News: The hard part: Making it stick

djDaemon said:So, we should be concerned about the health of buildings?

You should be a politician because you are GREAT at twisting peoples' words around. What I meant was that the air ducts become coated with a bunch of $hit that is bad for the health quality of the AIR in the buildings. Mechanical equipment then pumps that nasty air around the building. So, even after you make a building non-smoking, the nastiness is still really IN the building, being circulated around the spaces. THAT'S what I meant.

No offense, but then who cares? If they desire to work there, then they obviously aren't bothered by the prospect of second hand smoke. Thus, your argument makes no sense.

Uh, people desire to work in the restaurant industry because they love food, love serving people, love interacting with people, etc... Its a career to some people - just like being an engineer or architect is to other people. I didn't say people desired to work in restaurants because of the smoke.

DJ, I see your point, but I would suggest that you are arguing this from the business owners' perspective, and I would argue it from the patrons' perspective.

Let us not forget that Jefferson was a politician, and supported slavery. Was he not a hypocrite, then? Jeremy Sell is an interesting read, but I disagree with his analogy that banning smoking in public places is equivalent to Christians banning being Jew. That is quite a stretch.

Sell also says this:

I hate getting into arguments on the Internet. When two people with very different perspectives on an issue decide to butt heads, no good ever comes from it. They'll both yell until they're blue in the face and neither will open their eyes to the opposing viewpoint.

So let me make it clear that I respect your side of the argument. I would argue, though, that I have the right to go to my local BW3 to watch a football game without having to breath in SH-smoke for those couple hours. So, my argument IS based on the health side, because the scary thing to me is that there are still people who dont believe that it puts one at risk. (see above posts).

There is a misconception that this is a law passed so that people can eat in a restaurant without smoke. The research from the ACS more than applies here because the law protects so many more people than those spending an hour at a meal.

You'd be surprised how many non-restaurant workplaces allow smoking. Non-smoking employees are no longer required to put up with unwanted exposure. The "don't work there" argument is arrogant and self-centered, especially given the evidence and research.

Even places that are exceptions have new protections for workers. Employees of nursing homes, for example, cannot be required to enter a designated smoking area when it is being used by residents for smoking.

This society must protect its citizens. This has nothing to do with "the tyranny of the majority." Why not give private businesses the OK to allow customers to use cocaine? We can setup cocaine bars that would actually be safer, because there is no secondhand powder!

The thing is, you don't have the right.

Nowhere in the US constitution does it guarantee you the right to go to a restaurant to watch a football game without being exposed to second hand smoke. You have a choice, you can got to B-dubs, where it may be smoky, or you can stay home, where it won't be smoky unless you choose it to be.

^ Walt, your cocaine bar example just brings up other problems with our government. Why not legalize it, tax the hell out of it and make it safer (not that its exactly good for you to begin with).

*** Edited 11/10/2006 5:18:54 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

That doesn't work. Where in the constitution does a person have the right to produce secondhand smoke?

Well, you could make the argument that second hand smoke is a carcinogen, so therefore is a chemical weapon so therefore is protected by the second amendment and the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

(Its a stretch, I know, but it could work....)

There is a misconception that this is a law passed so that people can eat in a restaurant without smoke. The research from the ACS more than applies here because the law protects so many more people than those spending an hour at a meal.

Precisely. Which is why I hope Josh and others read my above post. I would be more than happy to provide anyone with all the research they want. A-hem...that is, research not funded by a tobacco company.

Jugga, it isnt an "argument" that SH-smoke is a carcinogen, it IS a carcinogen, and a Class-A carcinogen, which means it does really really bad things to people.

*** Edited 11/10/2006 5:25:36 PM UTC by Kevinj***

Jugga - That's the biggest stretch I've ever seen on here before. But, if we play along with your little analogy there, a cigarette is a weapon. If you're USING that weapon, then you're killing other people just by using it because unlike a bullet, you can't direct where that smoke goes. So, I wouldn't recommend you use that argument. If you wanted to, you could CARRY the weapon, but not use it.

So, carry all the cigarettes you want. Just don't light one up. :)

Or, don't walk between me and my target at the shooting range.

I live in Colombus where smoking has been banned for awhile now and its fantastic! Even my friends who smoke actually admit they like the ban because while out on a Saterday night at the bar they smoke a significantly less amount. It is so nice not smelling like smoke after being out all night.

No one here has made the argument yet that business's lose money as a resualt of the ban, but I can say to anyone that tries that the bars and restaurants around here stay packed every weekend.

Kevinj said:
Precisely. Which is why I hope Josh and others read my above post. I would be more than happy to provide anyone with all the research they want. A-hem...that is, research not funded by a tobacco company.

Oh, I read it an I understand it completely. My whole post was directed to the people who are whining because they catch a whiff of smoke. I also know that it's more about the workers and I can totally respect that.

Am I glad that clubs and bars will be smoke free? Sure. It'll make for a different experience, and I won't come home smelling like smoke which is cool with me.

As I said before, I'm not a smoker, and I know that secondhand smoke is bad, and I know why it's bad, and how it's bad. The problem is that, thanks to groups like Stand and Truth, the most people know about secondhand smoke is that it's bad. No one takes the time to find out what circumstances make it bad for you, they just assume if they can smell it - even for a very short moment - that they're getting immediate cancer.

-Josh

*** Edited 11/10/2006 5:57:47 PM UTC by e x i t english***

I've said about all I have to say in the "CP Pay Raise" thread. But in this thread, it was brought up that the smoking ban was for the safety of employees of bars and restaurants.

If that was the case, then any potentially dangerous job should be banned. Machine shops, foundries, chemical plants, etc. If we ban smoking in bars because bartenders could develop health issues, then we should ban machining because a machinist could cut their finger off.

