed, the bars will now become overcrowded with pompous non-smokers who know everything, and whose rights supercede everyone else's. That kind of crowd makes me smoke MORE, not less.

No worries, though. I'll let you have your smoke-free bar, so that you can guzzle your vodka and red bull in a "healthy" environment.

[MidtownCoog]

What good is a bar without a smoke?

[sevfiv]

older bars are going to probably go through a reverse-musty-nasty smell issue.

once House of Pies had to go smoke free, it was kinda gross. it was almost like the current smoke was covering up the horrible smell of the past that has set in.

[MidtownCoog]

eewwww....

I think you are right. Imagine what Leon's Lounge is going to smell like.

Edited August 10, 2007 by MidtownCoog

[Reefmonkey]

I love it when non-smokers explain to me why I smoke, why I go to bars, and what I will do once smoking is outlawed in bars. Frankly, my concern is not so much that I will not be able to light up when I drink, but that, with smoking outlawed, the bars will now become overcrowded with pompous non-smokers who know everything, and whose rights supercede everyone else's. That kind of crowd makes me smoke MORE, not less.

No worries, though. I'll let you have your smoke-free bar, so that you can guzzle your vodka and red bull in a "healthy" environment.

I guess your nicotine addiction is making you a little paranoid and irritable, because otherwise I can't figure out why you take such umbrage with what I said. Like I said, people go to bars for a variety of reasons. By no means was my list of some reasons people go to bars meant to be exhaustive. The point is, in other cities, bar owners claimed they would lose business with a smoking ban. That was disproven when those cities' bans went into effect. Now in Houston cigar-bar owners are saying the ban is going to make cigarette smokers flock to their bars and screw up their tobacco/alcohol sales ratios. I'm saying the first dire prediction proved untrue, and logic says the second one will be untrue as well. And if you think of it, it was not me, but the cigar-bar owners who were explaining to you what you will do once smoking is outlawed in bars. Don't worry, I won't expect an apology from you.

Listen to what you are saying, though: "....non-smokers....whose rights supercede everyone else's." You're saying we think our rights should come before your rights. Who is really pushing their rights over everyone else's, though? The pro-smokers say "if non-smokers don't like our smoke, they can choose not to go to bars." It's just as easy to turn the argument around, and say that you smokers right now are putting your rights above everyone else's. You may think you have a right to smoke, but we have a right not to breathe in smoke that irritates our lungs, our eyes, and stinks up our clothes and hair. Which right seems more reasonable? You choose to smoke, we choose to drink. You can choose not to smoke and still drink and socialize, but if we choose not to inhale your smoke, then we can't drink and socialize. On the math alone, you lose.

And for asthmatics and people who are allergic to smoke, it isn't a matter of choice. They simply cannot be around smokers. So you are saying your "right" to smoke while you drink and socialize is more important than their right to drink and socialize, so much so that your right prohibits them from exercising theirs?. Again, it is obvious that it is the smokers who are trying to foist their "rights" on everyone else, not vice versa.

Actually, I am not a fan of either red bull or vodka. I'm a red wine drinker, which is healthy. But thanks for letting me have my bar smoke-free . Oh, you reminded me of another good line from the aforementioned Simpson episode "excuse me, I ordered a Zima, not EMPHY-sema." That was a good episode. They don't write them like that anymore.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[MidtownCoog]

So now the bars will be full of asthmatics and people who are allergic to smoke?

Who wants to hang with those lame freaks? I bet they are also alergice to peantus.

[RedScare]

Listen to what you are saying, though: "....non-smokers....whose rights supercede everyone else's." You're saying we think our rights should come before your rights. Who is really pushing their rights over everyone else's, though? The pro-smokers say "if non-smokers don't like our smoke, they can choose not to go to bars."

Yes, listen to what I am saying. No one forces you to enter the bar. Just as your argument in the lawn parking thread pointed out that a buyer in a deed restricted community knows the rules going in, you know the bar owner's rules going in. A true supporter of property rights would not trumpet the government's restriction of the owner's right to conduct business as he pleases. I am not "pro-smoker". I am pro business owner. I do not complain when I enter a non-smoking bar, such as Kobain. I merely smoke on the patio if that is the owner's rule. Conversely, you demand that the government force the bar owner to bend to your wishes. Big difference.

