Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is there a DU consensus on banning smoking in businesses?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
cattleman22 Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:29 PM
Original message
Is there a DU consensus on banning smoking in businesses?
The city I live in passed a ban on smoking in all businesses that are open to the public, except for stores that only cell cigarettes, cigars, etc. Among my acquaintances, I was surprised how some liberals supported the ban and other liberals were very opposed to the ban. Also some conservatives supported the ban and other conservatives were opposed. All of these people were non smokers.

Is there a consensus on DU about this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. I speak for all DUers.
They elected me last night to speak on this issue.

Smoking at work should be a government-subsidized habit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. A vast improvement on govt.-subsidized missiles.
Smoking kills much slower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. agreed...and employees smoke even more if
they wear synthetic fibres...especially once they really start burning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Sorry but I speak for all DUers and we support banning smoking. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't care, as long as I can carry my sidearm, in case some asshole 's
smoke gets in my eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nope...
it's a very divisive issue here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recovering democrat Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. one personal (minority) opinion
An opinion from a former smoker who not only can no longer handle smoking, medically, but honestly also cannot be around second-hand smoke without breathing problems - a serious health issue for me.

Some non-smokers are people like me who really have medical problems with second-hand smoke. Others would just rather be in a non-smoking environment. Others are obnoxious people regardless.

I am opposed to the banning of anything that individuals want to eat, drink, smoke, or put into their bodies any other way. I am in favor of regulating their ability to impose those activities on anyone else. Hence, regulating separation of smoking and non-smoking areas is fine with me, and any business that decides go ban smoking on its premises for health, insurance, maintenance or other logical reasons should not be required to let people smoke therein.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. The conundrum for an athsmatic working in a smoking section
As a waiter or waitress, there is not much difference between smoking
and non-smoking, and if you want to work the shift, quite commonly,
you have to work tables in both sections.

As long as the worker is protected from being forced to inhale second
hand smoke, and have their health impugned against their will, in order
to keep their job.

Frankly, i've no issue with smokers having a fag... as long as it ONLY
affects them and those who volunteer to inhale the results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recovering democrat Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. Agree with the worker rights
I really do have problems with places that divide between smoking and non-smoking sections. I agree strongly with dealing with not having to lose your job to avoid second hand smoke.

Worst time I had is a buffet restaurant where the place has a small non-smoking section on one side of the buffet line and a much larger smoking sction on the other side. The restrooms are in the back beyond the smoking section. Unfortunately, I had to go to the restroom and suffered for hours after I made the two trips (to and from) the restroom.

Lots of problems could be solved by a little common sense!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Zero smoke INSIDE business or goverment offices
if it is freezing outside that is not my problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. Smoking what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CornField Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm really sick of the government going after the users
If they want to make smoking illegal, why don't they just do it already?

BTW, I felt the exact same way about this issue when I was a smoker. The government taxes the hell out of them... business criminalize employees who smoke... health care plans and life insurance plans further demonize those who smoke... legislators point to smokers for increased childhood disease, unpaid medical bills, increased cancer and more.

I still hold the contention that if every smoker in the state was to quit on the same day, we could bankrupt several state programs (which have absolutely nothing to do with smoking, but benefit from the taxes).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AliciaKeyedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Smoke all you want
But not anywhere that I can breathe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Where I work the smokers aren't criminals, they just stand outside for
15 minutes, 7 times a day. How else can one screw off so much without anything being said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
52. it's always 'our' fault, isn't it?. Once we're hooked...
I agree that either the gov should shit or get off the pot (heh). Ban tobacco lobbying corporations, you gutless wonders, and don't make us smokers the bad guys when billions of dollars have been shoved in our faces with advertising for how many decades to make us what we are.

btw, I have no problem at all with no smoking areas.

