Government Control of Smoking in Bars and Restaurants

Animale · Post by **Animale** » May 20, 2008, 11:00 pm

All I know that is on Guam they barred smoking in restaurants but not in bars. Suddenly, as if by magic, every eating establishment was also a bar!

They finally got around to banning it in bars a few years later thank goodness.

Animale

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 20, 2008, 11:01 pm

Funkmasterr wrote: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.

The data doesn't lie! It's not like it's fucking Siberia or something. I lived in Wisconsin/Michigan for 12 years I know it's not that bad. Add in global warming and you're set dude! Point being there are well more than 9 months out of the year where it's perfectly fine for smokers to be sent outside like the second-class citizens they are!

Funkmasterr wrote:-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.

My secoond paragraph (you do understand the point of paragraphs do you not?) was addressing the point in general and not specifically your quote. As in read the fucking thread title you fetchin nitwit. Or are you too slow to pick up on that?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 20, 2008, 11:21 pm

If a place doesn't want smoking, they can make it non smoking. What's the big deal?

If you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to a place that allows smoking. If that conflicts (ie, your favorite restaurant allows smoking), well you need to decide if you want to be around smoke or not. And the same goes for the smoker...Want to go somewhere you can't smoke? Don't go, or don't smoke.

Seriously, what's the big fucking deal? Why do governments at various levels need to step in to fuck it up for either side?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 20, 2008, 11:24 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote: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.
The data doesn't lie! It's not like it's fucking Siberia or something. I lived in Wisconsin/Michigan for 12 years I know it's not that bad. Add in global warming and you're set dude! Point being there are well more than 9 months out of the year where it's perfectly fine for smokers to be sent outside like the second-class citizens they are!

Funkmasterr wrote:-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.

My secoond paragraph (you do understand the point of paragraphs do you not?) was addressing the point in general and not specifically your quote. As in read the fucking thread title you fetchin nitwit. Or are you too slow to pick up on that?

I think it's funny you comment on my posts being hard to read.. your second paragraph could have been directed either way. Either way, my point still stands, and yours is still retarded

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 20, 2008, 11:26 pm

Truant wrote:If a place doesn't want smoking, they can make it non smoking. What's the big deal?

If you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to a place that allows smoking. If that conflicts (ie, your favorite restaurant allows smoking), well you need to decide if you want to be around smoke or not.

Seriously, what's the big fucking deal? Why do governments at various levels need to step in to fuck it up for either side?

Precisely, it's just that simple. But right now it's trendy to shrug personal responsibility, and expect someone else to take care of that for you.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 20, 2008, 11:37 pm

Just wanted to clarify, I edited my post to present the other side of the coin.

Also, I've never been much for trends.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » May 21, 2008, 1:41 am

I think this is a situation where the adage of "the right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins" applies. Once your smoke goes in somebody else's lungs and changes their health, your "rights" end without some form of recompense for the offended. Since no means of recompense currently exist (or are easily quantifiable), the easiest and fairest legislative course of action is to stop smoking in indoor public places (where the most measurable changes are observed when somebody lights up).

Again, I feel that this is a workman's safety issue first and foremost. "Go get a job somewhere else if you don't like it" is an argument that has been used before by employers - and been dismissed as meaningless. That statement denies the right to "pursuit of happiness" for the worker, in addition to the longer term denial of life and liberty when/if one gets cancer as a result of the secondhand smoke.

Animale

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 21, 2008, 8:10 am

I agree with Truant. Non smokers can get very sandy vagina'd and pompous anytime this discussion comes up and all the Government has really done is pass a law where non smokers are now allowed to be righteous douchebags who think they can talk down to anyone who dares smoke a cigarette.

The government should have kept their noses out of it and left it to restaurant/bar owners.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » May 21, 2008, 10:27 am

We had a smoking ban put in place in Columbus in the last year or so (I forget exactly when, I don't smoke or hit bars often) there's a couple of bars that pretty much ignore the ban and even provide plastic cups to use as ashtrays and they're getting fined by the board of health, none of the big fines ($1-2K) levied on the offending bars have been actually paid yet, and they can double the fine if they believe the laws are being ignored deliberately.

The owner of one just challenged the ban in court for the first time. I suspect he will lose, but it will be interesting to watch.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2008, 2:14 pm

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... 00406/1661

Government laying down some smack against smokers too.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 21, 2008, 2:32 pm

Dallas banned smoking in everything except bars, tobacco shops and pool halls (which have to have seperate smoking and non smoking sections). Hotels also got it ammended that they could have smoking rooms because they lobbied real hard (Dallas is a big convention town). This was back in umm 2003.

They've since tried several times to ban it in the few places that have exception (including cigar shops, wtf). Hotels wail and gnash teeth and it gets dropped.
There are several bars that are non smoking only by choice.

I've personally never understood the need to smoke in a restaurant. They only time I ever want to smoke is in a bar when I'm drinking, and if i happen to be at a non smoking bar, or with people that don't like it...I just go outside.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2008, 2:38 pm

I know that if our hospital could put a "non-smoker only" in it's hiring clause, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Employees not suppossed to smoke on the property, so they cross over to the parking garage in groups of about 5. They post 2 lookouts and the others smoke in the stairwells. I can go without food in an 8 hour shift, I have no idea how these people cannot go without smoking for the same time. It's fucking pathetic to see, especially in the dead of winter at 3am.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 21, 2008, 3:25 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:I know that if our hospital could put a "non-smoker only" in it's hiring clause, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Employees not suppossed to smoke on the property, so they cross over to the parking garage in groups of about 5. They post 2 lookouts and the others smoke in the stairwells. I can go without food in an 8 hour shift, I have no idea how these people cannot go without smoking for the same time. It's fucking pathetic to see, especially in the dead of winter at 3am.

how long can you go without porn? I'm guessing you haven't quite figured out the difference between an addicition and a physically required "activity."

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 21, 2008, 9:07 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... 00406/1661

Government laying down some smack against smokers too.

I'd go along with that if their hiring policy also discriminates against drinkers, and I mean to the point where you can't have a glass of wine with dinner. There's been a study released recently that shows while red wine protects against heart disease, any alcohol increases your risk of cancer, so there's scientific basis behind my claim.

I have no problem going 8 hour shifts without a cigarette if required, cause I just don't smoke that much, and similarly I can't find any compelling evidence that a dozen smokes a day is equivalent to two packs a day (in fact, quite the opposite).

Might as well discriminate against fatties as well, that can't be healthy.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 21, 2008, 9:47 pm

I quit smoking a couple years ago, when I did smoke I sat in the non-smoking section. Never understood why people smoke in the restaurant. That said, while I don't like the bans I really don't have a problem with them either. Does seem kind of dumb in bars though.

Just to be a tool:

there are no positives from smoking

There are a couple, I've seen articles claiming some percentage of smokers are self treating for real mental conditions. The nicotine and other drugs in a cigarette do have some benefits, unfortunately the delivery method kills you eventually.

There's also fairly good evidence that nicotine "treatment" while you're younger markedly reduces the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. Again the method people use to get the treatment can kill them if they don't stop at the correct point, which isn't something anyone can guess at.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 12:07 am

Zaelath wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... 00406/1661

Government laying down some smack against smokers too.
I'd go along with that if their hiring policy also discriminates against drinkers, and I mean to the point where you can't have a glass of wine with dinner. There's been a study released recently that shows while red wine protects against heart disease, any alcohol increases your risk of cancer, so there's scientific basis behind my claim.

I have no problem going 8 hour shifts without a cigarette if required, cause I just don't smoke that much, and similarly I can't find any compelling evidence that a dozen smokes a day is equivalent to two packs a day (in fact, quite the opposite).

Might as well discriminate against fatties as well, that can't be healthy.

I have a problem with employers being able to discriminate against smokers for the same reason. I can tell you from my experience at work, that while smokers do go out a couple times a day for a smoke break, there are just as many people that waste just as much time going to get coffee, or going to the farmers market, or just going outside to go outside, or dicking around on the internet, or chatting with people, or a plethora of other things.

I don't know how laws like that can stand up..

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 22, 2008, 12:23 am

Funkmasterr wrote:I can tell you from my experience at work, that while smokers do go out a couple times a day for a smoke break, there are just as many people that waste just as much time going to get coffee, or going to the farmers market, or just going outside to go outside, or dicking around on the internet, or chatting with people, or a plethora of other things.

Yeah.. Because smokers don't do ANY of that stuff. In addition to smoke breaks. Rooflies!

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » May 22, 2008, 2:24 am

Fash wrote: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.

Oh man. Do you know where Dunder-Mifflin ipaper co. is?

^_^

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 22, 2008, 7:12 am

He works in the building across the street from it. It's Munder Difflin though.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » May 22, 2008, 8:31 am

Related question for those who are opposed to smoking bans.

Should PRIVATE employers be permitted to refuse to hire smokers, test employees for nicotine, fire those who smoke, etc?

If not, why not? Isn't it just the employers private choice? Couldn't smokers just go work for an employer who welcomed them?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » May 22, 2008, 10:30 am

employment at will

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 22, 2008, 10:35 am

Sueven wrote:Related question for those who are opposed to smoking bans.

Should PRIVATE employers be permitted to refuse to hire smokers, test employees for nicotine, fire those who smoke, etc?

If not, why not? Isn't it just the employers private choice? Couldn't smokers just go work for an employer who welcomed them?

1) "employers be permitted to refuse to hire smokers"
Yes - Perfectly legit

2) "test employees for nicotine"
No - Overstepping. Employ #1 if you want non smokers.

3) "fire those who smoke"
No - Overstepping. Employ #1 if you want non smokers.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » May 22, 2008, 10:40 am

Forthe wrote: 2) "test employees for nicotine"
No - Overstepping. Employ #1 if you want non smokers.

3) "fire those who smoke"
No - Overstepping. Employ #1 if you want non smokers.

It's only over-stepping if it's not an up-front term of employment. You can employ all 3, as long as new-hires know about it, you can enforce it. As Ashur said, in at-will states, anything goes (although you can still get sued.)

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 22, 2008, 10:46 am

How the hell would you test for nicotine and be able to prove that they were not inhaling second hand smoke?

laneela · Post by **laneela** » May 22, 2008, 11:10 am

Sueven wrote:Related question for those who are opposed to smoking bans.

Should PRIVATE employers be permitted to refuse to hire smokers, test employees for nicotine, fire those who smoke, etc?

If not, why not? Isn't it just the employers private choice? Couldn't smokers just go work for an employer who welcomed them?

I'm a smoker and I oppose smoking bans - not because they're inconvenient to me, but because I believe it should be up to the hotel, bar, restaurant owners to decide who they care about catering to.

That said, I wholeheartedly believe that private employers should be permitted to refuse hiring smokers, and I know of some who do. It's their business. I don't care if they wouldn't want to hire me because of insurance reasons, because they'd be afraid I'd be taking too many breaks or because they think I stink of an ashtray after I've had a smoke. It's their choice to hire me just as it's my choice to decide whether or not to take a job offered me.

I think an employer would have a really tough time firing someone who smoked without any other valid reason. It'd be extremely hard to prove short of video footage. They'd be paying more in unemployment should someone choose to collect than in insurance contributions.

Kinda off topic: My new employer does a backround check which includes drug testing, criminal and driving records and a credit check. Is it just me or is the credit check way over-stepping boundaries?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 22, 2008, 11:13 am

The credit check has been pretty much a norm for quite a while now. It just gets little/no publicity.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » May 22, 2008, 11:14 am

What the hell and why?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 22, 2008, 11:17 am

laneela wrote:What the hell and why?

Not positive. From what I understand, it helps to determine how trustworthy employees may be. It might help with licensing issues with jobs that require it. I know that with my current employer, we have to make sure that our new hires will not run into any issues getting licensed to do business in all/most states. I am guessing that the results are statistic driven in the same way that credit can affect your insurance in most states as well.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » May 22, 2008, 11:23 am

I think it's complete bullshit. My credit is pretty craptastic and I still got the job. They told me afterwards that they're pretty much looking for bankruptcies. I just don't understand how someone's credit score has any bearing on someone's work performance.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 11:55 am

laneela wrote:I think it's complete bullshit. My credit is pretty craptastic and I still got the job. They told me afterwards that they're pretty much looking for bankruptcies. I just don't understand how someone's credit score has any bearing on someone's work performance.

I completely agree. Credit has nothing to do with hiring me for a job, and it also should have absolutely zero to do with how much I pay for car insurance.

I pay 230/month right now for car insurance, and the only thing I have on my record is my dwi from like 4 years ago... The main reason it's so high is because my credit is horrendous. But guess what, I have been paying my car insurance every month for going on ten fucking years, and the only reason I could think that my credit would effect the car insurance would be their fear of me not paying.

People are getting entirely out of control with using credit for shit, credit scores should not be something that makes your life more fucking difficult than it needs to be, it should effect your ability to get credit cards, loans, and nothing else.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 22, 2008, 12:08 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
laneela wrote:I think it's complete bullshit. My credit is pretty craptastic and I still got the job. They told me afterwards that they're pretty much looking for bankruptcies. I just don't understand how someone's credit score has any bearing on someone's work performance.
I completely agree. Credit has nothing to do with hiring me for a job, and it also should have absolutely zero to do with how much I pay for car insurance.

While it is pulled in almost every state, the effects can vary. For instance, in some states, it merely determines how a down-payment can be made or what, if any, bill plan is available. This also varies by company though. I found it strange how the credit and loss statistics matched up.

To get back on topic: I don't see any problem with a private business, not government employers, restricting hiring to non-smokers, as long as they are also allowed to only hire smokers. The problem I have is, where is the line drawn? When will it be considered discrimination, and what boundaries will be crossed and justified by allowing this type of hiring? While I might have an occasional drink, I cannot stand working with an alcoholic. Can I refuse to hire anyone that drinks over a limit I designate?

Just this morning, I was watching a segment on the local news about how city workers (did not catch the city) were being provided with fitness and smoking cessation programs for free. If the employers are complaining about the costs of healthcare for their workers, why not go this route? Not only will you attract and keep healthier workers, but you will also be improving the employee morale when working with each other and your customers.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » May 22, 2008, 12:16 pm

Sylvus please stop smoking I don't want you to get cancer

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 12:23 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
laneela wrote:I think it's complete bullshit. My credit is pretty craptastic and I still got the job. They told me afterwards that they're pretty much looking for bankruptcies. I just don't understand how someone's credit score has any bearing on someone's work performance.
I completely agree. Credit has nothing to do with hiring me for a job, and it also should have absolutely zero to do with how much I pay for car insurance.
While it is pulled in almost every state, the effects can vary. For instance, in some states, it merely determines how a down-payment can be made or what, if any, bill plan is available. This also varies by company though. I found it strange how the credit and loss statistics matched up.

To get back on topic: I don't see any problem with a private business, not government employers, restricting hiring to non-smokers, as long as they are also allowed to only hire smokers. The problem I have is, where is the line drawn? When will it be considered discrimination, and what boundaries will be crossed and justified by allowing this type of hiring? While I might have an occasional drink, I cannot stand working with an alcoholic. Can I refuse to hire anyone that drinks over a limit I designate?

Just this morning, I was watching a segment on the local news about how city workers (did not catch the city) were being provided with fitness and smoking cessation programs for free. If the employers are complaining about the costs of healthcare for their workers, why not go this route? Not only will you attract and keep healthier workers, but you will also be improving the employee morale when working with each other and your customers.

Funny, as I was reading your post I got this email from my employer:

SPS Commerce is considering a partnership with the American Heart Association to help promote physical activity in and outside of our workplace. If enough employees are interested in forming teams and participating in a physical activity challenge, SPS would like to support your efforts to stay active and live a healthy lifestyle.

We would utilize an online tool developed by the American Heart Association that tracks participants’ daily exercises (i.e. hours, steps, miles) - during the work day or after hours. Participants can use the tool to track their progress for that little extra push of motivation. When signing up under SPS, you will be able to see where your team’s progress stands in comparison to other SPS teams (approximately 5 per team). Making physical activity part of our everyday life (walking, cycling, running, swimming, weightlifting, golfing, yoga, aerobics), can reap many benefits. According to a Harvard University study, about two hours of life expectancy are gained for each hour of regular exercise.

If you are interested in participating in a physical activity challenge please respond to this email by Friday, May 30th. Let's take charge of our health!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 22, 2008, 12:36 pm

laneela wrote:I think it's complete bullshit. My credit is pretty craptastic and I still got the job. They told me afterwards that they're pretty much looking for bankruptcies. I just don't understand how someone's credit score has any bearing on someone's work performance.

I think there are valid uses for it. But probably not for all jobs. It really depends on what area you're in. So, for example, if you're working in the finanace industry with access to people's personal information then yeah then I can see it applying.

In a more extreme scenario, a poor credit report might cost you a job. According to a 2004 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, 19% of employers always and 24% sometimes conduct credit checks on employees before hiring them. The credit report is often simply used to verify information on your application, such as where you have lived and whom you worked for. But in some cases, it's used to get glimpse of the way you handle your finances. "There's an assumption that people with poor credit histories are more likely to steal," says Lynn Nemser, president of Partners for Performance, a small human-resources and management consulting firm. "That's a big assumption.... I don't know if there's anything to substantiate that."

Thanks to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, employers are restricted in their uses of credit checks. For starters, they need to get your permission before they pull your report, explains Peggy Twohig, assistant director for financial practices at the Federal Trade Commission. And if they choose not to hire you based on what's contained in the report, they have to tell you. Given these restrictions, "pre-employment credit checks are not as prominent in employment searches as they used to be," says James Lee, vice president of marketing and communication at ChoicePoint, which in addition to providing insurance scores is the largest pre-employment background-screening company in the country

Funkmasterr wrote:I completely agree. Credit has nothing to do with hiring me for a job, and it also should have absolutely zero to do with how much I pay for car insurance.

I pay 230/month right now for car insurance, and the only thing I have on my record is my dwi from like 4 years ago... The main reason it's so high is because my credit is horrendous.

But guess what, I have been paying my car insurance every month for going on ten fucking years, and the only reason I could think that my credit would effect the car insurance would be their fear of me not paying.

People are getting entirely out of control with using credit for shit, credit scores should not be something that makes your life more fucking difficult than it needs to be, it should effect your ability to get credit cards, loans, and nothing else.

I'm not really sure I agree with them charging a higher rate for someone with bad credit but I'd be fine with them providing a discount off the base rate for those with good credit.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 12:42 pm

Aslanna wrote:
I'm not really sure I agree with them charging a higher rate for someone with bad credit but I'd be fine with them providing a discount off the base rate for those with good credit.

I can agree with that, it's reasonable enough, just like a safe driver discount. But the fact that I'm paying 100-200 dollars more than other people I know with similar or worse driving records because of my credit is pure insanity.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 22, 2008, 12:43 pm

I think in both cases, employment/insurance, they're concerned that people with bad credit are more likely to be in a position where they might do something not exactly legal, like arrange for their car to be written off so they can get a liquid asset, or embezzle company funds.

I'm sure there's good actuary tables for the insurance, but as to employment.. meh. If your company is run so slipshod that you can't tell when someone's on the take, all the credit checks in the world aren't going to help.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 22, 2008, 12:47 pm

Time for a new poll.. See if anyone has every taken anything from work (even a pen or post-it notes) and whether they have a good credit rating or bad credit rating.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 22, 2008, 12:58 pm

Animale wrote: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.

My roommate was a bartender at Sloppy Joe's in Key West when the city enacted a smoking ban. Their business dropped so much that the place shut down much of their food service so they could get around the ordinance. Trust me, the employees would rather make money than be "protected" by the government. These folks aren't salaried; they make something like $3/hour and rely on tips to live.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 1:04 pm

masteen wrote:
Animale wrote: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.
My roommate was a bartender at Sloppy Joe's in Key West when the city enacted a smoking ban. Their business dropped so much that the place shut down much of their food service so they could get around the ordinance. Trust me, the employees would rather make money than be "protected" by the government. These folks aren't salaried; they make something like $3/hour and rely on tips to live.

Yeah, that has happened to plenty of places here too. I think the people that are saying that smoking bans haven't effected bars in their area probably aren't quite sure of what they are talking about. That and the smaller town bars are what are really suffering, not the shit in big cities.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » May 22, 2008, 2:06 pm

I don't necessarily believe the notion that successful restaurants were driven out of the market because their customers couldn't smoke. Less than 1 in 5 people smoke at all, while only 1 in 9 are considered heavy smokers. Of those people, the number that would stop patronizing a restaurant because of a smoking ban is likely to be pretty small. I find it more likely that a restaurant in that situation fails because it was teetering on the edge of financial viability already, and it was pushed over the edge by the departure of a small portion of their customer base. In such a scenario, the restaurant's failure likely has more to do with many other factors, with the smoking issue merely being one straw among many that broke the business' back. Of course it provides a convenient scapegoat for the business owner to blame rather than other, more legitimate reasons (perhaps poor management).

That is not to say that typical anti-smoking laws in the US don't have an impact on business. I'm sure there is an impact in varying degrees, depending on the local conditions, particularly where the law doesn't apply a few minutes further down the road. I've said this about other subjects here before, and I think it applies to anti-smoking laws as well: laws that are not universal will cause people engaged in the activity to simply move to where the laws don't apply. In the most of the US** where this sort of legislation is implemented as local ordinances, it's easy enough for the die hard smokers to simply opt to go to a restaurant a bit further away when they have that option. If there was a state-wide or national ban on indoor smoking in restaurants and bars, I don't think you'd see business impacted quite the same way that some have described in this thread, because the option to go elsewhere would be gone. Humans are social animals, and lazy ones, too. They're not going to opt to stay home and cook for themselves in lieu of getting together with their friends or family, at least not in any significant numbers.

