Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances

[TJones]

I think you may have had a few drinks before posting this, judging from your post - especially the non sequiter about concealed weapons. I generally only respond to coherent posts. "Reefermonkey", how clever. I've NEVER heard that one before.

Really, you can? I don't know where you work or what malls you go to, but concealed handguns aren't allowed in any office building or mall I have been to.

Just separates the wheat from the chaff, so us nonsmokers don't have to figure out which girls are going to have breath that smells like....I made my move on my now wife in Barfly while her aggressive (and psycho) smoking friend was trying to bum a smoke.

Since you didn't know, the concealed gun law was sparked into motion after the Luby's restaurant massacre of 1991. It was enacted to help citizens protect themselves from incidents like that. This is a different matter to the smoking ban , but like I said, YOU wanted to "level the playing field" in bars. And by giving a ridiculous analogy to your perspective of the smoking ban it just shows why some laws should not be enacted. It is people like you though, that want to stifle business owners for your own gains. You want to make the scene but only on YOUR terms. It should not be up to folks like you to force the city to pass laws to watch out for people's health. Do you realize how long it would take for you to develop cancer by going into bars ? Why can't non-smokers go outside and breathe in the fresh air if they don't like the smoke in the bar ? Should all bars become open-air because of a few claustrophobics ? Claustrophobics are people too, don't they deserve not to feel closed-in at a bar. Perhaps enact a 3 foot rule like the strip joints ? I am sure that would go over like a fart in church.

btw, your "figuring out which girls are going to have breath that smells like..." holds water like a sieve. What if the girl you are engaging was just outside on the porch having a square, because she wasn't allowed inside to smoke ?

Monkey, I also disagree with you being returned by rudeness by a smoker. I don't know, maybe I was intimidating when they look at who is asking, but I have never been given any grief when I have asked someone to move their smoke away. They are usually a little embarrassed, and promptly move the ashtray. Red consciously moved his, I didn't have to ask him, but I didn't even notice that he was smoking, but beleive me, if it would have bothered me, I would have asked. It is ALL in the delivery when you ask. My favorite is when I asked them if they think they will be allowed to smoke in the ambulance ?

Edited August 14, 2007 by TJones

[Reefmonkey]

.....by giving a ridiculous analogy......

I'm glad you admit that it was a ridiculous analogy. You know, they say that admitting you have a problem is the first step....

I have repeatedly provided cogent arguments that the smoking ban in bars is a logical extension of city health codes for food and drink establishments, as well as workplace smoking bans, because, after all, the bar is a workplace for the bartender. Besides what you admit is a ridiculous analogy about concealed handgun permits, and now some ramblings about the Kileen Luby's shootings, you have provided no argument. "but..but...you're wrong!" is not an argument. Accusing me of wanting to stifle bar owners' business for my own gains and wanting to "make the scene on [my] terms" are not arguments. Even if that were true, even if I were just some malicious person who twisted my mustache at the idea of stifling owners' business and whatnot, that does not change the fact that I have shown sound legal precedent for this restriction from a food/drink establishment health code standpoint, and from a workplace health standard standpoint. Until you can come up with legal arguments for why this isn't true, you aren't even a blip on the radar as far as this discussion goes.

You may say you disagree with me about being treated rudely by smokers, but the fact is I have been treated rudely when I have politely asked them to move their smoke so it did not drift into my face. I would not dream of threatening violence as you suggest. Maybe Red Scare is on the polite end of smokers, but that doesn't change the fact that many smokers are not, and I have personally experienced that. Laws are necessary because people can't seem to figure out how to treat each other considerately. If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, we would not need laws. For generations, smokers have not treated nonsmokers considerately, and nonsmokers are fed up - these smoking bans would not have gotten the traction they have if this were not the case. If you, Red Scare, or bar owners want to blame anyone for this ban, blame inconsiderate smokers, they are the reason it has gotten this far.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TJones]

I'm glad you admit that it was a ridiculous analogy. You know, they say that admitting you have a problem is the first step....