another thing that is 'our' fault, among SO many faults we have... Ya didn't cook your hamburger enough!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pop goes the weasel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. I doubt it
I personally think it's a smart idea. I have asthma and allergies, and had to quit many jobs back in the day when smoking was allowed everywhere. And I certainly did not go out to restaurants and clubs because the cigarette smoke would be so thick in those places. But now, it's a whole 'nother story. I can work in a smoke-free environment, and I can can actually go out and about enjoying myself and spending money I never would have before. I think businesses should have their own bans without waiting for a local ordinance, but I understand why they hesitate unless everyone will have to have the same rule and they can tell their smoking customers to blame government and not them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. the campaign has been successfull. there is no other group
we can look at with more disdain. criminalize them. laugh at them when they die, feeling self righteous that though they died being hit by a bus, told them to stop that smoking. the evil sinner, the disgusting human, all of who this person is, is a smoker. everything else is irrelevent. and we as a society have the right now to dump on the smoker without a smigen of guilt or conscious.

like the dude who refused to wear a seat belt and then died in a car crash. that thread was about sick. bring joy to you?, this mans death. ah the self righteous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. Here in CA we don't even allow smoking in bars
and I certainly don't mind it. We also don't allow people to congregate around doors to smoke (because then the smoke blows inside and people have to breathe it on thier way into a business) but that rule gets broken a lot.

I have no desire to regulate acts that don't harm others (I'd be fine with a law like Florida's where those with sufficient insurance to cover thier own cranial splatterage can ride without motorcycle helmets, for example) but nobody should have to breathe the nasty shit that's in cigarette smoke. It's a public health issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I still can't figure out....
Why individual business can't make their own decisions about whether to allow, disallow, or segregate smoking.

I do think some ordinance should be made such that if they advertise a non-smoking area, it must either be the entire building, or completely separated by use of positive pressure.

That being said, why shouldn't people be allowed to own a bar, and allow smokers to frequent it (along with others who choose). If they find its not profitable, then it will close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. This is my thinking, as well
If you and your friends want to hang out in a non-smoking pub - fine. If you want to hang out in a smoking pub - also fine. Let the market decide.

I personally think the idea of banning smoking in bars is hypocritical - I mean, people are DRINKING in a bar, which is harmful, too. Kinda silly when you think about it.

But, I digress. I like allowing the business to choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. There's a difference
If you're allergic to alcohol it won't harm you for me to sit next to you and throw back a shot. The wait staff don't get liver cancer by proxy. If someplace allows smoking, I don't get the choice to go there or not. If I go, I might have an athsma attack. My cancer risk will go up a bit. I'll feel a bit ill from the smell.

Allowing smoking in public places takes chioces away form the majority and it makes it hard for people who are vulnerable to smoke (such as athsmatics) to go out in public.

Any right to smoke is superceded by the right to breath and the right of those with breathing problems (in a state with skyrocketing sthsma rates) to use public places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Owner/operators of bars
and those businesses with five or fewer employees who have health insurance and have agreed to allow smoking can let people smoke.In prqactice, the only places that allow it are dive bars, tobacconists and der Gropenfuhrer's smoking tent/super secret no-girls-allowed fort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Worker health
The core of the issue is worker health concerns.

It's not a "liberal vs. conservative" argument. It's "smoker vs. non-smoker."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cattleman22 Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. My position was in between a ban and leaving things as they were
I thought that businesses should either be all smoking or completely non smoking. That is the way that many restaurannts and bars had already gone. Thus if a person wanted to avoid smoke, they would not which places to avoid. And if a person wanted to smoke, they would know which places to go to.

I personally do not smoke and had no problem only going to places that already banned smoking. However, I saw no reason that I should force other business to accomodate me, when there were already places I could go to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. This makes a lot of sense to me, honestly
It also gives people options about where to WORK.

I'm not in the bar biz, but I do go to them. I am a smoker and I definitely prefer environments where I don't have to stop what I'm doing and go outside every two hours. I think I'm pretty good about not imposing it on people who don't want to be around it, I certainly respect that--I would never smoke in a non-smoker's house (like my parents') for example. But I will also certainly fight for smokers to have places of our own!