True that great strides have been made in the area of workplace safety. Regardless, some jobs are just more hazardous than others. Accomodations can be made to make the job as safe as possible, but some are still dangerous. Just as a machinist can be injured on machinery, a bartender can get lung cancer. It comes with the territory, and if a person doesn't like the risk, they should get a new job. It's all about everyone being free to do what they want. The bar owner owns the bar, he should set the rules. If an employee doesn't like the smoke, they should quit. If a customer doesn't like the smoke, they can go somewhere else.

The dangers of secondhand smoke are irrelevent to the heart of the issue. It wouldn't matter if smoke killed you dead in five minutes flat, the bottom line is a bar/restaurant owner has the right to make their rules, and the employees and patrons have the right to work and eat/drink wherever they find conditions desirable.

Working or visiting a bar or restaurant that allows smoking is a personal choice. A person chooses to subject themselves to smoke. They have just as much freedom to choose not to subject themselves to it.

Good point Josh. Let me reitterate; I do not see any point in making the "open air" areas smoke-free...like the midway, etc. It is pretty easy to stop walking behind someone who is smoking. It is certainly "extended exposure" in a confined/enclosed area that makes a difference. That is why, in my own opinion, it was good to get this passed. I do not see how it will impact CP in any way, though, as I was under the impression most places were already smoke-free.

Again, Jeremy, your analogies are illogical.

If that was the case, then any potentially dangerous job should be banned. Machine shops, foundries, chemical plants, etc. If we ban smoking in bars because bartenders could develop health issues, then we should ban machining because a machinist could cut their finger off.

This makes no sense..."smoking" has nothing to do with the job, which is serving drinks and/or food, it is something patrons are doing inside the bar that is endangering everyone. We should ban visitors from coming inside a foundry and blaring loud music which could distract the worker making it more likely that he would cut his finger off. Bartending is not a dangerous job, but SH-smoke makes it one. Interstingly enough, at a GM plant in Defiance, OH that I once worked, they have long banned smoking from inside the plant for everyones safety.

This is very much like your "jeffersonian" quote and attempted anaology, whose talk about tyranny" is hypocrytical.

It's just not well thought, Sell. Rhetorical, yes...but illogical.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 6:48:24 PM UTC by Kevinj***
*** Edited 11/10/2006 6:51:41 PM UTC by Kevinj***

One benefit CP would have from banning smoking on the midways would be garbage. If you could only smoke in certain "areas", there would be WAY less cigarette butts to sweep up around the park. I'm sure they've already seen a drastic improvement in queue cleanliness from when they banned smoking there.

EDIT: changed reduction to improvement because i changed my thought mid sentence. :) *** Edited 11/10/2006 7:01:14 PM UTC by halltd***

So, would it presumably be true that banning smoking in the rest of the park would contribute to "a drastic reduction in [park] cleanliness" there as well? If so, then why would CP want to do that? ;)

EDIT:
I will leave my post intact, so that proof of your misdeed lives on for eternity - immortalized on the interwebs.
:)
*** Edited 11/10/2006 7:03:45 PM UTC by djDaemon***

"Some jobs are just more hazardous than others" true,but when those hazards can be prevented they are. In this case second hand smoke is banned (for the sake of this argument) to prevent the problems it causes someone who is subjected to it at a hazardous dose.

"Its all about everyone being free to do what they want" Im not sure what country you live in but no where is it about everyone doing what ever they want. Especially when something you do negativly effects everyone around you in a public place.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 7:02:03 PM UTC by realmadrid311***

madrid made the point that I think everyone else is missing. You're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people in a negative way. I think Ben made a comment in the other thread about he didn't like drinking, so they should ban that. Well, they have when it comes to negatively affecting other people - ie: drunk driving. When your drinking starts affecting others, you can't do it. Its as simple as that.

Actually, to me this issue represented everything this country could stand for. The big corporations (issue 4) lost to the grassroots effort of ordinary citizens (issue 5). The people are the government, and this is what the people decided.

And since people have so much "freedom", as Sell suggests, to work wherever they want, quit any job they dont like, etc. (which is also a narrow-minded and egotistcial argument), then you also have the "freedom" as a smoker to move to a state that does not have such laws. Right? If youre a bar owner who wants smokers, you have the "freedom" to close your Ohio bar and open one up in Idaho. Right?

^^^But, its not a public place. It's a private business, to which you are invited, NOT required, to visit.

Example: I don't care for extremely hot weather, hence I do not visit places where it is extraordinarily hot. Should I go there and whine day and night so that they change the weather?

And, yes, it's silly example, so spare me the damn "that's teh illogicalzorzest argument evarrr!!11!!" statements.

ADDED:
I think what many are forgetting is the reason these laws are passing, which is because nonsmokers outnumber smokers. It's simple math. Now, if the people really had spoken, establishments that allow smoking would have gone out of business.

So, in my opinion, it's not "the people have spoken", but rather "the people have whined". If you really had such strong convictions, it would have never had to be structured into a proposition.

*** Edited 11/10/2006 7:11:18 PM UTC by djDaemon***

Actually DJ, it is illogical, but i wont say its the most illogical ever. :) (kidding)

No where is it written that simply because you own a private business, you can set your own rules about everything. You are bound by larger rules of the society, which, in Ohio, recently changed. You have the freedom, now, as a bar owner, to close your shop and go to another state if you would like.

A lot of change has happened in this country because enough people "whined" about something. That's exactly how it works! So my whining has finally paid off!

Furthermore, I know about a dozen smokers who voted for 5 and against 4 because they thought it would help them quit, so its not just "simple math"...every vote comes down to "simple math"...so Im not sure where you were going with that.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 7:15:03 PM UTC by Kevinj***