I have repeatedly provided cogent arguments that the smoking ban in bars is a logical extension of city health codes for food and drink establishments, as well as workplace smoking bans, because, after all, the bar is a workplace for the bartender. Besides what you admit is a ridiculous analogy about concealed handgun permits, and now some ramblings about the Kileen Luby's shootings, you have provided no argument. "but..but...you're wrong!" is not an argument. Accusing me of wanting to stifle bar owners' business for my own gains and wanting to "make the scene on [my] terms" are not arguments. Even if that were true, even if I were just some malicious person who twisted my mustache at the idea of stifling owners' business and whatnot, that does not change the fact that I have shown sound legal precedent for this restriction from a food/drink establishment health code standpoint, and from a workplace health standard standpoint. Until you can come up with legal arguments for why this isn't true, you aren't even a blip on the radar as far as this discussion goes.

You may say you disagree with me about being treated rudely by smokers, but the fact is I have been treated rudely when I have politely asked them to move their smoke so it did not drift into my face. I would not dream of threatening violence as you suggest. Maybe Red Scare is on the polite end of smokers, but that doesn't change the fact that many smokers are not, and I have personally experienced that. Laws are necessary because people can't seem to figure out how to treat each other considerately. If everyone lived by the Golden Rule, we would not need laws. For generations, smokers have not treated nonsmokers considerately, and nonsmokers are fed up - these smoking bans would not have gotten the traction they have if this were not the case. If you, Red Scare, or bar owners want to blame anyone for this ban, blame inconsiderate smokers, they are the reason it has gotten this far.

Those are some nice blinders you have on there monkey. The analogy is just as ridiculous as your cogent argument that sensible humans can't think or fend for themselves and Govt. has to step in on every occasion. Certain jobs have certain risks. If you don't like the risk then take your ball and go home. Quit crying how it is UNFAIR, when it isn't. You have a choice, you can either go in the bar and adhere to the bar owner's way he conducts business, or you can find a nice health food store to go hang out in where the owner doesn't want smoking in his establishment. Why is that so HARD for you and other nonsmoker proponents to understand ? Why is it neccessary to cater to the whiners. Yes, YOU the whiners. It is simple math, I don't like a place because there is smoking going on and I am deathly afraid that I will catch cancer or I will have to deal with an inconsiderate smoker. That establishment WILL NOT get my business, as there are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too many drinking holes that may cater to me as a non-smoker, because the OWNER has decided that is the way he wants to do business.

Certain jobs take certain risks. Skydiving instructor for instance. They are in serious danger of their lives everyday because some other nutjob like them wants to go skydiving. What if their chute doesn't open and the secondary fails ? What if the wannabe skydiver's chute fails ? Where does the responsibility lie ? I guess the instructor could sue the paying customer who is learning because he/she are the one that got them out there in the first place. Or, does the instructor have a choice as to whether or not they want to jump out of perfectly good airplane ? Wait, there are waivers to sign aren't there. There's your answer, we can have all the non-smokers sign a waiver or they can decide NOT to come into the bar.

Oh, and if you had read the WHOLE thread you would have seen that I agree with non smoking in eating establishments, but where alcohol makes 51% percent of the business, that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?

Edited August 14, 2007 by TJones

[musicman]

Oh, and if you had read the WHOLE thread you would have seen that I agree with non smoking in eating establishments, but where alcohol makes 51% percent of the business, that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?

guess i don't either. this may happen at some bars, but not all.

[TJones]

guess i don't either. this may happen at some bars, but not all.

Not talking about salad bars musicman. Maybe not so much loud noisy music at a Martini Bar, the rest definately happens. Although try having a conversation at the Davenport over the music on Saturday night !

Edited August 14, 2007 by TJones

[westguy76]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the bar owners will be fined if someone is smoking in there establishment. What will be the cost to the bar? Who will hand out these citations? Health inspectors? Meter maids?

[TJones]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the bar owners will be fined if someone is smoking in there establishment. What will be the cost to the bar? Who will hand out these citations? Health inspectors? Meter maids?

Good question, there is only ONE smoking cop in the city right now. It apparently is up to the patrons of the bar to STOP the smokers. HPD will have a fun fielding those assault calls. yeah, this smoking ban is gonna be a GREAT idea.

[musicman]

Not talking about salad bars musicman. Maybe not so much loud noisy music at a Martini Bar, the rest definately happens.

places i go are not dancin' kind of places nor is there loud music. people getting to the point of intoxication.....have to think about that one too.

[TJones]

places i go are not dancin' kind of places nor is there loud music. people getting to the point of intoxication.....have to think about that one too.

Is there smoking ? Are you sure it is a BAR and not a tea room ?

[MidtownCoog]

Must be a Fern Bar!

[musicman]

Is there smoking ? Are you sure it is a BAR and not a tea room ?

sometimes there is smoking during the day....at night i would say almost always. very crowd dependent.

[TJones]

sometimes there is smoking during the day....at night i would say almost always. very crowd dependent.

So, where is this dive bar, where no music is played and where the patrons just nurse their drinks all night and ask if it's ok before to light up while they just sit on their keisters and talk about how they remember what dancing used to be like ? I have to see this place firsthand. Although, It kinda sounds like Shakespere's Pub on Memorial which I have been to before.

[musicman]

So, where is this dive bar, where no music is played and where the patrons just nurse their drinks all night and ask if it's ok before to light up while they just sit on their keisters and talk about how they remember what dancing used to be like ? I have to see this place firsthand. Although, It kinda sounds like Shakespere's Pub on Memorial which I have been to before.

i didn't say music isnt' played...i said it isn't played loudly. i don't remember when the last time i saw a person dance in there either. there are quite a few laid back placed in houston like this. not an anomaly.

[KatieDidIt]

Ron's Pub would shrug off any non-smoking ordinance. The place is a virtual smokehouse. NO music and dancing there either. Just Darts, cards,some games showed on TV and drinks.

[crunchtastic]

Like moths to a flame, many women are inexplicably drawn to the articulate, smoky barfly. This whole going-outside thing will add a new dynamic to the bar ecosystem. It will be like going on mini-dates with a temporary boyfriend, the worldly, smoky barfly. You never know what could happen.

I must be developing a crush on RedScare.

[TJones]

i didn't say music isnt' played...i said it isn't played loudly. i don't remember when the last time i saw a person dance in there either. there are quite a few laid back placed in houston like this. not an anomaly.

I agree, plenty of places in Houston. I really didn't mean to suggest that they are all ROWDY JUKEJOINTS were the booze is overflowing and drunken brawls breakout over who is doin a "dirty dance" with Lolita the shotgirl, while Bill Haley and the Comets are squelching out "rock around the clock" in the background. The point was that one or more of these things are going on in Bars, because that is what they are there for, and it seems that in most bars, even the sedate musicman type bars, that the common denominator is alcohol and smoking.

I would still like to know where it is, because i need a hideaway every now and then. IS THAT IT the Hideaway on Dunvale ? I actually really like that place.

Edited August 14, 2007 by TJones

[Reefmonkey]

Certain jobs have certain risks. If you don't like the risk then take your ball and go home.....

.....Certain jobs take certain risks. Skydiving instructor for instance. They are in serious danger of their lives everyday because some other nutjob like them wants to go skydiving. What if their chute doesn't open and the secondary fails ? What if the wannabe skydiver's chute fails ? Where does the responsibility lie ? I guess the instructor could sue the paying customer who is learning because he/she are the one that got them out there in the first place. Or, does the instructor have a choice as to whether or not they want to jump out of perfectly good airplane ? Wait, there are waivers to sign aren't there. There's your answer, we can have all the non-smokers sign a waiver or they can decide NOT to come into the bar.

As I have pointed out before, OSHA, MSHA etc. require that employers reduce all risks to a reasonable level, including eliminating unnecessary risks. A nuclear power plant can't say to its employees "We don't want to pay for adequate shielding to protect you on the job, if you don't like it, you can take your ball and go home." A construction firm working on skyscrapers can't say "we're not going to pay for full body harnesses, so either don't trip, or find another job." A skydiving instructor, if he is self-employed, has a responsibility to himself, but if he is employed by someone else, his company has a responsibility to give him access to proper equipment, to make sure he is properly licensed, and make sure his equipment is inspected. If there is a fatality, you'd better believe the government is going to be investigating, looking for criminal negligence, including neglect of required procedures and equipment maintenance. What world are you living in where you don't recognize this reality?

Quit crying how it is UNFAIR, when it isn't. You have a choice, you can either go in the bar and adhere to the bar owner's way he conducts business, or you can find a nice health food store to go hang out in where the owner doesn't want smoking in his establishment. Why is that so HARD for you and other nonsmoker proponents to understand ? Why is it neccessary to cater to the whiners. Yes, YOU the whiners.

I don't think you've been paying attention. I am not whining. I am smugly satisfied that this ordinance has finally passed, after waiting patiently for it for a long time. Sure, I am not entirely pleased with the provisions for enforcement, but I am patient enough to wait until that changes, too. It is the bar owners who are doing the whining. Accusing me of whining was just a cheap rhetorical trick you pulled out of your meagre bag of tricks before checking to make sure it actually fit the circumstances, which it doesn't.

.....you can either go in the bar and adhere to the bar owner's way he conducts business, or you can find a nice health food store to go hang out in where the owner doesn't want smoking in his establishment.

Again with the asinine assumption that anyone who doesn't want smoke blown on them is a tofu-eating, yoga-doing, patchouli wearing health nut.

It is simple math, I don't like a place because there is smoking going on and I am deathly afraid that I will catch cancer or I will have to deal with an inconsiderate smoker. That establishment WILL NOT get my business, as there are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too many drinking holes that may cater to me as a non-smoker, because the OWNER has decided that is the way he wants to do business.

But wait, I thought you guys are all saying bars can't possibly stay in business if they don't allow smoking? How can there be "waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too many" bars for nonsmokers staying open if they don't get all that vital income from nonsmokers? Hhhmm? What was that? Oh, man, it sucks getting caught in your own contradictions, doesn't it?

If bar owners are right, and bars can't stay in business without the vital business of smokers, then that means there can't possibly be any viable bars for nonsmokers to go to, therefore we don't have the right to choose nonsmoking bars as we are being told we should do. If there are successful nonsmoking bars for us to choose from, then bar owners are wrong, bars can be successful post-ban.

......sensible humans can't think or fend for themselves and Govt. has to step in on every occasion. ........

Oh, and if you had read the WHOLE thread you would have seen that I agree with non smoking in eating establishments, but where alcohol makes 51% percent of the business, that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?

You and Red Scare, railing against an "authoritarian" government that "tramples" people's "rights", you sound like a couple of rebellious 16 year olds, and your characterization of a bar as a place to "get your drink on to the point of intoxication" doesn't reflect well on your maturity level either.

No, History proves that, left to its own devices, Business is not capable of consistently looking out for the well-being of its customers or employees. It's not even particularly good at looking out for its own longterm interests, or the nation's longterm economic interests. Even a cursory study of America's Gilded Age will plainly demonstrate that to you. It's not about whether individual humans are sensible or smart or not, it's about who has the power, and business interests generally have more power, because they offer what people need - employment. Letting market forces control workplace safety, even product safety, was tried and failed. So yes, government is intervening, and enforcing a more healthy environment for bar employees and patrons.

But you and Red Scare see this as a case of big bad authoritarian government trampling the bar owner's "right" to run his business as he pleases, and the smoker's "right" to smoker in the bar. This has nothing to do with "rights", and it never has. It is about competing Interests. For years the bar scene was controlled by the Smoking Interest, which used peer pressure, aggressive marketing tactics such as tobacco companies sending hot girls to give out free cigarettes in bars, and other means to keep numbers of smokers up so that it could stay in control. Now the Nonsmoking Interest is strong enough that it has successfully used City Hall tactics to gain control. It's just nice that the Interest in power happens to be healthier for everyone. This has to do with two competing Interests, not "rights", that's how politics and society work in the real world, and failure to understand that is as childish as it is naive.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TheNiche]

As I have pointed out before, OSHA, MSHA etc. require that employers reduce all risks to a reasonable level, including eliminating unnecessary risks.

Using extant law as a key premise is very poor form. What is is not necessarily what should be.

Edited August 14, 2007 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

You and Red Scare, railing against an "authoritarian" government that "tramples" people's "rights", you sound like a couple of rebellious 16 year olds,

That railing against authoritarianism in our government would be considered by you to be a youthful pastime, as opposed to the responsibility of diligent citizens, suggests to me that I am wasting my fingers debating with you. With that, I am done here. I have better things to do than to debate those who believe that the tyranny of the majority is good government.

[dalparadise]

That railing against authoritarianism in our government would be considered by you to be a youthful pastime, as opposed to the responsibility of diligent citizens, suggests to me that I am wasting my fingers debating with you. With that, I am done here. I have better things to do than to debate those who believe that the tyranny of the majority is good government.

While I agree with your take, it's a tad bit on the dramatic side, don't you think?

[Reefmonkey]

Some interesting numbers I found about exposure to pollutants from cigarette smoking in bars.

University of Wisconsin performed air quality monitoring at several Madison-area bars before the Madison ban took effect.

http://www.publichealthmdc.com/documents/M...ualityStudy.pdf

For one cigarette pollutant, PM2.5 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns, which, being small, settles in the lungs and and causes irritation), the researchers found the average concentration in all the bars was 168 mg/m3. In one bar it was as high as 300 mg/m3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has a maximum allowable 24-hour exposure to this pollutant of 65 mg/m3.

Anyone still want to claim it isn't a public health issue?

I believe earlier in the thread RedScare tried to counter talk of it being a public health issue by dragging car exhaust into it, saying that we inhale more pollution from car exhaust that from bars. Houston's maximum PM2.5 levels are rarely above 60 mg/m3.

Maximum allowable PM2.5 over a 24 hour period: 65 mg/m3

Houston outdoor air PM2.5 level maximums: usually less than 60 mg/m3

Bar PM2.5 average levels: 168 mg/m3

I was going to type something else, but I won't rub it in, RedScare.

[TheNiche]

You and Red Scare, railing against an "authoritarian" government that "tramples" people's "rights", you sound like a couple of rebellious 16 year olds, and your characterization of a bar as a place to "get your drink on to the point of intoxication" doesn't reflect well on your maturity level either.

What's wrong with a little indulgence every now and then? It is healthy in moderation. They could very easily criticize your own maturity level, citing an inability to let loose and enjoy yourself.

No, History proves that, left to its own devices, Business is not capable of consistently looking out for the well-being of its customers or employees. It's not even particularly good at looking out for its own longterm interests, or the nation's longterm economic interests. Even a cursory study of America's Gilded Age will plainly demonstrate that to you. It's not about whether individual humans are sensible or smart or not, it's about who has the power, and business interests generally have more power, because they offer what people need - employment. Letting market forces control workplace safety, even product safety, was tried and failed. So yes, government is intervening, and enforcing a more healthy environment for bar employees and patrons.

The argument is not that government has no right to intervene on behalf of the public welfare. It is about what is reasonable. Surely, that there would be no interference would be as undesirable as that there would be complete and limitless control.

[Reefmonkey]

That railing against authoritarianism in our government would be considered by you to be a youthful pastime, as opposed to the responsibility of diligent citizens, suggests to me that I am wasting my fingers debating with you. With that, I am done here. I have better things to do than to debate those who believe that the tyranny of the majority is good government.

Diligent citizens don't rail, ie pound their fists against the wall and gripe about "the man" taking away their right to smoke. They have better things to do than defend an offensive habit; they defend our democracy through meaningful action directed towards meaningful issues.

[TheNiche]

Diligent citizens don't rail, ie pound their fists against the wall and gripe about "the man" taking away their right to smoke. They have better things to do than defend an offensive habit; they defend our democracy through meaningful action directed towards meaningful issues.

Seems like between this and your paragraph about Interests, you are arguing that might makes right. Is that accurate?

[Jax]

My 2 cents: When you smoke indoors, you're not just smoking for yourself, you're also forcing me to smell the smoke as well. So unless you smoke with a bag over your head, or in a private place, it bothers me. For that reason, I don't mind the smoking bans happening all over North America right now.

[Reefmonkey]

Using extant law as a key premise is very poor form. What is is not necessarily what should be.

Yet as I already pointed out, OSHA and MSHA laws have saved the lives and prevented the injuries of a very significant number of workers. Are you saying what should have occured is all those workers should have been killed or maimed?

What's wrong with a little indulgence every now and then? It is healthy in moderation. They could very easily criticize your own maturity level, citing an inability to let loose and enjoy yourself.

There is nothing wrong with a little indulgence "now and then". What TJones said is "that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?" Apparently a bar where this all does not happen is not a legitimate bar in his eyes. If the "premise" of a bar is "getting your drink on to the point of intoxication", that doesn't strike me as a "now and then" thing.

The argument is not that government has no right to intervene on behalf of the public welfare. It is about what is reasonable. Surely, that there would be no interference would be as undesirable as that there would be complete and limitless control.

But didn't you say "That is correct. Employers cannot "just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more." I see that as unfortunate." ?

Edited August 14, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[Reefmonkey]

I'm just going to repost this so it doesn't get lost.

Some interesting numbers I found about exposure to pollutants from cigarette smoking in bars.

University of Wisconsin performed air quality monitoring at several Madison-area bars before the Madison ban took effect.

http://www.publichealthmdc.com/documents/M...ualityStudy.pdf

For one cigarette pollutant, PM2.5 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns, which, being small, settles in the lungs and and causes irritation, and over time, pulmonary disease and neoplastic cell growth - cancer), the researchers found the average concentration in all the bars was 168 mg/m3. In one bar it was as high as 300 mg/m3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has a maximum allowable 24-hour exposure to this pollutant of 65 mg/m3.

Anyone still want to claim it isn't a public health issue? Heck, this could be construed as a justification to make it a FEDERAL issue.

I believe earlier in the thread RedScare tried to counter talk of it being a public health issue by dragging car exhaust into it, saying that we inhale more pollution from car exhaust that from bars. Houston's maximum PM2.5 levels are rarely above 60 mg/m3.

Maximum allowable PM2.5 over a 24 hour period: 65 mg/m3

Houston outdoor air PM2.5 level maximums: usually less than 60 mg/m3

Bar PM2.5 average levels: 168 mg/m3

I was going to type something else, but I won't rub it in, RedScare.

For those who would make this issue about a smoker's rights, I can think of no more fitting use of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes quote: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." If there is such a thing as a person's right to smoke, then that right ends where my lungs begin. Also appropos to this discussion , Holmes said that the fundamental principle of fairness, protected people from unreasonable legislation, but was limited to only those fundamental principles enshrined in the common law and did not protect most economic interests. Seems he has the argument about bar owners' "right to conduct business as they please" countered as well.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TJones]

But wait, I thought you guys are all saying bars can't possibly stay in business if they don't allow smoking? How can there be "waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too many" bars for nonsmokers staying open if they don't get all that vital income from nonsmokers? Hhhmm? What was that? Oh, man, it sucks getting caught in your own contradictions, doesn't it?