Where it is in Chicago, it's up to businesses themselves to decide if they want to allow smoking or not. Seems fine to me. It seems like pretty much all bars allow it, and about half of restaurants. I'm sure non-smoking bars could do good business--lots of people would LOVE to go, and to work there. I wish there were more. But bars in general would definitely lose business if smoking were banned altogether: they'd certainly lose most of mine. Why pay exorbitant drink prices AND have to stand outside? Not worth it! (The only exception is clubs with good live music, they'd still sucker me in sometimes.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandyky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
21. As a smoker and a DUer
I hate bans on smoking. We pay all these taxes on the cigarettes and about the only places we can smoke is home and in our cars.

Richmond, KY hasn't banned smoking yet, but Lexington has. It has hurt the bars and restaurants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. personally I find smoking disgusting
I prefer not to have to smell it when I am eating. Also I think there should be concern for the health of the workers who have to deal with it all the time.

It is vile, filthy and disgusting. I visit my parents' (my mom smokes) and my clothes (even though I wash them before I come home) absolutely reek of smoke. I cannot stand it and will not be around it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
25. Smoking bans in restaurants and bars hurt owners
If you want to make sections of restaurants smoke-free and require adequate ventilation systems, fine.

But bars? Leave them alone. It should be up to the owners to decide. Problem is of course, no smoking bars usually go out of business pretty fast.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Can you please prove that statement?
"no smoking bars usually go out of business pretty fast"

That is opposite of what seems to be happening in California and the Northeast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Gawd I hate people who say PROVE IT!
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 07:10 PM by LibInTexas
How about this. Don't pass a law. But open a bar and make it non-smoking. You'll be broke in 6 months.

In New York they're thinking about letting bars go back to smoking, simply because people are complaining about people smoking outside!

In Dallas, the smoking ban in restaurants caused several conventions to be canceled, restaurants to under, large loss of business in almost all others (20%-30% loss of business - Dallas Observer last week).
I personally know a restaurant owner who spent thousands of dollars putting in a ventilation system that would keep the air good for his non-smoking customers (and this was a place where a lot of cigar smokers lit up) and never had a complaint about smoke. The ban went in and he was gone in 6 months. The man had been in business for about 15 years or so. He's very bitter and blames it on the smoking law.

No, I'm not going to prove it, I don't have a bunch of websites to link for you, I don't feel like doing the research you could do.

Tell you what, prove to me otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. The 30% Myth
Restaurants in Beverly Hills, for example, are said to have lost 30 percent of their business during a smoking ban that became effective in 1987. The number has been quoted in The Los Angeles Times and Time magazine. It comes from a survey by the Beverly Hills Restaurant Association, a group organized by a public-affairs consultant named Rudy Cole. The survey asked restaurants how much business they thought they lost during the ban; it didn't attempt to quantify those losses using any sort of objective measure. "That was not a scientific survey," Cole admits.

http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake/fake_ctb.cfm



Bar revenues in California continued to increase after the smokefree bar law took effect in 1998 (dark blue line), three years after the smokefree restaurant provisions took effect in 1995 (light blue line).

http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake/fake_sdl.cfm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. These indexed for inflation?
That's SoCal, here in Dallas it's down. Surrounding burbs don't do this (ban), so people just go there.

Do you never go to New Orleans or Las Vegas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Inflation factored
Methodology explained here:

http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/ACFD.pdf

But I should tell you to do your own research. ;)

I was simply responding to your statement, which suggested revenue loss was a general rule. I also tried to find the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association's study, but even its official website carries no mention of the study. That's not saying they didn't commission one--I read the Observer and Morning News' stories--but I wonder why they haven't released it in a publically-available form. We can't even find out whether their study adjusted for inflation.

I've been to Vegas, but I go for the gambling, not the smoke. Never been to Nawlins, but I want to go for the food and the music, not the smoke.