So, to answer MidtownCoog's question, yes, the bars will now be full of asthmatics, allergics...and fascists...who drink red wine.

[Reefmonkey]

So now the bars will be full of asthmatics and people who are allergic to smoke?

Who wants to hang with those lame freaks? I bet they are also alergice to peantus.

Well look at it this way, instead of carrying around a lighter to offer a light to a girl you want to pick up, you can carry around an inhaler of Albuterol and an epi-pen.

[Reefmonkey]

Yes, listen to what I am saying. No one forces you to enter the bar. Just as your argument in the lawn parking thread pointed out that a buyer in a deed restricted community knows the rules going in, you know the bar owner's rules going in. A true supporter of property rights would not trumpet the government's restriction of the owner's right to conduct business as he pleases. I am not "pro-smoker". I am pro business owner. I do not complain when I enter a non-smoking bar, such as Kobain. I merely smoke on the patio if that is the owner's rule. Conversely, you demand that the government force the bar owner to bend to your wishes. Big difference.

So, to answer MidtownCoog's question, yes, the bars will now be full of asthmatics, allergics...and fascists...who drink red wine.

So now I am a fascist. Well, that's not so bad. Fascists are pretty snazzy dressers, and boy can they march.

Yes, I demand that a bar owner provide a healthy environment that is not full of airborne carcinogens. I also demand that his employees wash their hands after using the restroom. I demand that restaurant owners keep meat, eggs, and dairy at proper temperatures. Maybe a bar owner's way of conducting business as he pleases involves spitting in the glasses to clean them, but I doubt arguments about his "rights" will cut any ice with the city health inspector. I don't think arguments of "if they don't want to get diarrhea, they can choose not to come here" will get him out of a citation. I guess the health inspector is a fascist, too. Maybe he'll save a seat for me at the next meeting.

No business owner has a right to conduct business "as he pleases". As soon as he opens the business to the public, he has a responsibility to provide a safe, healthy environment for anyone over 21 who wants to patronize him.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[Reefmonkey]

I am going to move a few smoking ban related posts from the lawn parking ordinance over here where they belong.

Anyway, the story so far.........

Interesting. This, coming from the same poster who just applauded restricting the rights of business owners to allow smoking in their bars in another thread.

Sounds to me like you are all for trampling property rights when the trampling is done to something you do not like, and all FOR protecting property rights when it lets you do whatever YOU want. This kind of picking and choosing of property rights protections suggests either a weak understanding of property rights, or a rather ambivalent appreciation of them.

I must have really offended your smoking sensibility for you to be stalking me like this. I'm flattered.

There is nothing inconsistent at all between my positions on the smoking ban and the lawn parking issue. In the lawn parking issue, I said that protection of public health is a perfectly legitimate reason to pass a city ordinance. The smoking ban is a public health issue. Second-hand smoke is a hazard to the patrons and to the bar employees. The employees have a right to a healthy workplace. Asthmatics have a right to go into the bar have a right to have their bronchi not constrict and suffocate them.

A place of business has responsibilities to provide safe public access that a private homeowner does not. You don't have to let black people come into your home if you don't want to. A bar can't put up a sign that says "whites only". You are not required to meet sanitation standards in your kitchen, even when your friends come over for dinner. A bar or restaurant is required to. When they open their doors to the public for business, they have a responsibility to provide fair and full access to all, and to provide a safe and healthy environment.

The inconsistency may have to do with how you define a 'public space'. In my view, a public space is one that is owned by the government, and that is all.

A bar or restaurant is a space that customers choose to patronize, employees choose to work in, and owners exercise their right to decide how to run their establishment...all stakeholders knowing, of course that there may be consequences to it being a smoking or no-smoking establishment. In the same sense, an unrestricted unzoned neighborhood is one in which residents choose to live and owners choose to buy. If the next buyer into the neighborhood following me raises goats that stink up the place and make a mess, which could be considered a matter of public health, then I get to decide whether I want to leave or stay and endure the stink. ...or I might just join in. That's my up to me. If nearly all of the neighbors hate the idea and want to form or update deed restrictions, well once again, I knew the rules going in and am subject to the consequences of my decisions.

No, still no inconsistency. Any time someone opens their private property to the public for the purposes of making money, they are held to higher standards. They must meet sanitation standards, safety standards, OSHA regulations, ADA requirements for having wheelchair ramps, etc. Providing an environment where employees and patrons are not exposed to harmful and irritating smoke is a logical extension of this. You and Red Scare never address my argument about bars and restaurants having to abide by health code and safety regulations that a private resident does not have to abide by on his property, and that is where your argument fails.

But this is ridiculous, Red Scare dragged the smoking ban debate into this thread in some malicious attempt to discredit me because he's bitter that I support the smoking ban. I have proven that my stances on these two issues are not incompatible, and you guys have not been able to counter the argument that a place of business is required to follow health codes that a private residence is not. It is time for the two of you to stop making off-topic posts. The topic of this thread is lawn parking ordinance, not smoking ban.

What is lawful and what makes sense are often at odds.

I can be convinced to back efforts to enfoce kitchen cleanliness, where the customer has imperfect information. But whether smoking is allowed or not should be immediately apparent such that they can choose whether or not they want to patronize or be employed by an establishment.

You have proven nothing.

So to address TheNiche's last argument, what TheNiche is saying (and correct me if I got this wrong, TheNiche), is that if you go into a restaurant that has a dirty kitchen, you are not going to see that the kitchen is dirty, so you don't have enough information to choose not to eat there, therefore the city should make sure the restaurant keeps its kitchen clean. On the other hand, if you go into a restaurant or bar where you can see smokers smoking, or even know they allow smokers, you are aware of this, so you can make the decision not to eat or drink there. Likewise, potential employees can choose not to work there if they don't want to be around smoke.

Okay. Well then, abiding by that principle, would it be okay for a restaurant to be exempted from city health code requiring employees to wash their hands, exempted from keeping perishable foods at proper temperatures, as long as they put a big sign on their door that says "Our kitchen is unsanitary. Eat here at your own risk"? Then the patrons have "perfect information", so would this be okay?

Now let's talk about the argument that employees can choose whether or not to work at bars that allow smoking. People can choose whether or not to work in a coal mine, right? That doesn't stop the Mine Safety and Health Administration from requiring mine companies to meet safety requirements. Mine owners can't just say "mining is dangerous, you know that, so you don't have to work here if you don't want to, but we aren't going to install proper ventillation, because that will cut into our bottom line." I have my 40 Hour HAZWOPER card. I have worked some pretty dangerous hazardous waste sites, and I knew the dangers going in. That does not mean that my company or clients didn't have to reduce my risk by eliminating as many hazards as they could. They were required to do so by law. A city ordinance banning smoking in bars, which are a workplace for bartenders, backs, and waitstaff, is an easy way to eliminate a very easy to eliminate hazard to working in a bar. I have disproven the "their choice to work in a bar" argument more than once in this thread, and no one has even attempted to refute my argument, but people keep making the argument. I would love to see someone bring in a new slant to directly refute me.

[TheNiche]

So now I am a fascist. Well, that's not so bad. Fascists are pretty snazzy dressers, and boy can they march.

Red didn't call you a fascist; he just said that bars will be full of them.

[Reefmonkey]

Red didn't call you a fascist; he just said that bars will be full of them.

Ah, must have been just a coincidence that the fascists will drink red wine, which I said was my drink. Plausible deniability, I love it!

[MidtownCoog]

I still think the bars will lose a lot of business.

Especially since the alergic poindexters who avoided bars due to smoke don't even go out in the first place. It's not like they will suddenly show up.

