Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Smoking Ban in Restaurants

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DOC, May 16, 2005.

  1. DOC

    DOC Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Smoking Ban in Restaurants

    Was sitting around after I got off work and saw this article in the Houston Press about how it has become so welcome and accepted to make fun of smokers. It was loosely in response to the recent smoking ban placed on restaurants in which smoking sections are going to be a thing of the past in Houston, and at the cafe I work at. I found it interesting in some of the points that they make, smokers rights deserve to exist too don't they?

    http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/current/news/feature.html
     
  2. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Your absolute rights as a person end when they affect others. Smokers affect others and hence are subject to legislation.

    Edit: Bottom line is, smokers aint a protected group in this country (unlike certain races, religions, and sexes) and until a group takes up the smoker's cause (i.e. nobody), smokers will continue to be stomped on since they are offensive to the majority.
     
  3. rare

    rare IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    165
    they can smoke anywhere they want, as long as they wear a bubble over their head so they can keep all that 'taste' to themselves!
     
  4. DOC

    DOC Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    256
    I like the notion that restaurants are private buisnesses and property, dont like it, don't sit in smoking, there are sections for that reason.

    And I for one would like a closer look at that report.
     
  5. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347

    Drinking age is 21. Only in public places? No, in private establishments as well. We have laws. These laws govern both public and private establishments. We legislate hiring laws, discrimination, you can't separate blacks from whites, and now, in Houston (and Florida as well) you can't smoke in restaurants. Show me the constitutional right to be allowed to smoke in private restaurants.
     
  6. Ev_

    Ev_ IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Smoke doesn't obey the invisible line between the sections. If a restaurant made an air tight smoking section, I wouldn't care at all if people smoked in it. But one smoking section will make an entire restaurant stink.
     
  7. TheJarulf

    TheJarulf Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have two comments to this, first of all, sure private but a place that the owner opens up to the public and hence have to play by whatever regulations there is for that. Sure, I can agree that it is up to each one though.

    BUT, the main reason for the ban (at least here in Europe I would say were many countries have adopted similar legislation) is one of safety and health of the employers working at the restaurants. They have really no choice and have to work all day in heavy smoke (at least in many bars and such). There is allready in many countries bans on smoking at the work place so it seems logical to apply to for example restaurants as well since it is after all a work place for many. I see no problem with that.
     
  8. Namyeknom

    Namyeknom IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    42
    As a smoker I'm probably a bit biased in my views, but I can see the need for a ban in restaurants. Personally I don't smoke if I'm in a restaurant, as even if all the people I'm with smoke and we're deep in a smoking section, it does filter across the room.

    Saying that, in pubs or bars I think smoking is acceptable, if not required. Even before I started, I found smoke free pubs somewhat lacking in atmosphere. Maybe I just like my gritty British pubs, but thats the way I feel. And I've been to plenty of places that have air conditioning that removes smoke virtual before it leaves your lungs...

    As for the smokers rights, yes we do have rights, but so do non-smokers. As it is our choice to smoke, I agree it is only right that the law should lean towards protecting the non-smoker. If a total ban in public building was inforced here (as it looks like it might...), while I wouldn't be overly pleased about it, I certainly wouldn't be outraged...
     
  9. Pierrot le Fou

    Pierrot le Fou IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    EXCELLENT article.

    One of the better quotes I've heard on the issue (paraphrased):
    You go to a bar to down a toxic drink that makes you walk funny and slur your speech in the hopes of finding some random person to take home and engage in unprotected high-risk sex with, yet you're complaining about the person smoking a cigarette next to you?​

    We pay more taxes, we receive less pension and social security, and we are great for the economy as far as bars and restaurants are concerned.

    We get barred from enjoying our habit in private establishments which want our business, we are forced to pay higher taxes, and we are forced to put up with jackasses who think that it's appropriate to be entirely rude because we have a habit they don't approve of.