A confession: I chew. And as nice as a dip is after a good meal or after a couple drinks, I don't consider it an infringement of my rights to not do it at the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Dallas Observer:
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 08:21 PM by LibInTexas
Maybe Brandt Wood has the answer: "It's knocked bar sales down 20 percent, which is massive," he says of the Dallas restaurant smoking ban. His company, the Entertainment Collaborative, operates the Green Room in Deep Ellum and Jeroboam downtown. "We aren't waiting for any apologies from the city, either." Actually, the damage might even be worse. According to sales reports from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, the Green Room's alcohol sales were off 51.5 percent while Jeroboam's were down 26.47 percent in the 12 months ending March 2004, compared with the previous 12 months. The smoking ban went into effect in March 2003.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-12-30/dish.ht...

To be quite honest, I'm a smoker (if you couldn't tell) and don't smoke at the table either. But I still think it is nutty not to be able to move to a smoking area (like the bar) and have a cigarette with a cup of coffee or an after dinner drink.

LV and NO are so wide open, it's like 30 years ago. People smoke in hotel hallways, and I don't agree with that either.

I suppose a universal ban is coming, but I won't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
double_helix Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. Good old fashioned federalism is the way to go with this one.
I agree with your opinion, leave nightclubs and bars alone. Restaurants are for a general/diverse customer base(famlilies, elderly, couples, etc) and should cater those needs. Night clubs/bars are for a specific group of customers (singles, young people, etc) who are looking for a good time (sex, alchohol, smoking, dancing, etc).

Of course, our subjective opinion may differ greatly from someone else's, which is why issues like these should be left up to communities - the people who actually frequent and work in the establishments; it is the only way to arrive at a more objective, reality based set of laws.

We Democrats, Independents and Republicans -- all Americans -- should think back to the classical liberal philosophy this country was founded on when wrestling with these tough, modern day issues.

Regulation should always be the last resort, not the first, and not on a whim. And even then, we should try to make it as federal/local as possible.

When thinking about these issues it's better to ask, "What if this was my vice being taken away? What if this was my way of life being compromised ?" Framing the question this way makes it much harder on us: instead of giving away someone else's rights, we are forced to think about giving away our own; it helps us think and proceed much more judiciously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
54. Hi double_helix!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
28. Smoking bans should not discriminate
My small town recently passed such a ban on smoking in public places such as restaurants, etc., on the basis of health concerns for employees. But it exempted places like bowling alleys and bars, because it was assumed those would be smoking venues.

People who work in bars and bowling alleys immediately raised the point that such exceptions send the message that the health and well-being of those who work in such places must not be worth the same as someone who works in a restaurant.

Good point. You ban smoking across the board, or you don't.

Sometimes laws do have some unintended consequences...value judgments one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
31. I oppose an outright ban, with a major qualifier
I believe the law should read that restaurants and bars must make a choice. They must either be smoking or non-smoking. Currently, if there's a "smoking section" and a "non-smoking section", then the entire establishment is just one big smoking section.

One or the other, but never both because an establishment cannot physically be both. I'll frequent the non-smoking establishments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I disagree
Restaurants (which is what most people are concerned with) can be built or retro-fitted so the non-smoking area is smoke free.

Usually though, owners don't want to spend the $.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I have never in my life experienced such a restaurant
Sorry, I've never seen the existance of any establishment that truly had a non-smoking section unless the entire establishment was non-smoking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. They exist
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 07:33 PM by wuushew
I was in a Denny's that was like that once. Maybe it is common only with large chain restaurants and not smaller businesses.


(On Edit)Also a Hooter's restaurant in the same city had a seperate smoking section with ventilation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. I don't think there will ever be anyplace that will make some people happy
There are places that do better jobs than others, it depends on how much the owners want to spend. Usually, they don't want to spend any more than they have to.

This is from a non-smoking site:
The new systems,he says, use almost hospital-grade particle-filtration systems that can remove viruses as well as the gas phase
of the cigarette smoke. He estimates that a good system, which includes fresh outdoor air, can remove as
much as 85 to 90 percent of the second-hand smoke. "It's kind of a leapfrog in technology."