They'll continue to stay home on weekends reading WebMD.com

Edited August 13, 2007 by MidtownCoog

[TheNiche]

I am going to move a few smoking ban related posts from the lawn parking ordinance over here where they belong.

Anyway, the story so far.........

So to address TheNiche's last argument, what TheNiche is saying (and correct me if I got this wrong, TheNiche), is that if you go into a restaurant that has a dirty kitchen, you are not going to see that the kitchen is dirty, so you don't have enough information to choose not to eat there, therefore the city should make sure the restaurant keeps its kitchen clean. On the other hand, if you go into a restaurant or bar where you can see smokers smoking, or even know they allow smokers, you are aware of this, so you can make the decision not to eat or drink there. Likewise, potential employees can choose not to work there if they don't want to be around smoke.

Okay. Well then, abiding by that principle, would it be okay for a restaurant to be exempted from city health code requiring employees to wash their hands, exempted from keeping perishable foods at proper temperatures, as long as they put a big sign on their door that says "Our kitchen is unsanitary. Eat here at your own risk"? Then the patrons have "perfect information", so would this be okay?

You have captured my argument very well. And yes, I would agree that if they make an adequate disclaimer, that customers would have enough information to make the choice. But as sanitation is often not well understood by the proprietors of restaurants, much less consumers, as it is a multifaceted set of issues, and as the proprietors would have the capability to very easily misinform consumers, it would seem that enforcement of restaurant sanitation is probably best left to the local government or an independent contactor to that government.

Whether smoking is allowed or not is immediately apparent. It is a yes/no question.

Now let's talk about the argument that employees can choose whether or not to work at bars that allow smoking. People can choose whether or not to work in a coal mine, right? That doesn't stop the Mine Safety and Health Administration from requiring mine companies to meet safety requirements. Mine owners can't just say "mining is dangerous, you know that, so you don't have to work here if you don't want to, but we aren't going to install proper ventillation, because that will cut into our bottom line." I have my 40 Hour HAZWOPER card. I have worked some pretty dangerous hazardous waste sites, and I knew the dangers going in. That does not mean that my company or clients didn't have to reduce my risk by eliminating as many hazards as they could. They were required to do so by law. A city ordinance banning smoking in bars, which are a workplace for bartenders, backs, and waitstaff, is an easy way to eliminate a very easy to eliminate hazard to working in a bar. I have disproven the "their choice to work in a bar" argument more than once in this thread, and no one has even attempted to refute my argument, but people keep making the argument. I would love to see someone bring in a new slant to directly refute me.

How is it not their choice to work in a smokey bar or a coal mine or a hazardous waste site? If you don't like it, find a different job. We aren't in ye olde India. There is no caste system or anything approximating an equivalent.

Some jobs carry inescapable health hazards; employers must pay high enough wages to compensate new hires for nonpecuniary aspects of the job. The wages simply go up until either there are enough people to staff the hazardous jobs or until the wage level gets to a point at which the hazardous jobs are not viable...then we export an industry to the 3rd World. Again, the important factor is that employees have sufficiently good information from which to judge the price at which they would be willing to do potentially hazardous work. ...and with that in mind, any level of hazard is acceptable insofar as the employee is aware of it.

[westguy76]

So now I am a fascist. Well, that's not so bad. Fascists are pretty snazzy dressers, and boy can they march.

Yes, I demand that a bar owner provide a healthy environment that is not full of airborne carcinogens. I also demand that his employees wash their hands after using the restroom. I demand that restaurant owners keep meat, eggs, and dairy at proper temperatures. Maybe a bar owner's way of conducting business as he pleases involves spitting in the glasses to clean them, but I doubt arguments about his "rights" will cut any ice with the city health inspector. I don't think arguments of "if they don't want to get diarrhea, they can choose not to come here" will get him out of a citation. I guess the health inspector is a fascist, too. Maybe he'll save a seat for me at the next meeting.

No business owner has a right to conduct business "as he pleases". As soon as he opens the business to the public, he has a responsibility to provide a safe, healthy environment for anyone over 21 who wants to patronize him.

BRILLIANTLY SAID