    Worker's rights is the justification that people use, yet people who take jobs as bartenders or waiters in establishments with smoking have the option of seeking employment elsewhere. If you are worried about on-the-job risks, then you don't work in a factory around dangerous machinery, or as an astronaut, or as a coal miner. Should we legislate the removal of risks in those jobs, or take the same approach with smoking that we do with other high-risk jobs -- give them to those who will take them rather than mandate that they be safe enough for people who are unwilling to take the risk to be able to do anyway?

    The health risks of second-hand smoke are ENTIRELY unproven in either way. Yet people argue and act as if they are written in stone and handed down to Moses on stone tablets with the other 10 commandments.

    1. There is no God but one God.
      Corrollary: And we have no decided yet who it is
    2. Thou shalt not make any graven images.
      Corrollary: Thou shalt not make heavy metal music either
    3. Thou shalt not take God's name in vain/vein.
      Read: Thou shalt not mainline the body or blood of Christ
    4. Keep the sabbath holy, dammit!
      Catholic corrollary screwing boys is not keeping the day holy, unless you have poor spelling (hole-y)[/bad pun]
    5. Honour thy father and mother.
    6. Thou shalt not kill.
      and the corrollary thou shalt not abort fetuses for they are people and that is killing
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
      Corrollary: No matter how fun it may be
    8. Thou shalt not steal.
      Corrollary: Especially the wife of your neighbor, see 7.
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
      Corrollary: Unless he has still not returned the tools you lent him 10 fortnights ago
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.
      Corrollary: And even if you don't covet them, you can't steal them or commit adultery with their wife, which incidentally is a good, in more ways than one.
      And the little known last commandment:
    11. Thou shalt not smoke.
      Fine print: Creator General's Warning: Smoking may cause lung cancer of emphysema, as well as pissing off your neighbor, who certainly won't covet you, because of your second hand smoke you unfeeling bastard.

    Point being, let me smoke in peace, or piss off to somewhere you won't be harrassed by us stationary smokers.

    Take a page from the book of Japan. While very poor on certain issues, their smoker's rights are strong like bull. People don't complain, and are very understanding about the whole smoking issue, and just avoid it if they can't stand it (and that's nigh impossible to do in the country of smoke).
     
  10. TheJarulf

    TheJarulf Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reason is not a concern about the ones smoking and their health. Nor can one complain that just because someone want to drink alcohol, they should have no right to complain about for example cigaret smoke. A


    Do your opinion on work safety and other regulations apply to all conditions to working or just passive smoking? Do you feel the same can be applied to other dangeours works? Can one skip all possible safety at any work and simply say, it the workers doesn't accept the high risk of dying due to no safety concerns, they can always take other work? If there are simple solutions ti improve peoples health and safety, it should be done in my opinion.

    But this is not a risk of the job. It has no connection to the serving or bartending or whatever to have cigarett smoke arround you. Some type of work are of course inherantly more dangeorous than others. One should of course try to remove as much danger as possible within reason. Not allowing smoking is a dead easy way that requires no other exxtra safety measures implemneted and so on. So why not do it? Due to the pleasure of others???




    So you claim that it is a HUGE difference if you get the smoke directly from the cigarett as oposed to get it "second hand"? Are you claiming that the smoke comming out from the cigarett is completely safe as long as it is not the one you specifically inhale? And that any dager components in the smoke is all filtered and contained in the lung so that nothing dagerous comes out there too, that all such smoke completely gets taken care of in the lungs?

    For anyone tossing out such a statement that something is ENTIERLY unproven, I can of course also toss out as many people stating it is COMPLTLY proven. All probably just tossing it out without any grounds, backup or facts to support it.

    EDIT: By the way, here in Sweden were such a a ban will start next month, there is a rather big study on the health of people working at bars and restaurants, were they have been tested now before the ban, including for example having analysers on them dueing work so wee how much exposure they get now to be able to correlate with the health data. more such analysis and tests will be done later to see changes in the health.
     
  11. Fallen Creation

    Fallen Creation IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Not when it violates the rights of businesses to set their own policy. Bars should not be forced to ban smoking just to make a bartender or waitress' job easier.

    Actually, if you work in a bar that allows smoking, then yes, it is a risk of the job.

    That's for the employer and employees to decide, by contract.

    No, due to the fact that private businesses, not government, is responsible for what happens inside its doors.

    If enough people hate smoking, a business will lose money if it does not accomodate those people and ban smoking inside its doors or provide specially ventilated smoking rooms. If enough people want to smoke, a business will have to allow smoking to make money from these patrons. Thus the free market is truly democracy at its finest. :thumbsup:
     
  12. Ankeli

    Ankeli IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    as you know (or dont know) they took the smoking ban in restaurants and bars to use some time ago in ireland.

    the bars are dropping like flies (ha-ha-ha) for their sales have gone down 15-60% within a year or so. sucks, i mean, if you cant smoke in a bar, then where? bars are made for beer, cigarettes, and smelly big men :eek:
    in restaurants i kinda understand this, though, they couldve still stuck to the partial smoking denial, having some parts of the restaurant for smokers, and the other for non-smokers.

    (and im not irish)

    edit: if you refer to it being a "danger" if you're a non smoker and work in a bar where you are allowed to smoke... lal. its a risk you're willing to take when you sign the contract, just as if you were in a construction yard where you accept the risk of something happening to you.
     
  13. Pierrot le Fou

    Pierrot le Fou IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    The concern people have is with their own health. If you are engaging in high-risk activities voluntarily, then why should you be so concerned with low-risk activities involuntarily in the interim? And if you ARE concerned with those low-risk activities, why would you be at the bar in the first place?

    It's hypocritical at the least, neurotic at worst.


    There is absolutely no good reason in the US to skip out on simple safety measures due to the risk of lawsuit. However, some risks come with every job that cannot be prevented easily, such as with lumber logging or coal-mining. While they can be prevented almost entirely, the cost would be oppressive in regards to the economic feasibility. There is a line that is drawn between cost-effectiveness and safety in EVERY line of work, some are just more pronounced than others.

    For instance, baseball players could wear full body armor, and have a full helmet covering their entire head which would greatly reduce the risk of injury due to a mis-thrown or hard-hit ball making contact with a player. However, it would also make the game pretty boring. Therefore helmets are mandatory for batters (an easy thing to do), while they are not required for the players in the field or runners. Body-armor on the other hand isn't allowed, because forcing players to wear it would be economic suicide as baseball would go down the crapper.

    It IS a risk of the job though. It has to do with the environment you're in. Would you say that the risk of gas explosions while mining coal is not actually a risk of working in a coal mine, which you have to do to mine coal anyway? To serve bar, you have to work in a bar, which is filled with second-hand smoke most of the time. It's a risk of the environment you work in.

    As I said before, each profession has a cost-benefit line in regards to safety. Since eliminating smoking from bars is a good way to kill profits, it could be viewed that making that sacrifice for safety is asking too much, like asking baseball players to be regulated to wear full-body armor to prevent injury.

    No, I am not trying to claim that second-hand smoke is entirely harmless. I've stated that the risk of second-hand smoke is entirely unproven period, which means it could go either way, it's just that we don't know yet. I do know, however, that I get a whole frickin' boatload more of the carcinogens into my lungs considering what the filter looks like after one cigarette, as opposed to the filter on a ventilation system in a room with smokers.

    I smoke in my girlfriend's house along with her father next to the stove fan. it has a filter on it surprisingly much like a cigarette filter. After smoking one cigarette, the filter on my smoke is entirely brown in the center. After the two of us smoking about 10 cigarettes in front of the stove fan (which sucks in the smoke, hence smoking in front of it), it has not visibly changed colour. In order for that stove fan to get to the filth of a cigarette filter, and it is also cooked under, takes several MONTHS.

    So I would say that it would be a safe bet that smoking a cigarette is hundreds if not thousands of times worse than being exposed to the second-hand smoke from one.

    But it ISN'T completely proven. That's the thing. All the studies have been biased so far, and there hasn't been any seriously conclusive evidence one way or another through all the studies that have been done. If you can show me a study with absolutely no bias which conclusively pins down the effects of second-hand smoke, please, show it to me.

    And it's being run by the government which instituted the ban in the first place. That doesn't strike me as unbiased. Once the study comes out, we can critique the data and the methods used to see if it actually has any meaning. In the meantime it remains unproven.
     
  14. Beowulf

    Beowulf IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Here in Quebec the law is changing on Jan 1 2006, it will then be against the law to smoke in any public plance like restaurants and bars. I have no problem with this, I hate comming back from a bar with red eyes and smilling like smoke.
     
  15. ADSL

    ADSL IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    There is nothing worse than being seated next to a smoker when you are out to a resturant.
    I would love such a ban in the country i live in.
     
  16. Pri]M[aL

    Pri]M[aL IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ditto.
    Non-smokers like me hate it, especially when we´re enjoying a meal.
    Sometimes the smell is enough to put us sick, especially on a empty stomach.
    If you want to smoke, do it in the bathroom or go outside with someone.
     
  17. 5Ws

    5Ws Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I personally support the ban. I can also see that smokers won't like it too much. But the fact of the matter is, the smoke is, to say the least unhealthy. If you want to screw up your lung, that's not my business, but if my lung is going to be endangered because of your action, then that's another story.
     
  18. myleftfoot

    myleftfoot IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,931
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165

    This is gonna become the norm in most places I would imagine. The pubs in Ireland deserve to take a hit, they've been ripping off the people for long enough.

    Also the argument about if you don't like it work elsewhere. Not all people have that option (alot of students) so this is where the government steps in to protect the people from the business (kinda like the industrial revolution). No pub/restaurant would become non-smoking if it didn't have to.
     
  19. DrunkCajun

    DrunkCajun Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    5,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not entirely sure where I fall on it, but I'm not dead-set against it, that's for sure. That said, I haven't heard a single argument in here that's even registered on my radar as anything other than BS.

    So because I go out for a hamburger and a Bud, I deserve to be exposed to smoke while I eat? Forget, for a moment, the fact that even when I smoked a pack a day, I couldn't stand the smell of cigarette smoke around when I wasx eating. Because I'm having a beer I deserve to be exposed to more risk? How does that work? Because that seems to be the BS argument coming from that quote that keeps getting pulled.

    What business of yours is it what I do at the bar or afterwards? It, unlike your smoking, has absolutely no impact on you. Beating my liver to hell doesn't affect your liver. Contracting herpes with that drop-dead gorgeous redhead I took home doesn't give you festering sores too, does it? Charring your lungs to ashes with your cigarettes may well affect my lungs too, however. So how does one justify the other? I think I missed that one.

    Furthermore, the argument that "workers should just find another job" is nonsense. By that justification, safety regulations should be tossed out the window. All of em. If we're going on free-market rules, let's not go half-assed. Balls to the wall and screw the workers. They can sell origami cranes on the sidewalk if they don't like their jobs. Right? I'm sure that'd be great for the economy.
     
  20. MixedVariety

    MixedVariety Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I occasionally smoke, and I'm glad of the smoking ban in public places here in Connecticut.

    I don't care about the legalities of it; it's a disgusting habit and shouldn't be foisted on other people who are trying to enjoy a meal or just some plain old regular air.

    You can't bring drinking and other things into it for comparison. None of those things have an effect on the smell and quality of the air people are trying to breathe. Cigarette smoke is revolting when it lingers in a room for too long, it sinks into clothing, furniture and hair, and is as disgusting to people as someone who constantly emits stinking butt-gas would be. How can it be wrong to ban such filth from a public place when there are options for someone to step outside and indulge their addiction?
     

Share This Page