Still, Mr. Roberts concedes that he can't make any health claims for the new systems. "Second-hand smoke is
significantly reduced," he says, but adds, "Any amount is not good."

And, as Mr. Finkboner of the Philadelphia task force found out, it's almost impossible to prevent cigarette
smoke from migrating. As people move through a bar, it clings to their clothes. As they walk from the bar to
the restaurant area, they drag the smoke with them. "You can reduce the amount, but never totally eliminate
it," he says. "And there are no studies on how much is acceptable."


Also this lengthy thing from a pro-smoking site:
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/Ventilation.htm...

Just depends pretty much on which side you're on.

I'm for letting the owners decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. The non-smoking section of a restaurant is like the non-peeing section
of a pool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JetCityLiberal Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Thank you merwin
exactly right. (and hilarious)

JetCityLiberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
37. tobacco companies are big-time Republican donors
The smokers ought to be interested in boycotting for political as well as health reasons.

A concensus at DU? Probably not, thank goodness. We are a BIG BIG tent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
45. Let's ban smoking altogether and then...
limit people's alcohol consumption. We could start by enforcing earlier closing hours for bars and clubs. 11:30 or Midnight should be about right. We could enforce a 3 drink maximum and require all beer, wine, and spirit makers to lessen their alcohol content. I think that will make us safer and healthier.

:eyes:

John
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Great Idea, Cascad...
Next, well put govenors on cars so they can't go over 50 mph.
Then filter's on all new computers to keep people from going to "bad" sites.
We also need need to get rid of all the dogs. (Then can bite and harm people, especially children.)
Oh, and those rotten noisy airplanes that fall out of the sky and crash into peoples houses...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. i want the suv's out, no one under 18 allowed to be a parent
and everyone has to be nice to each other
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. suv talking about endangering other peoples lives
in my car, with the hummers and suv's i cant even see lights. i have to get up towards a light and then stop and wait for the suv to get out of my view to see if the light is green or turned red yet. thinking this might endanger my health a little more on the spot, suddenly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cascadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. I am happy you saw the sarcasm in my words!
:D


eom


John


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
46. smoking issue is like talking to freepers about bush
"Secondhand smoke stinks - but is it killing people? There was a study of the wives of the smokers - they have crummy health habits. They eat terrible diets of meat and fat, they don't get any exercise, but when they show up with worse health statistics, it's blamed on secondhand smoke, not on all the other factors.

"We don't even know how cigarettes affect us. We don't know what causes cancer. We don't know what causes the increase in heart disease. It's not nicotine - nicotine gum actually helps heart disease patients. Carbon monoxide? Well, any kind of smoke has a lot of carbon monoxide - that's a possibility - but carbon monoxide has a temporary effect; it blocks the oxygen linking to your hemoglobin, then you take a breath of fresh air and it goes away.

"Is that the cause of chronic problems in smokers? We don't know - now we're into secondhand smoke when we don't even know what firsthand smoke does. I think we're becoming a really, really neurotic, fearful people, and politicians and the media love it and know how to feed that monster."

http://www.nycclash.com/health_alerts.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
50. Smoking in bars should be permitted!
C'mon gimme a fucking break there!
The world should not be completely smoke free!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Not the world.....just workplaces
your house is still your castle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
55. Not at all. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
56. I hate the government getting involved
in personal choices and the choices business people are forced to make. I think the smoking and non-smoking in restaurants is good. I think no smoking in bars is silly.

I hate being told what to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
57. Since smoking is legal, it should be allowed in bars and restaurants
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 10:14 AM by SmokingJacket
and other places no one HAS to go into, but...

They should have signs outside saying "smoking allowed" and you should know that this is a smoking establishment before you apply for a job there. Frankly, I think for most places allowing smoking would be a bad business decision.

I loathe the smell of smoke and am happy that a local coffee shop had to quit allowing smokers (now I can enjoy their cinnamon buns)... but as long as it's legal, I believe it should be allowed in places that are *voluntary* to enter.

Not the DMV, for example.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC