Government Control of Smoking in Bars and Restaurants

[Sylvus]

With each day, it appears that Michigan is moving closer and closer to being one of the states that bans smoking in bars and restaurants, and the bill that the Senate approved last week will even include veterans halls, bingo rooms, and the big casinos in Detroit. Casinos on tribal lands will not be affected. I think the ban will even include cigar bars, which makes very little sense to me. I'd think that you're now effectively shutting down all existing cigar bars, as who is going to want to go to one just so they can buy a cigar and smoke it at home.

I think I already know the answer that this poll will yield, but let's give it a go. Should the government make these laws, or should patrons and staff have the choice to decide if they want to visit/work at an establishment that allows smoking?

I think that the free market should decide. There are already over 3500 bars and restaurants in Michigan that are smoke free, by the decision of the people that own those establishments. If it makes good business sense, don't allow smoking. If a place allows smoking and you don't like it, don't work there.

I understand that many people do not like smoke, and would rather not be in a place that is smoky, but that's not really what I'm getting at with this poll. Do you think that it's an overreach by the government to limit the choice of patrons/employees/business owners and say that no one is allowed to smoke anywhere?

[Funkmasterr]

I am a non smoker and I think the government has no damn business sticking their noses in this.

Seeing how things have worked here in MN since the ban has annoyed me. Small bars are struggling to stay open (even though people said that wouldn't be the case), and the number of people that go out to bars has dropped considerably.

There was a loophole found here in MN that the government hasn't slammed shut yet, the establishment can put on a "performance" which could be something as simple as a karaoke night, and that allows the people "performing" to smoke.. They are being fined for doing this, but the business it brings them outweighs the fine by so much that they don't care, and continue to do it.

I think that it would be better if the state just stuck with the "if over 50% of your business is from alcohol, there can be smoking" rule, it is much more reasonable.
The reason I say this is simple: If you can look me in the face and say you don't want people to smoke in the bar you are in for health reasons, yet you are going there to drink alcohol and wreck your liver - you are a fucking retard on a HUGE scale.

If you are so concerned about the smoke, go to a RESTAURANT where you belong.

[Animale]

The health reason isn't to protect the consumer, it's to protect the worker. In a way this is ultimately an OSHA issue. Maybe if an establishment is 100% owner operated, then smoking can be allowed... but if one has employees then it is not? Or perhaps make a smoking establishment carry some form of additional workman's com insurance that follows the workers after they leave the establishment to help with future medical costs due to working in a smoke-filled environment.

Animale

[Fash]

Terrible politics and quite unconstitutional.

Scranton, the city I work in, tried to implement a ban (illegally) and started fining people and bars. It was promptly over-turned when a diner customer who was given a $300 fine sued the city.

Since overturned, 2 bars remained non-smoking, by choice. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Each business decides for themselves, based on their preferences and the preferences of their clientele. The one bar is my favorite, and I have no problem going outside to smoke every now and then. It makes me smoke less, and everything smells and looks better inside.

The government does not have the right to restrict legal activity on private property against the wishes of the property owner.

[Funkmasterr]

The health reason isn't to protect the consumer, it's to protect the worker. In a way this is ultimately an OSHA issue. Maybe if an establishment is 100% owner operated, then smoking can be allowed... but if one has employees then it is not? Or perhaps make a smoking establishment carry some form of additional workman's com insurance that follows the workers after they leave the establishment to help with future medical costs due to working in a smoke-filled environment.

Animale

Or if the workers are so concerned, they can choose to go elsewhere just like the customers. There are plenty of people that don't mind working in said environment.

[Funkmasterr]

Terrible politics and quite unconstitutional.

Scranton, the city I work in, tried to implement a ban (illegally) and started fining people and bars. It was promptly over-turned when a diner customer who was given a $300 fine sued the city.

Since overturned, 2 bars remained non-smoking, by choice. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Each business decides for themselves, based on their preferences and the preferences of their clientele. The one bar is my favorite, and I have no problem going outside to smoke every now and then. It makes me smoke less, and everything smells and looks better inside.

The government does not have the right to restrict legal activity on private property against the wishes of the property owner.

You work in the city from The Office? That sir, is hilarious!

[Fairweather Pure]

The health reason isn't to protect the consumer, it's to protect the worker. In a way this is ultimately an OSHA issue. Maybe if an establishment is 100% owner operated, then smoking can be allowed... but if one has employees then it is not? Or perhaps make a smoking establishment carry some form of additional workman's com insurance that follows the workers after they leave the establishment to help with future medical costs due to working in a smoke-filled environment.

Animale

That's actually a good argument. I never thought about it that way.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If you don't want to work in a bar that allows smoking, then don't.

[Ashur]

I voted the government has no business banning smoking in bars, but I agree that a premium or penalty for medicare (worker's comp doesn't seem the right place for this future risk to be funded) sounds reasonable.

[Boogahz]

It has been going on here in Austin for almost two years now. It is hard to say what actual impact it has had, mainly due to the fact that people still smoke in them. They just hide it, or they chuckle at the half-hearted requests from bar owners/employees that they stop. The "loophole" being used here is that the bars are not providing things to promote the smoking, and they are asking the customer not to do so. Also, the way that the law is written here, there is no way for the bar to enforce the no-smoking ordinances and protect themselves from lawsuits if they did so. I used to work in clubs, and the employees smoked almost as much as the customers. Granted, not every employee did this, but non-smokers also did not continue working there as long.

[Fairweather Pure]

I voted the government has no business banning smoking in bars, but I agree that a premium or penalty for medicare (worker's comp doesn't seem the right place for this future risk to be funded) sounds reasonable.

I would support a Medicare penalty on all smokers, and they need to continue to increase insurance premiums for smokers too.

I voted as a non-smoker, but the government needs to keep it's nose out of it. When it comes to the government "making" you be more healthy, the slippery slope was started down long ago. It makes you wonder what will be next...

[Xatrei]

Smoking fouls the air and, more importantly, is a health hazard for everyone, not just the smoker. It shouldn't be allowed indoors at any public venue, and I have no problem with laws prohibiting it, whether for the benefit of other patrons or the employees of the establishment. I would strongly oppose laws prohibiting smoking in privately owned detached homes, but regulating multi-unit apartments or condos to require separate ventilation systems so that no smoky air invades a nonsmoker's place would be OK by me. I also don't have a real problem with smoking in outdoor areas, although a few restrictions on this (e.g. no smoking in lines, outdoor sporting events, etc. - basically any kind of crowd situation) would be acceptable. Parents that subject their children to their second hand smoke should be kicked in the face repeatedly.

I also think that smokers, along with all others who choose to engage in demonstrably unhealthy behaviors, should pay higher health premiums.

I'm a former 2.5 pack a day smoker, and I quit 12 years ago.

You work in the city from The Office? That sir, is hilarious!

That's a funny observation for a guy that works in the city from The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

[Animalor]

This has already happened here in Ottawa and it hasn't affected businesses anywhere near the level that owners were complaining about when they were talking about it.

If anything, the only casualty of the smoking ban here in town was a bingo hall.

[Funkmasterr]

You work in the city from The Office? That sir, is hilarious!

That's a funny observation for a guy that works in the city from The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Touche!

There is a silly statue of her throwing her hat up a few blocks from where I work, and it always reminds me of how much I didn't like that show

[miir]

It's a fucking awesome idea.
Same as smoking in a car or a house with children in it... fine the fuck out moron parents who smoke around children in an enclosed area.

[laneela]

You'll get used to it, mp. =\ I got so pissed off when it first happened in FL and now I can't remember why I ever found the need to smoke at a restaurant. Clubs and bars can and will find a way around it. I have yet to find a bar I like in Miami that doesn't allow smoking.

[miir]

I have yet to find a bar I like in Miami that doesn't allow smoking.

The exact opposite would be true in Toronto... and I can't stress how nice it is to come home from a club and not smell like an ashtray.

[Sylvus]

Same as smoking in a car or a house with children in it... fine the fuck out moron parents who smoke around children in an enclosed area.

I'm actually all for that. Someone brought that up on the radio this morning, that there are tickets/fines in California for smoking in a car that has a child in it. I agree with that because it's protecting a child that doesn't really have a say in the matter. But in bars, where people go to ultimately engage in unhealthy activities, I think it should be up to the business owner.

The "safety of the workers" argument doesn't really gibe with me since they are adults who are free to not work somewhere that may have health risks. I don't work in a coal mine, remove asbestos, give x-rays, or work on one of those Deadliest Catch crab boats in the Bering Sea because I don't want to. I don't usually eat at restaurants that cater to vegetarians because I'm not really interested in that. I don't often go to places that are "family-oriented" because screaming or crying children annoy the shit out of me.

The government allows people to work in hazardous or unhealthy jobs and choose to visit places based on whether or not they like, are indifferent to, or actively dislike said place. If I want to go to Jim's House of Foul, Unhealthy Air and Spirits, I should be allowed to.

[Funkmasterr]

Same as smoking in a car or a house with children in it... fine the fuck out moron parents who smoke around children in an enclosed area.

I'm actually all for that. Someone brought that up on the radio this morning, that there are tickets/fines in California for smoking in a car that has a child in it. I agree with that because it's protecting a child that doesn't really have a say in the matter. But in bars, where people go to ultimately engage in unhealthy activities, I think it should be up to the business owner.

The "safety of the workers" argument doesn't really gibe with me since they are adults who are free to not work somewhere that may have health risks. I don't work in a coal mine, remove asbestos, give x-rays, or work on one of those Deadliest Catch crab boats in the Bering Sea because I don't want to. I don't usually eat at restaurants that cater to vegetarians because I'm not really interested in that. I don't often go to places that are "family-oriented" because screaming or crying children annoy the shit out of me.

The government allows people to work in hazardous or unhealthy jobs and choose to visit places based on whether or not they like, are indifferent to, or actively dislike said place. If I want to go to Jim's House of Foul, Unhealthy Air and Spirits, I should be allowed to.

Well said, sir. Well said.

[Noysyrump]

Closest smoking section for me, is in Vegas.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

If you can find a way to make smoke not travel to a non-smoking section then puff away. I would think they have these laws for the same reason they don;t have asbestos and non-asbestos areas in bars and buildings.....it is unpractical and stupid to allow a group of selfish pricks to endanger the lives of other people who choose not to smoke. If you can't haul your slovenly lazy asses 50 feet to the outdoors so you can foul your lungs without fouling everyone else's, then fuck you.

I guess a lot of you assholes have not had to watch someone actually die from lung cancer....especially when said person was a non-smoker that worked in the schools before they banned smoking in their teacher lounges. It is a touchy spot with me and if you light up on me in a place where it is banned they won't have to worry about fines....I will extinguish it for you happily, free of charge.

[Funkmasterr]

If you can find a way to make smoke not travel to a non-smoking section then puff away. I would think they have these laws for the same reason they don;t have asbestos and non-asbestos areas in bars and buildings.....it is unpractical and stupid to allow a group of selfish pricks to endanger the lives of other people who choose not to smoke. If you can't haul your slovenly lazy asses 50 feet to the outdoors so you can foul your lungs without fouling everyone else's, then fuck you.

I guess a lot of you assholes have not had to watch someone actually die from lung cancer....especially when said person was a non-smoker that worked in the schools before they banned smoking in their teacher lounges. It is a touchy spot with me and if you light up on me in a place where it is banned they won't have to worry about fines....I will extinguish it for you happily, free of charge.

If you happen to live in the fine state of MN, going outside to smoke isn't as easy as you make it sound for about 9 months out of the year. Most people don't want to stand outside to smoke when it is 10 degrees below zero, and I don't blame them for a second.

I have had plenty of family members die of cancer, but it all boils down to personal choice. Again, if you are at a bar drinking you have zero (0, none, zero, zilch, nada) business whining about health related issues, period. Go sit at Applebee's if you want to have some dinner and chat in a non smoking environment.

[Fash]

I guess a lot of you assholes have not had to watch someone actually die from lung cancer....especially when said person was a non-smoker that worked in the schools before they banned smoking in their teacher lounges.

Guess what? People get lung cancer! It's not always related to smoking! This should be obvious...

[Sabek]

I also think that smokers, along with all others who choose to engage in demonstrably unhealthy behaviors, should pay higher health premiums.

At the company I work for you do pay higher health insurance premiums for smoking.

Also for all the people saying the government shouldn't get involved, I dont know how it is working in the other states but in Ohio it was an issue put on the ballot. More people wanted the ban than did not want the ban. I don't see that as the government as much as people were sick of smoke filled eating establishments.

If the smokers didn't want it passed they should have gotten more people addicted to smoking and have them vote it down.

[Funkmasterr]

Guess what? People get lung cancer! It's not always related to smoking! This should be obvious...

This raises another good point.. From what I understand, you either have the cancer cells or you don't. If you do, choices you make throughout your life may or may not help make them become active. I know that's oversimplifying it, but I also know that many people have a misconception of how it really works.

[Winnow]

The health reason isn't to protect the consumer, it's to protect the worker. In a way this is ultimately an OSHA issue. Maybe if an establishment is 100% owner operated, then smoking can be allowed... but if one has employees then it is not? Or perhaps make a smoking establishment carry some form of additional workman's com insurance that follows the workers after they leave the establishment to help with future medical costs due to working in a smoke-filled environment.

Animale

Animale echo's my take on this. Arizona has been pretty much smoke free for awhile now and it's been great. Smokers know damn well it comes down to their nicotine addiction as there are no positives from smoking and plenty of valid reasons to avoid it. While I'm all for legalizing marijuana, I'd want the same restrictions placed on it as well. There are pot brownies. How about nicotine addicts start chowing down nicotine brownies and be done with it.

Easy to break down smoking:

-it's a habit (replace it with something else you can suck on)
-like the yellow teeth and fingers (plenty of other things that can stain your teeth)
-like the smell of smoke in clothing, cars (don't shower for a week at a time and you'll smell things up)
-it's cool (no it's not. that died with black and white movies)
-you're addicted to nicotine. (winner!) People realize they're addicted, but like most things addicting, it's hard to stop. An addicton in itself isn't a big deal but this one pesters others like no other so rules must be enforced to keep the addiction from harming people simply wanting to enjoy their city. If second hand smoke wasn't so annoying (smelly, harmful, lingering smell , cigarette butts all over the highways) people wouldn't care.

The bars in AZ are doing just fine so smokers aren't going to win this battle.

[cadalano]

This raises another good point.. From what I understand, you either have the cancer cells or you don't. If you do, choices you make throughout your life may or may not help make them become active. I know that's oversimplifying it, but I also know that many people have a misconception of how it really works.

wow are you a professor? do you do lectures?

[Sylvus]

If you can find a way to make smoke not travel to a non-smoking section then puff away. I would think they have these laws for the same reason they don;t have asbestos and non-asbestos areas in bars and buildings.....it is unpractical and stupid to allow a group of selfish pricks to endanger the lives of other people who choose not to smoke. If you can't haul your slovenly lazy asses 50 feet to the outdoors so you can foul your lungs without fouling everyone else's, then fuck you.

I've been to countless restaurants that allow smoking in one section and it's not at all smoky in the non-smoking. If it is, they should buy more air filters or improve ventilation, and should be required to do so by law. But the point is that there are plenty of places that do not allow smoking, by choice. I'm asking if it's wrong for the government to make it illegal for a place to allow smoking. It sounds like you think it's not wrong. I think that's bullshit. A place should be required to have a sign on their door that says "We allow smoking. Breathers beware.", and if it's that important for you to avoid that place, you don't have to enter. Shit, sell "smoker licenses" like they do liquor licenses, and only let certain places allow smoking. When I feel like having a glass of scotch and a cigar, you'll know where to find me.

Like Funk said (whoa, first time for everything!) it's more of a not wanting to smoke outside in the winter in Michigan (read: most of the year) than a laziness issue. In the summer, I have no problem stepping outside. In the winter, I have no problem moving from the non-smoky non-smoking section over to the bar where I can have a smoke and then go back to my table. Going outside in sub-zero temperatures also poses health risks!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The government has set many a precedent by making things illegal to use or sell that are known to cause health hazards. So do you think they should let anyone do as they please because everyone has a choice? Should business owners be able to choose to build their places with much cheaper materials that could then collapse and kill you? Or could they use materials that are cheaper but have health hazards associated with them? Of course they can't...but they would if allowed...hence the gubment stepping in.

It gets cold here in Ohio too...hell I don;t want to go to work in the shit and truly I do not feel bad for any of you that chooses to smoke and has to go outside. Last I checked, the human body did not need tar or nicotine to survive.

[cadalano]

I guess a lot of you assholes have not had to watch someone actually die from lung cancer....especially when said person was a non-smoker that worked in the schools before they banned smoking in their teacher lounges.

Guess what? People get lung cancer! It's not always related to smoking! This should be obvious...

we're talking about increasing the risk of causing people to die. what should be obvious to any rational human being is that the amount of lives ruined, be it few or many, is entirely irrelevant to anyone's convenience.

[Nick]

But by that logic then cars should be banned. . .

[Animale]

This raises another good point.. From what I understand, you either have the cancer cells or you don't. If you do, choices you make throughout your life may or may not help make them become active. I know that's oversimplifying it, but I also know that many people have a misconception of how it really works.

You are so wrong on this it's actually pretty funny Funk. Cancer typically begins as a mutation that takes out the cellular apoptotic response. More mutations then add on and it eventually becomes malignant due to an accumulation of mutations. The presence of many chemicals increase the mutation rate, thus increasing the likelihood of getting one that hinders of stops the apoptotic response.

Go read about cell and/or cancer biology before spouting off bullshit.

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

This raises another good point.. From what I understand, you either have the cancer cells or you don't. If you do, choices you make throughout your life may or may not help make them become active. I know that's oversimplifying it, but I also know that many people have a misconception of how it really works.

You are so wrong on this it's actually pretty funny Funk. Cancer typically begins as a mutation that takes out the cellular apoptotic response. More mutations then add on and it eventually becomes malignant due to an accumulation of mutations. The presence of many chemicals increase the mutation rate, thus increasing the likelihood of getting one that hinders of stops the apoptotic response.

Go read about cell and/or cancer biology before spouting off bullshit.

Animale

I wasn't spouting off bullshit, I was recollecting what I could what someone had told me, and whose words/opinions I trust more, and hold more highly than I will ever hold yours. That about clear it up for you?

I am gonna guess what you are saying above is just about as valid as your fucking obnoxious, inaccurate, bullshit ramblings on other scientific topics until you can link proof from a group of scientists that bush has had over to his house for drinks.

[Nick]

Um..No... you were spouting off bullshit.

Maybe you should listen to a scientist instead of some anonymous moron, but hey Funk, why change the habit of a lifetime?

You're really going to embarrass yourself if you really want to go down this route. Also, your idiotic ranting versus basic scientific finding is not a debate, you're mistaken to even think you're opinion is serious enough to warrant one. It's not other people's job to educate you, go read a book. thanks.

[Funkmasterr]

Um..No... you were spouting off bullshit.

Maybe you should listen to a scientist instead of some anonymous moron, but hey Funk, why change the habit of a lifetime?

You're really going to embarrass yourself if you really want to go down this route. Also, it's not other people's job to educate you, you lazy fool, go read a book.

What I was told about cancer, was explained to by someone who works in a lab testing cancer amongst many other things, day in and day out.

[cadalano]

you already made up the shit you said about cancer, why the fuck wouldnt you make up this Nobel Prize winning friend of yours?

[Nick]

Um..No... you were spouting off bullshit.

Maybe you should listen to a scientist instead of some anonymous moron, but hey Funk, why change the habit of a lifetime?

You're really going to embarrass yourself if you really want to go down this route. Also, it's not other people's job to educate you, you lazy fool, go read a book.

What I was told about cancer, was explained to by someone who works in a lab testing cancer amongst many other things, day in and day out.

You're wrong, get over it and shut the fuck up. No one cares about your imaginary friends.

[cadalano]

But by that logic then cars should be banned. . .

guessing youre referring to me


banning is one thing, regulating is what we're talking about, though. i dont know about the merry old land of Ire, but we have a lot of regulations on vehicles in ways they are dangerous. emissions regulations.. traffic rules.. safety standards.. licensing. the purpose of which is to bring the level of danger down to an acceptable level- considering that they are important to society, even though they are inherently dangerous.

to put it another way, you have to remember the fact that cars are necessary for many people, and CERTAINLY necessary for civilized life... while smoking at best is a luxury. why should the public be contented with any danger at all from something that is another person's personal vice?

[Nick]

The logic that people in danger of dying should be protected at all costs, simply does apply to cars, because cars can be crashed into humans. It could be pretty easily argued that cars are a luxury. But yeah, Yeah, I was pretty much being facetious for the sake of it.

Nobody really gave a shit about this sort of thing ten years ago. Still, ultimately I understand why non smokers don't want to sit in bars with smokers. I do however find the whole trend a bit mollycoddlish.

[cadalano]

i figured that the argument would come up that all cars are a luxury and edited my shit, apparently after you read it and responded:

"the purpose of [the regulations] is to bring the level of danger down to an acceptable level- considering that they are important to society, even though they are inherently dangerous.

to put it another way, you have to remember the fact that cars are necessary for many people, and CERTAINLY necessary for civilized life... while smoking at best is a luxury. why should the public be contented with any danger at all from something that is another person's personal vice?"


cars can be a luxury to individuals and we can see government intervention of another sort (rewards, in lieu of fines and punishments) which exist to encourage alternatives... such as carpool lanes, mass transit subsidies, bicycle accomodations, etc. but cars are certainly not categorically a luxury, they are a vital part of modern society and if you don't agree with that then i don't know what to tell you.

[Nick]

So its about absolutely saving lives as long as the price isn't at the expense of society. That's fair enough. Still, it's pretty mental that in an establishment of vice a vice has been outlawed. But yeah, personal choice and all that.

I don't see why they couldn't had allowed smoking and non smoking bars instead of making it a total blanket ban.

[Noysyrump]

In the city of El Cajon (a small suburb of San Diego) it is illegal to smoke in public. Period. That means, you cannot go outside to have a ciggerette. You cannot even have one lit in YOUR OWN DAMN CAR! But, that's just one city, wich I can choose not to goto. So I dont. But I am afraid that will soon be California law. So I just might have to quit, or move to vegas. Damn it's hot in Vegas...

[Animale]

What I was told about cancer, was explained to by someone who works in a lab testing cancer amongst many other things, day in and day out.

My guess is that this person was "dumbing it down" so you'd understand it. Scientists do that a lot, and something is usually lost in the translation.

Animale

[cadalano]

YOU SEE, CANCER IS A SERIES OF TUBES

[Noysyrump]

AND THE TUBES GET BENT

[Aslanna]

Gee, we haven't had this debate around here in... ages.

If you happen to live in the fine state of MN, going outside to smoke isn't as easy as you make it sound for about 9 months out of the year. Most people don't want to stand outside to smoke when it is 10 degrees below zero, and I don't blame them for a second.

Monthly Averages for Minnetonka, MN

Month---Avg High--Avg. Low----Mean---Record High---Record Low
Jan-----24°F----- 3°F----- 14°F----- 60°F (1981)----- -43°F (1951)
Feb-----31°F -----10°F----- 21°F----- 90°F (1953) ------37°F (1996)
Mar-----43°F -----23°F----- 33°F----- 83°F (1968)----- -34°F (1962)
Apr-----60°F -----36°F----- 48°F ----- 95°F (1980)----- 6°F (1995)
May-----74°F -----48°F----- 61°F----- 95°F (1998)----- 20°F (1967)
Jun-----82°F -----57°F----- 70°F ----- 103°F (1949)----- 37°F (1969)
Jul----- 86°F -----62°F----- 74°F ----- 107°F (1988) -----42°F (1967)
Aug-----83°F -----60°F----- 71°F ----- 105°F (1988)----- 36°F (1950)
Sep-----75°F -----51°F----- 63°F ----- 96°F (1998) -----25°F (1980)
Oct-----62°F -----39°F----- 50°F ----- 92°F (1997) -----13°F (1988)
Nov-----42°F -----25°F----- 33°F ----- 80°F (1999) ------15°F (1964)
Dec-----28°F -----11°F----- 19°F ----- 70°F (1998)----- -35°F (1983)

So smokers require it to be in the 80s to go outside? Wow what a bunch of pansies. Besides which if people don't want to stand in the frigid outdoors perhaps they shouldn't smoke in the first place. Problem solved. Oh wait it's easier to just go inside and inconvenience, as well as expose to possible health risks, those who don't smoke.

For me it comes down to if you're running a public place of business there should be rules that can be enforced to ensure the public safety whether it be employees or customers. There's no health risk to smokers by not being able to smoke for an hour or however long they are in the restaurant.


BTW, note that for 7 of those months the record highs were set in the past 20 years. Proof that global warming is real yo.

[Sueven]

I voted non-smoker who opposes bans, but I probably shouldn't have voted at all. It's a very close issue to me.

The government regulates workplaces in all sorts of ways. Among other things, they regulate who can work (age restrictions, residency requirements), how companies can hire (nondiscrimination), how companies can fire (nondiscrimination, including for things like pregnancy), how companies must pay (minimum wage, workers compensation), how companies must operate (corporate and securities law as well as business regulation), to what standards of behavior companies must hold their employees (sexual harassment), and, of course, workplace safety (asbestos, hazardous working conditions, requirements for safety equipment and procedures, etc etc etc etc etc). Much of this regulation is relatively uncontroversial.

And, of course, the 'choice' argument applies just as strongly in all of these areas as it does to cigarettes. 10 year olds can choose not to work. Black people can choose not to work for racist employers. Women who may become pregnant can choose not to work for employers who will fire them if they do so. Workers can choose not to work for employers who won't pay them a living wage. Women can choose not to work in jobs where they will be sexually harassed. Workers can choose not to work for companies whose negligence will result in routine employee death. Of course, all of this regulation came about in response to serious problems with child labor, discrimination, abuse, harassment, exploitation and so forth, and the regulation has resulted in drastic improvements in all of these areas. Throwing out 'choice' as this magical panacea which eliminates the need to, you know, actually do anything about serious problems is a nonsensical position for anyone but a hardcore libertarian ideologue to take.

So then the questions become a lot trickier: How much choice do these employees in fact have? How serious is the problem? Are there other less intrusive solutions? And so on.

Also, on a personal level, I've now spent several years living in cities with them, and God does it kick ass.

I am absolutely opposed to banning smoking in private residences (except maybe in really extreme shared-ventilation circumstances), outdoors, in your own car, etc.

[Siji]

If you can look me in the face and say you don't want people to smoke in the bar you are in for health reasons, yet you are going there to drink alcohol and wreck your liver - you are a fucking retard on a HUGE scale.

So you're comparing a couple of beers to inhaling second hand smoke from a dozen smokers? Are you really that fucking stupid? Here's another little clue for you bitch, my so called "wrecking my liver" affects me alone. Second hand smoke from idiot smokers affects.. everyone around them.

Didn't you say you were going to stop coming here? How about we get back to that.

[Funkmasterr]

If you can look me in the face and say you don't want people to smoke in the bar you are in for health reasons, yet you are going there to drink alcohol and wreck your liver - you are a fucking retard on a HUGE scale.

So you're comparing a couple of beers to inhaling second hand smoke from a dozen smokers? Are you really that fucking stupid? Here's another little clue for you bitch, my so called "wrecking my liver" affects me alone. Second hand smoke from idiot smokers affects.. everyone around them.

Didn't you say you were going to stop coming here? How about we get back to that.

It's relative, and you know it - you just have trouble controlling your convulsions, and that's OK.

The point raised by bolded text is that everyone in the bar is there doing something that is relatively unhealthy, or they willingly accepted a job in such an environment. It all comes down to personal choices in the end, like your very boldly stated choice to be a fucking toolbag.

[Funkmasterr]

Gee, we haven't had this debate around here in... ages.

If you happen to live in the fine state of MN, going outside to smoke isn't as easy as you make it sound for about 9 months out of the year. Most people don't want to stand outside to smoke when it is 10 degrees below zero, and I don't blame them for a second.

Monthly Averages for Minnetonka, MN

Month---Avg High--Avg. Low----Mean---Record High---Record Low
Jan-----24°F----- 3°F----- 14°F----- 60°F (1981)----- -43°F (1951)
Feb-----31°F -----10°F----- 21°F----- 90°F (1953) ------37°F (1996)
Mar-----43°F -----23°F----- 33°F----- 83°F (1968)----- -34°F (1962)
Apr-----60°F -----36°F----- 48°F ----- 95°F (1980)----- 6°F (1995)
May-----74°F -----48°F----- 61°F----- 95°F (1998)----- 20°F (1967)
Jun-----82°F -----57°F----- 70°F ----- 103°F (1949)----- 37°F (1969)
Jul----- 86°F -----62°F----- 74°F ----- 107°F (1988) -----42°F (1967)
Aug-----83°F -----60°F----- 71°F ----- 105°F (1988)----- 36°F (1950)
Sep-----75°F -----51°F----- 63°F ----- 96°F (1998) -----25°F (1980)
Oct-----62°F -----39°F----- 50°F ----- 92°F (1997) -----13°F (1988)
Nov-----42°F -----25°F----- 33°F ----- 80°F (1999) ------15°F (1964)
Dec-----28°F -----11°F----- 19°F ----- 70°F (1998)----- -35°F (1983)

So smokers require it to be in the 80s to go outside? Wow what a bunch of pansies. Besides which if people don't want to stand in the frigid outdoors perhaps they shouldn't smoke in the first place. Problem solved. Oh wait it's easier to just go inside and inconvenience, as well as expose to possible health risks, those who don't smoke.

For me it comes down to if you're running a public place of business there should be rules that can be enforced to ensure the public safety whether it be employees or customers. There's no health risk to smokers by not being able to smoke for an hour or however long they are in the restaurant.


BTW, note that for 7 of those months the record highs were set in the past 20 years. Proof that global warming is real yo.

The only points I am going to address are as follows:

-Temperature is a small piece of the picture, wind chill for the winter months here makes it unbearable. Then in the summer months where you see those record highs, it's so humid you can hardly breathe outside even if you don't smoke. Even when I did smoke, on those days I would not smoke outside.

Sure there are worse places in the world, but making it sound like MN temperatures are moderate is massively retarded beyond a level I've ever experienced when dealing with you in particular.


-I never said I agreed with smoking in restaurants, I said I think banning it in bars is bullshit, and I stated it very clearly. There is a precise difference between the two, and if you truly are too slow to pick up on that difference, I'll be glad to spell it out for you.