Eat and breath

[Joe Guy]

That's like saying I can't blame a terrorist for my injuries if he releases sarin gas in my presence.

You certainly couldn't if before you walked in there was a sign posted on the door that said, "SARIN GAS RELEASE PERMITTED HERE"

LJ is right, of course.

You're talking about the government making restaurants and bars tolerable for people just like yourself even if the owners would prefer to give their patrons a choice as to running a smoking or non-smoking (pro-choice) establishment.

If you're worried about the health effects of smoking then you should be equally concerned about the health effects of high fat and otherwise unhealthy food that restaurants serve.

You must also believe that the government should only allow strictly regulated nutritional foods to be served.

But remember, that waiter is not a nutritionist.

He's in it for the tips, not to warn you of the health effects of the cheese fondue or lovely haggis that he is delivering to your table.

[Big RR]

I agree Jim; and if someone is injured and later tries to sue the bar saying the warning was not adequate, well they can try. My guess is they'll lose.

[Scooter]

If you're worried about the health effects of smoking then you should be equally concerned about the health effects of high fat and otherwise unhealthy food that restaurants serve..

I can control what I put in my own mouth. I cannot control what someone else chooses to blow in my face.

I suspect most folks will be able to figure out that "smoking permitted" means, well, "smoking permitted"....

I'm sure there will be plenty of bars that will cater to the Adrian Monk type hypochondriacs as well....

So your answer is yes, bars and restaurants should be able to serve food laced with E. coli and operate without proper fire exits,

or

no, bars and restaurants should not be able to serve food laced with E. coli nor operate without proper fire exits?

[Joe Guy]

I can control what I put in my own mouth. I cannot control what someone else chooses to blow in my face.

You can choose to only go to places where people are not smoking.

Smoking should not be outlawed everywhere just because you might show up at one of those places that would allow smoking if they could.

The world does not revolve around those angel-like & polite non-smokers who never do anything to upset other people.

btw - ftr - I don't smoke.

[Scooter]

So what other poisonous substances should be allowed in places where the public is invited to gather?

Cyanide gas?

Ebola?

Zyklon-B?

What if someone has no other choice but to work in one of those establishments to earn a living? To hell with all employee health and safety legislation ensuring them a safe workplace in which to earn their bread?

[Joe Guy]

What if someone has no other choice but to work in one of those establishments to earn a living? To hell with all employee health and safety legislation ensuring them a safe workplace in which to earn their bread?

I wasn't aware that people were actually forced to work in bars where smoking was allowed when smoking was allowed in them.

I suppose bartenders could have asked for an employer to supply oxygen masks if they really wanted to work in that environment and felt that it was unhealthy.

But why would anyone choose to work in that environment if they thought it was unhealthy?

Also, I'd be interested in seeing statistics regarding how many bartenders ended up getting emphysema and dying from working at their jobs.

[Scooter]

I wasn't aware that people were actually forced to work in bars where smoking was allowed when smoking was allowed in them.

People do what they need to do in order to put food on the table for themselves and their kids.

But why would anyone choose to work in that environment if they thought it was unhealthy?

Maybe because (depending on where they live) the unemployment rate is now almost 15%?

Why did people in West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. work in coal mines when they knew it would give them black lung? Because they decided it was an easier path to success than medical school or a job on Wall Street? Or because there was no other realistic choice?

[Andrew D]

I suppose we could also give people the choice if they wish to patronize bars/restaurants without proper fire exits or that serve food contaminated with E. Coli or which permit their employees to spit in drinks before they serve them.

So what other poisonous substances should be allowed in places where the public is invited to gather?

Cyanide gas?

Ebola?

Zyklon-B?

In the U.S., there are tens of millions of people who would like to patronize bars and restaurants that permit smoking.

When Scooter can produce reliable estimates of how many people would like to patronize bars and restaurants (a) without proper fire exits, (b) which serve E-coli-contaminated food, (c) which permit employees to spit in customers' drinks, and/or (d) where there is cyanide gas or ebola or Zyklon-B, his argument will merit being taken seriously.

Until then, it is just silly.

[Scooter]

Argument from popularity.

[Andrew D]

Considering that the question is decided either by popular vote or by the votes of popularly elected representatives, that should hardly be surprising.

The question is whether the tens of millions of people who want to patronize bars and restaurants which permit smoking should be allowed to do so. Your pseudo-comparisons of that question to questions about whether people should be permitted to do things that no one wants to do anyway are circumambagious paralogisms.

[Lord Jim]

I'm trying to remember the last time I was in a bar where the bartender wasn't a smoker....

I'll get back to you when I can recall when it was....

[Scooter]

The question is whether the tens of millions of people who want to patronize bars and restaurants which permit smoking should be allowed to do so.

I am sure you could find tens of millions of people (mainly Republicans) who are prepared to see the lives of workers endangered so they are able to buy the products or services they want. I would never have thought to count you among them.

[Big RR]

Scooter--What about the people working in gas stations and exposed to gas fumes, or bus drivers who breath in toxic fumes while driving through tunnels, or airport workers who breath in the byprodcts of jet fuel combustion, or farmers who are exposed to fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, etc? Where is your concern for them?

And FWIW, if second hand smoke is really that much of a danger (and I don't want to get into that in this thread), then the establishments could give bartenders, waitresses, and other employees some sort of masks if they wanted them. And if smoking establishments notice that nonsmoking ones will attract the most qualified workers and if so many people want to go there they would based on the amount of work alone), they could always choose to change to nonsmoking themselves.

[Jarlaxle]

Indeed CP, and plenty of other dangerous things in the atmosphere going to and from the restaurant; why pick on tobacco smoke? Personally, I'm all for letting every establishment decide for itself--if that many people care and take their business away from places that allow smoking, no place will allow it. Wonder why those who dislike/hate smoking are against that. No one has to go to a particular restaurant.

Because they are, by and large, simply closet fascists. (We have a couple posting here, in fact.) They care not at all for the rights of anyone but themselves, and by God, their way is the One True Way! It really is that simple.

[Jarlaxle]

Ok, lets compromise (and then have a group hug).

Restaurants/bars/cafes/pubs etc should be allowed to be smoking or non smoking, as long as they clearly state on the building and all advertisements which they are.

Works for me. Heck, that's how it usually was before the smoking-Nazis went bananas around here.

[Jarlaxle]

But if you complained to a smoker about his cigarette he might punch you in the nose.

I wouldn't have to complain to the smoker if smoking wasn't permitted.

And you have the option to not patronize an establishment where smoking is allowed, so you can't blame a smoker for your health problems.

That's like saying I can't blame a terrorist for my injuries if he releases sarin gas in my presence.

That might be the single most breathtaking example of absurd idiocy (or would that be idiotic absurdity?) I have seen in a long time.

[Andrew D]

The question is whether the tens of millions of people who want to patronize bars and restaurants which permit smoking should be allowed to do so.

I am sure you could find tens of millions of people (mainly Republicans) who are prepared to see the lives of workers endangered so they are able to buy the products or services they want. I would never have thought to count you among them.

Another false comparison. The people to whom you refer are not willing to endanger themselves. People who want to patronize bars and restaurants which permit smoking are willing to endanger themselves.

As for the employees, they can work elsewhere. After all, given popular preferences, most restaurants would prohibit smoking even if they are not required to, so there would be a greater likelihood of employment in non-smoking restaurants anyway. The proportions might well be different for bars, but there would still be plenty that prohibited smoking.

(And in towns so tiny as to have only one or two bars and/or restaurants, at least in California, the smoking ban is simply not enforced.)

One of the advantages under California's smoking ban is that, because it is dressed up as a protection for employees,[sup]1[/sup], it applies only to bars and restaurants that have employees. A mom-and-pop operation is still free to permit smoking.[sup]2[/sup] Which leaves it up to you to decide whether to patronize that establishment or some other -- exactly as should be.

-------------------------

1. A complete canard, of course. When San Francisco enacted its smoking ban -- before it was preempted by California's -- it prohibited smoking in tobacco shops. What person who does not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke would seek employment in a tobacco shop? It's all about nanny-staters who want to drive smokers to quit.

2. I've been to one bar/restaurant that found another way to cater to its customers' preference for allowing smoking: It offered its employees the opportunity to become partners; they all snapped it up, and business thrived.

[Scooter]

As for the employees, they can work elsewhere.

Sure, because there is a countrywide labour shortage for those with little education and few skills.

I never would have expected this. That Andrew of all people would in essence be saying "let them eat cake" to workers exposed to unsafe workplace conditions. Should that also apply to all those who got black lung working in coal mines, or asbetosis, or sawmill workers who lost digits or limbs due to their employer's disregard for their safety, or does it only apply to someone who had no choice but to work double shifts in a smoke-filled bar to be able to afford diapers for her kid?

[Scooter]

That might be the single most breathtaking example of absurd idiocy (or would that be idiotic absurdity?) I have seen in a long time.

The idiocy lies squarely with those who are advocating that a business has some sort of god-given right to poison its employees and customers.

[Scooter]

Scooter--What about the people working in gas stations and exposed to gas fumes, or bus drivers who breath in toxic fumes while driving through tunnels, or airport workers who breath in the byprodcts of jet fuel combustion, or farmers who are exposed to fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, etc? Where is your concern for them?

The EPA has data on thousands of hazardous chemicals, whether there is a safe level of exposure to them, etc., and if standards are being violated for any of them, or if there is data to demonstrate that existing standards are too lax, then those situations should be addressed.

I find it absolutely incredible, for example, that in this day and age the incidence of black lung is once again increasing. Why are mines that permit their employees to continue to be injured in that fashion still allowed to operate?

And FWIW, if second hand smoke is really that much of a danger (and I don't want to get into that in this thread), then the establishments could give bartenders, waitresses, and other employees some sort of masks if they wanted them.

Sure. A service employee who relies on his or her ability to be social with the customers, in order to make tips upon which he or she depends for survival, is going to work his or her shifts wearing a mask.

And if smoking establishments notice that nonsmoking ones will attract the most qualified workers and if so many people want to go there they would based on the amount of work alone), they could always choose to change to nonsmoking themselves.

Too bad about those less qualified workers who then really will not have any choice but to work in a smoking establishment, I guess.