31-03-2004 01:33									#151
	Suffering from ads?

You can take away that which makes the smoky bar dangerous, but you can't do it for a mine. If you could, gee, don't you think the government or unionns would demand it?! Hello, anyone in there Ming?

	31-03-2004 01:40									#152
	Suffering from ads?

I've got a real urge to stand outside the doorway of a non-smoking pub and blow fag smoke in through the door.

	31-03-2004 01:43									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie You can take away that which makes the smoky bar dangerous, but you can't do it for a mine. If you could, gee, don't you think the government or unionns would demand it?! Hello, anyone in there Ming?

I can't argue with your point.

However, it is still the choice of the employee in both cases to assume the risk. If you don't want to work in a smoky bar... you don't HAVE to. If you don't think the employment benefit out weights the "marginal" risk, you can find a place where there is no smoke.

Bus drivers who sit in traffic all day could be fitted with oxygen masks to remove any harmful effects of car pollution... but gee... the government doesn't think enough of them to protect them, and unions don't demand it

We are talking about degrees of danger... and second hand smoke is no worse than what most people face walking down the street... something else they really can't avoid.

	31-03-2004 01:53									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You don't have to? Tell that to someone who left school at 16 and has worked solely in bars and attained no other skills, who gets diagnosed with some nasty pulmonary disease as a result of all the time he or she have spent in smoky bars. If the government doesn't act, then people have no choice- how many bars do you know that have banned smoking entirely through choice?

Also, I wouldn't know about bus-drivers, I don't really understand the point since they're not exposed to fumes any more than the rest of us? However, on that point, do you think it was wrong for governments to ban smoking on buses out of respect for those who work on them?

	31-03-2004 02:02									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

One last try.

The scientific evidence indicates that ETS is hazardous, responsible for a great deal of heart disease and cancer and childhood asthma. You can argue about the evidence, but this is the consensus of the groups of scientific experts that society usually relies on, for good reason.

We regulate hazards in order to protect people, even though regulation inevitably constrains people's choices and has other costs. We do it in the workplace, we do it in consumer products, we do it with laws against assault and rape. We do it with asbestos, we do it with chromium, we do it with PCBs. Why wouldn't we do it with tobacco, which is clearly the leading cause of death in America?

ETS is not the leading cause of death, but the risk assessment numbers I discussed way earlier in this thread demonstrate that ETS is indeed a large hazard by EPA standards, and not trivial even by OSHA's inadequate standards.

Banning smoking from workplaces does not cost money to the owners of bars and restaurants. So what if bar owners are afraid it does? It doesn't.

So, there's a significant health hazard, and we can control exposure through a method that costs business owners nothing, and has only one downside: smokers have to go outside to smoke.

Feel free to ignore these facts, distract attention from them by raising irrelevancies, misrepresent my meaning, fabricate straw man arguments, or even, if you want to be reasonable, try to provide evidence that ETS is not significantly harmful to health or does significantly reduce business profits. If you can demonstrate large costs to business, be prepared to present a cost-benefit analysis showing that the benefits of protecting worker (and public) health are outweighed by the costs to businesses, and further demonstrate why businesses should be allowed to impose the health hazard on their customers when other businesses are not allowed to do so.

	31-03-2004 02:33									#156
	Remove this text

If 95% of bars were smokefree, Employees would have a choice. And all the rest of your arguements, while mostly true, don't apply. All I want is a couple so I can smoke while I have a drink without bothering non-smokers. Your fanatasism to deny a few specialized bars to those of us that are addicted and have tried to quit many times without success just makes you look like a thoughtless person, no matter how you try to justify forcing your will on the whole. I'd hate to think you show similar compasion to those with other addictions.

	31-03-2004 02:40									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I really don't see why there can't just be a different (and more expensive) liquor license that allows smoking in the establishment. Or maybe only allow the licenses for bars with more than 1 floor, so that they can have a smoking floor and non-smoking floor (because I think we all know that a "smoking section" on the same floor doesn't work). There are a couple of places in Boston I can think of off the top of my head where that would work.

At the end of the day, I don't really care that much. I don't mind going outside, except for during the worst part of winter. But I don't see why it has to be all or nothing.

-Arrian

p.s. The economic argument is rather silly - people will still go to bars and drink, regardless of the smoking ban.

	31-03-2004 02:46									#158
	Inflate your Upload Space

I buy the economic arguement for resturants since most people go to eat over smoking so I wouldn't expect much losses, but i tend to believe stand alone bars would take a hit. Heck, I don't frequent bars much anymore since I can't smoke. I'm sure there are more smokers not going as much to bars than non-smokers now going more to bars because of less smoke. The group of heavy drinkers seem to have a higher % of smokers than the average group of people.

	31-03-2004 02:49									#159
	Remove this text

If smokers don't go to bars, then where do they go? I'd have thought that even if bars lose money to no-smoking laws that other areas would pick up the disposable cash somehow.

	31-03-2004 02:51									#160
	Increase Your PM Length

Yep - liquor stores. Better bang for the buck anyway, and then you can go home and smoke all you want.

-Arrian

p.s. And not have to listen to godawful "music" blasted at high volume, either.

	31-03-2004 03:05									#161
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

RAH, I already commented above that I could imagine your solution working, although I have reservations about it.

If I'm a fanatic (now who's making personal attacks?), I'm a fanatic for honest and accurate discussion rather than dishonesty, evasion, irrelevancy, distortion, and so on. I think you've written reasonably, but others have not.

Actually, I'm full of compassion. I support funding for programs to help addicts quit. I support removal of price supports for tobacco growers. I support advertising that will help convince people not to start smoking. I would support a phased-in, age-dependent restriction on tobacco purchases that would allow all current smokers to buy tobacco for the rest of their lives, while making it illegal for anyone currently under age ever to buy tobacco. Some would call that age discrimination, but I think it would be a reasonable way to eventually stamp out the leading cause of death without putting the burden on addicts.

I also have compassion for people who have to work in bars and restaurants (when you talk about workers having a choice, consider how much choice you have if that's the best job you can find).

Consider whether you'd make the same recommendation of "just a few workplaces where we can stir up asbestos without having to bother to protect people from it." Consider whether you'd recommend "just a few workplaces where you have to drink some alcohol on the job, whether or not you're already an alcoholic." Yes, the risk of ETS is smaller, but the logic is the same.

Bottom line again:

ETS kills lots of people.

Banning workplace smoking has little or no cost other than sending people outside if they must smoke.

Arguments based on personal choice are usually overridden by large public health exigencies.

Why should smoking in bars be an exception?

	31-03-2004 04:09									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

In all bars, I'm not concerned with and I agree, but for a few smoking clubs/bars, I dissagree. If 95% of the bars are non-smoking, there is considerable choice. Especially if they get paid a bit more. How about topless bars? THere are not many of them either. Do they mean that girls don't have choice of not working in one? Most choose not to, but some want to make more money and that's there choice.

Maybe not the best comparison but Heck, it's always fun to bring them into the discussion.

	31-03-2004 04:38									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Screenshot!

Also I think that there should remain some bars where smoking is allowed under license, we gotta make some allowances for the less fortunate junkies in our midst

And heck, if any great number of people addicted to asbestos demand it, I say why not let a limited number of asbestos bars open up as well!

	31-03-2004 05:14									#164
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

RAH, I don't want to beat this to death, but I worked for almost 20 years in workplace health and safety. It's a tenet in the biz that you don't expose people to significant risk unless it's unavoidable. In coal mining, risk is unavoidable, and the product has high value to society, so rather than banning coal mining, they regulate it to reduce the risk as far as is economically feasible. Same with asbestos: construction work, or brake work, or asbestos mining or processing, cannot be made free of risk from asbestos exposure, so there are regulations to reduce the risk.

Since banning smoking is an easy and highly effective way to reduce the risk from tobacco smoke, and there is no economic argument to balance against it, there's not considered to be any valid reason to allow some workers to be exposed to unnecessary risk. Paying them more for their excess risk is considered to be an immoral way of taking advantage of the poor.

You may well disagree with the rationale, but it's just not done.

	31-03-2004 05:46									#165
	Got spare money?

But again... what if they don't care if they are exposed to a MINIMAL potential increased risk... and what if they are smokers already? Then there is really no increased risk. People make their own choices on their health EVERY day... you seem to be ignoring that fact. It would be really easy to out law food that is bad for you... but people want it. You keep talking about the poor people who are forced to work in such an enviornment... that's not what this discussion has envolved to any more. People are talking about seperate and limited establishments where smoking is allowed... and people have a choice to enter or work there or not... no different than stopping at a fast food place... So your rationale doesn't hold water

	31-03-2004 05:49									#166
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Compelling public interest.

The state has a compelling public interest (public health) that overrides the comparatively unimportant right to smoke in a bar.

In the government's opinion.

	31-03-2004 06:06									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Choice choice choice choicechoicechoeichocei choicechoiecchoicechoicechoicechoicechioce choicechiocehcioechoicechiocheocchoice choiechoeichcehochcochoechcoeichoicechoicechoice

OK, I know that you want everybody to have choices. I agree, choices are good. Can you now admit that not all choices should be allowed?

Experience has shown that when poor people are presented with a choice such as, "remove your uterus so that you can't become pregnant and put a baby at risk, or else you can't work in this lead industry anymore," poor people will make the choice to remove their uterus.

Some people think that allowing a business to present that sort of forced choice is immoral. You may disagree if you wish.

Please, stop calling ETS a minimal risk. (In all caps, yet!) Read the whole thread. The risk from ETS is very significant. If you wish to disagree, dispute the science, or else accept the consensus view of health professionals.

	31-03-2004 06:16									#168
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by debeest Choice choice choice choicechoicechoeichocei choicechoiecchoicechoicechoicechoicechioce choicechiocehcioechoicechiocheocchoice choiechoeichcehochcochoechcoeichoicechoicechoice

that sums it up pretty good

quote: OK, I know that you want everybody to have choices. I agree, choices are good. Can you now admit that not all choices should be allowed?

I would agree... however... in this case, the choice that smokers is asking for is far less dangerous than many other choices that are allowed... and remember, we are talking about people that are smokers already... or people who don't mind being around them.

quote: Experience has shown that when poor people are presented with a choice such as, "remove your uterus so that you can't become pregnant and put a baby at risk, or else you can't work in this lead industry anymore," poor people will make the choice to remove their uterus. Some people think that allowing a business to present that sort of forced choice is immoral. You may disagree if you wish.

Not relevent... because working for any lead industy would be considered bad. Here, there would be an option if you are a bartender or work in the bar trade, you could choose to work in non smoking establishment if you so choose.

quote: Please, stop calling ETS a minimal risk. (In all caps, yet!) Read the whole thread. The risk from ETS is very significant. If you wish to disagree, dispute the science, or else accept the consensus view of health professionals.

The biggest risk of ETS is to children... and we are talking about bars.

Again, you can hurt yourself more walking down the street of a major city for an hour than being in a smoking bar for an hour... a choice. You don't have to go into the smoking bar if you don't want to. Having smoking bars and non smoking bars will not force anybody to have to increase their risk if they don't want to.

	31-03-2004 12:36									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ming I have to agree with the Gimp. I don't see why their shouldn't be smoking and non smoking bars. Let the market decide the need. By reading the posts here... many people WANT smoke free bars.

Here's a situation where the market fails. Somehow, pub owners still think that operating non-smoking outfits will be bad for business, even though all statistics I know of points to the other direction.

quote: Originally posted by Ming I hear the ole... why should smokers impose on non smokers stuff.. fine. There are already many rules in place to make sure this doesn't happen in public places. But when it comes to private, why should the non smokers impose their will on the smokers.

It's not really a private place when it's open to the public, isn't it? Don't pubs and bars need to follow certain ordinances and regulations already, in fire, hygiene, number of stalls in bathrooms, etc?

	31-03-2004 12:39									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The risk of ETS is to exposed people, children or not. ETS is estimated to kill over 50,000 Americans a year, mostly through heart disease, relatively few through cancer. Are you knowledgeable on the subject? What is the basis for your claim that the biggest risk is to children? Don't you think you should stick to arguing subjects you know something about, or at least acknowledge when you're just making stuff up?

My point is that employers are not allowed to expose their workers to hazards if it can be avoided. Instead, they have to reduce the exposure to the extent feasible. That's what they have to do with lead instead of requiring women to get sterilized. That's what they have to do with asbestos. Finally, they're catching up and regulating exposure to tobacco smoke as well. So -- yes, completely relevant.

The worker has to go into the bar where s/he works. Society has concluded -- rightly I think -- that the conditions imposed on workers are not entirely their choice. Few people choose to work in bars because it's a great choice; they choose it because they can't get a better job. You're saying, in essence, that people are free to choose between starving and suffering exposure to a substance that kills thousands of Americans per year. I realize it's not that stark, but that's the true nature of the choice you're "offering" workers.

	31-03-2004 12:43									#171
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ming The biggest risk of ETS is to children... and we are talking about bars.

This does not mean ETS post no signficant danger to adults. Did you see the WHO link I posted earlier?

quote: Originally posted by Ming Again, you can hurt yourself more walking down the street of a major city for an hour than being in a smoking bar for an hour... a choice.

A lot has been done to aerosols and other pollutants (SOx, NOx) in the air caused mainly by internal combustion engines. The thing is, however, a person does not have to smoke, while a person has to breathe.

	31-03-2004 12:45									#172
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger A lot has been done to aerosols and other pollutants (SOx, NOx) in the air caused mainly by internal combustion engines. The thing is, however, a person does not have to smoke, while a person has to breathe.

The point is, one does not have to emit toxic fumes, whatever they are.

	31-03-2004 13:32									#173
	Suffering from ads?

I am all for bicycles

	31-03-2004 14:19									#174
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Rah

quote: I'm sure there are more smokers not going as much to bars than non-smokers now going more to bars because of less smoke.

Only because non-smokers have not yet the habit of attending bars (mainly due to smokiness of the places in the past). In the long term the bars are likely to do much better. I would have indeed expected a short term hit to revenues due to the reasons you positted. But that hasn't happened has it Rah..

quote: The group of heavy drinkers seem to have a higher % of smokers than the average group of people

People do tend to be stupid when they drink a lot.

	31-03-2004 14:21									#175
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I am all for bicycles

Imagine that...

	31-03-2004 16:39									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by debeest You're deliberately ignoring the obvious. Choosing to drink alcohol, you endanger yourself. Choosing to smoke around other people who have no choice in your action, you endanger others.

Eh? How does drinking not have easily measurable negative effects on the safety of anyone who comes into contact with someone who drinks (eg violence, accidents etc.)? Why should the prissy folk who would use the heavy hand of government to stop people from smoking not do the same for drinking?

quote: Originally posted by debeest Why do some people insist that no one, anywhere, ever, for any reason, has any right to limit their choices? Do you think you have a right to take a dump on my lawn?

I'd would normally tend to respect your property rights, except you don't seem to respect mine, so yea I'd take a dump on your lawn.

quote: Originally posted by debeest Do you think you have a right to spray E. coli on my salad?

Of course not.

quote: Originally posted by debeest Do you think you have a right to shoot guns in a crowd?

It depends on the context, but generally shooting at the people in a crowd is going to be illegal as well as immoral, and should be.

quote: Originally posted by debeest What makes smoking different from those actions?

There isn't room enough on the web to list the ways these actions are different. It would be infinitely simpler for you to list the ways that they are similar.

	31-03-2004 17:43									#177
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Eh? How does drinking not have easily measurable negative effects on the safety of anyone who comes into contact with someone who drinks (eg violence, accidents etc.)? Why should the prissy folk who would use the heavy hand of government to stop people from smoking not do the same for drinking?

Alcohol only leads to problems when the person drinking it breaks the law. Not only is this a minority of drinkers, but their offences are punishable. The vast majority of drinkers do not cause any harm at all to other people.

Smokers on the other hand all cause harm to other people through second-hand smoke.

	31-03-2004 18:05									#178
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by debeest My point is that employers are not allowed to expose their workers to hazards if it can be avoided. Instead, they have to reduce the exposure to the extent feasible. That's what they have to do with lead instead of requiring women to get sterilized. That's what they have to do with asbestos. Finally, they're catching up and regulating exposure to tobacco smoke as well. So -- yes, completely relevant.

Again... you ignore the fact that the situation is completely different since there could be smoking and non smoking bars for people to CHOOSE to work in... You keep bringing up sterilized women as a strawman argument... nothing to do with this what so ever...

quote: The worker has to go into the bar where s/he works. Society has concluded -- rightly I think -- that the conditions imposed on workers are not entirely their choice. Few people choose to work in bars because it's a great choice; they choose it because they can't get a better job.

Have you ever worked in a bar... maybe you should stick to supjects you know something about Many people choose to work in bars because they like the life style and the pay. You are basically saying that working in a bar is a crappy job... Maybe you look down your nose at people who work in bars... but many would disagree with you.

quote: You're saying, in essence, that people are free to choose between starving and suffering exposure to a substance that kills thousands of Americans per year. I realize it's not that stark, but that's the true nature of the choice you're "offering" workers.

Being a little over dramitic aren't you... and totally unrealistic.
People could choose NOT to work in a bar that allowed smoking... you seem to imply that them doing so is the only way they could live and that they would have no choice... yeah, right.. There would be smoke free bars that these "poor and miserable second class citizens" could work in if they were forced to work in such a terrible establishment as a bar for slave wages... And non smoking bars (as proposed by people in this thread) would only consititute a small portion of the overall market... ensuring that people would have the choice to avoid working in such a place if they didn't want the risk...

And you also seem to overlook that if the person smoked... the additional risk would be almost non existent... There are far greater risks that the government already allows... to pick on this one is just pure discrimination of users of a legal product, and one that the government makes a ton of money off of through user taxes.

	31-03-2004 20:31									#179
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Eh? How does drinking not have easily measurable negative effects on the safety of anyone who comes into contact with someone who drinks (eg violence, accidents etc.)? Why should the prissy folk who would use the heavy hand of government to stop people from smoking not do the same for drinking?

If its any consolation Sikander, the Irish government are also planning to introduce more laws to cut back on binge-drinking too, so its not as if smoking is being singled out. But the difference is that drinking in small amounts is not bad for you, while there is no benefit to smoking even one cigarette. The secondary effects of alcohol (e.g. beating someone up) also have more to do with a persons demeanour and therefore do not happen that often, while smoking will always effect people in the immediate vicinity.

It's great. When I now go the pub I no longer have to experience smoke, and hopefully within the next few months I'll no longer have to worry about 'Anto' and 'Decco' trying to kick my head in some night after closing time because they had one too many.

Way to go Fianna Fail! They're finally doing something right.

	31-03-2004 21:04									#180
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

yeah, our government is planning to have a crackdown on 'binge drinking'. to achieve this they want to ban '10 quid, all you can drink' style offers and raise the price of drinks across the board.


Last comment edited by Ming... I was unaware that the "c" word got past the censor in it's plural form... that word isn't allowed