One, I never said you were a tofu-eating, pachouli wearing anything ? Apparently you feel guilty of such crimes though, as you continuously put yourself in this category of those types, at the mere suggestion that a healthfood store might be a place where you can go and not be exposed to the toxic fumes of secondhand smoke.

And (B ), Where was the contradiction again ? I claim that there may be plenty of bar owners that might cater to your non-smoking ilk, I NEVER said anything about "bars not being able to sustain" without the asmatic crowd bringing in their hard earn dollars for that one fuzzy navel they caress all night then leave without tipping after these Erkels have struck out all night. Bars are for the public, yes, but for a specific public. An adult public that are old enough to choose for themselves whether they want to assume risk or not. Malls and Restaurants are geared for people of ALL ages, children who haven't the presence of mind nor experience to be able to think for themsleves NEED protection, if children were coming into Bars with their parents and lighting one up with their oldman, then I might jump on your smoking bandwagon. Be adult and realize you can and should have a choice, if all you want is to have a drink in a smoke-free enviroment, there are places for you. Apparently THAT doesn't fit your agenda though. You rather force YOUR will onto others. So, how much DO you Sanitarians get paid for writing citations ?

Also, if you want to quote Holmes, then realize that the man had enough sense to move a little further down the bar or onto the next bar if smoking was allowed in his presence.

You are PRICELESS ! ! !

Edited August 15, 2007 by TJones

[TheNiche]

Yet as I already pointed out, OSHA and MSHA laws have saved the lives and prevented the injuries of a very significant number of workers. Are you saying what should have occured is all those workers should have been killed or maimed?

There is nothing wrong with a little indulgence "now and then". What TJones said is "that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?" Apparently a bar where this all does not happen is not a legitimate bar in his eyes. If the "premise" of a bar is "getting your drink on to the point of intoxication", that doesn't strike me as a "now and then" thing.

But didn't you say "That is correct. Employers cannot "just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more." I see that as unfortunate." ?

Straw man. The issue is not whether anyone should have been killed or maimed; it is whether they should have been free to take an informed risk.

There is nothing wrong with a little indulgence "now and then". What TJones said is "that is a BAR, and loud noisy music, dancing, smoking, and getting your drink on to the point of intoxication is what happens in BARS. Perhaps you don't fully understand what a premise of a bar is ?" Apparently a bar where this all does not happen is not a legitimate bar in his eyes. If the "premise" of a bar is "getting your drink on to the point of intoxication", that doesn't strike me as a "now and then" thing.

How are you connecting what something is to the frequency with which it is used? I get drunk to the point of intoxication every now and then, but it certainly isn't a regular occasion.

But didn't you say "That is correct. Employers cannot "just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more." I see that as unfortunate." ?

Yes, and I just got momentarily caught up in rhetoricism. My mistake.

[TheNiche]

For those who would make this issue about a smoker's rights, I can think of no more fitting use of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes quote: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." If there is such a thing as a person's right to smoke, then that right ends where my lungs begin. Also appropos to this discussion , Holmes said that the fundamental principle of fairness, protected people from unreasonable legislation, but was limited to only those fundamental principles enshrined in the common law and did not protect most economic interests. Seems he has the argument about bar owners' "right to conduct business as they please" countered as well.

Justice Holmes' quote was the opinion of Justice Holmes. While it may have had influence on the course of the evolution of the legal system, the legal system is far from a perfect arbiter of justice. Again, reefmonkey, it seems that a premise to your argument is that the government allows a cigarette use ban in public places or that might makes right. But those kinds of arguments are easily undermined.