** Obvioulsy, dense urban areas like NYC are a different matter.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 22, 2008, 2:09 pm

My mother works for a mental health clinic and they get 2.5 hours more on every paycheck (not counted as OT), making her weekly check 42.5 hours. They sign a form when hired promising they will walk for 30 minutes each day. She works with almost all women, and they do the walking in groups, every single work day. I had never heard of anything like that, but I thought it was a great idea.

At the hospital I work at, rumor on the street was that our ad staff thought we had too many fat people working here. So, they had 80% of the pop/candy taken out of the vending machines and replaced with water and healthy alternatives. They then made a special deal with the local weight watchers to come in and give free seminars and group discounts to our hospital. Twice a week, people are allowed to attend the weight watcher meetings during thier lunch hour and do not have to punch out. They also worked the "point system" into our menu in the cafeteria.

I just thought all that was interesting. We have several die hard anti smokers on our ad staff too. One even cruises the parking ramp late at night looking for people breaking the no smoking rule, hence the lookouts and group smoking activity I discussed earlier. Smokers think it's a "them vs us" scenerio and act accordingly paranoid and stupid over the whole ordeal. All I can think of is, hey, don't smoke at work. It can't be worth your job, can it?!?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » May 22, 2008, 2:25 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:We have several die hard anti smokers on our ad staff too. One even cruises the parking ramp late at night looking for people breaking the no smoking rule, hence the lookouts and group smoking activity I discussed earlier. Smokers think it's a "them vs us" scenerio and act accordingly paranoid and stupid over the whole ordeal. All I can think of is, hey, don't smoke at work. It can't be worth your job, can it?!?

Obviously, it IS us vs them, jackass.

What kind of fucking loser has nothing better to do than cruise the parking area looking for smokers? You realize the end-game of that activity is someone losing their job, right? I can't stand a fucking tattletale, especially one who interferes with a persons livelihood. If the employer wants to check, fine, but another employee?? This person is asking for a beating.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 2:28 pm

Xatrei wrote:I don't necessarily believe the notion that successful restaurants were driven out of the market because their customers couldn't smoke. Less than 1 in 5 people smoke at all, while only 1 in 9 are considered heavy smokers. Of those people, the number that would stop patronizing a restaurant because of a smoking ban is likely to be pretty small. I find it more likely that a restaurant in that situation fails because it was teetering on the edge of financial viability already, and it was pushed over the edge by the departure of a small portion of their customer base. In such a scenario, the restaurant's failure likely has more to do with many other factors, with the smoking issue merely being one straw among many that broke the business' back. Of course it provides a convenient scapegoat for the business owner to blame rather than other, more legitimate reasons (perhaps poor management).

That is not to say that typical anti-smoking laws in the US don't have an impact on business. I'm sure there is an impact in varying degrees, depending on the local conditions, particularly where the law doesn't apply a few minutes further down the road. I've said this about other subjects here before, and I think it applies to anti-smoking laws as well: laws that are not universal will cause people engaged in the activity to simply move to where the laws don't apply. In the most of the US** where this sort of legislation is implemented as local ordinances, it's easy enough for the die hard smokers to simply opt to go to a restaurant a bit further away when they have that option. If there was a state-wide or national ban on indoor smoking in restaurants and bars, I don't think you'd see business impacted quite the same way that some have described in this thread, because the option to go elsewhere would be gone. Humans are social animals, and lazy ones, too. They're not going to opt to stay home and cook for themselves in lieu of getting together with their friends or family, at least not in any significant numbers.

** Obvioulsy, dense urban areas like NYC are a different matter.

I disagree, about the time MN was hit with the smoking ban stick, me and many of my friends cut way back on how much we went out to bars, or stopped entirely. Instead we just hang out at someone's place for the night to drink/etc.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 22, 2008, 2:34 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:All I can think of is, hey, don't smoke at work. It can't be worth your job, can it?!?

Addiction is a funny thing. If you haven't smoked (or done heroin or something along those lines), it's really hard to describe to you. I know people will bring up addiction to EQ or something, but it's totally different. I can easily go 24 hours without eating and I just get a little hungry. Depending on this situation, if it's been several hours since I've smoked, there is a physical and mental discomfort that is difficult to bear.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 22, 2008, 2:40 pm

Fash wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote: Obviously, it IS us vs them, jackass.

What kind of fucking loser has nothing better to do than cruise the parking area looking for smokers? You realize the end-game of that activity is someone losing their job, right? I can't stand a fucking tattletale, especially one who interferes with a persons livelihood. If the employer wants to check, fine, but another employee?? This person is asking for a beating.

Ad staff = administrative staff
The person who has been known to cruise the lot is 2nd in command at our hospital and lives within blocks. I've never heard of anyone getting fired for smoking, but I know a couple who were written up.

And it's not smokers vs non smokers, it's smokers breaking the rules and trying not to get caught. There's nothing else to it. But hey, if it's worth putting thier job on the line and all that entails, then rage against the machine, man! Change the world one puff at a time!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » May 22, 2008, 2:49 pm

Fash wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:We have several die hard anti smokers on our ad staff too. One even cruises the parking ramp late at night looking for people breaking the no smoking rule, hence the lookouts and group smoking activity I discussed earlier. Smokers think it's a "them vs us" scenerio and act accordingly paranoid and stupid over the whole ordeal. All I can think of is, hey, don't smoke at work. It can't be worth your job, can it?!?
Obviously, it IS us vs them, jackass.

What kind of fucking loser has nothing better to do than cruise the parking area looking for smokers? You realize the end-game of that activity is someone losing their job, right? I can't stand a fucking tattletale, especially one who interferes with a persons livelihood. If the employer wants to check, fine, but another employee?? This person is asking for a beating.

I agree, that is pretty pathetic. I don't give a shit if they are the highest in command of the hospital, fuck off.

It's funny that at least a part of the reason for them not wanting employees to smoke is money (lack of productivity = money lost), but they are fine with wasting even more money for the 2nd in command to get paid a fairly good salary to drive around a parking lot looking for smokers.

Here is how I see it. If it is legal for companies to discriminate and not hire people because they smoke, then; if they choose to hire smokers, they should be required by law to have someplace on their property that people are allowed to smoke. Why hire someone if you are going to make them feel persecuted. They could have a smoking area in the back of the building somewhere where NO ON else has to be, pretty simple.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 22, 2008, 2:55 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:All I can think of is, hey, don't smoke at work. It can't be worth your job, can it?!?
Addiction is a funny thing. If you haven't smoked (or done heroin or something along those lines), it's really hard to describe to you. I know people will bring up addiction to EQ or something, but it's totally different. I can easily go 24 hours without eating and I just get a little hungry. Depending on this situation, if it's been several hours since I've smoked, there is a physical and mental discomfort that is difficult to bear.

I concede 100% that I do not understand addiction. The closet thing I have to an addiction is, oddly enough, buying DVDs, which I know isn't even in the same category. It's more like a chronic compulsion, but nothing like I would imagine a true addiction would be. It feels like when I was at the height of my comic book collecting days, around 1992-93. I love the hunt, the score, and everything that comes with it. I've never smoked, drank, or done anything like that. Although, out of my close group of friends growing up, I was the only one that didn't do that stuff so I was still a part of it, just on the outside.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 22, 2008, 3:00 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Here is how I see it. If it is legal for companies to discriminate and not hire people because they smoke, then; if they choose to hire smokers, they should be required by law to have someplace on their property that people are allowed to smoke. Why hire someone if you are going to make them feel persecuted. They could have a smoking area in the back of the building somewhere where NO ON else has to be, pretty simple.

I'm in complete disagreement with this. They should be in no way made to accomodate personal addiction habits. If the company has a no smoking policy then it's complete nonsense to make them designate a smoking area. That sorta goes against imposing a No Smoking policy in the first place.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 22, 2008, 3:16 pm

masteen wrote:the employees would rather make money than be "protected" by the government. These folks aren't salaried; they make something like $3/hour and rely on tips to live.

Sure, today. Then when they're 50 and have cancer from second hand smoke, they'll be the ones filing lawsuits about not being protected.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 22, 2008, 3:18 pm

Yes, it is pretty simple. It's a fucking hospital. Don't smoke.

One of the many reasons smoking is prohibited in a hospital is based on common sense. "Hey, I think I'll go smoke and then go help this patient who has copd and allergies." Fucking fantastic idea! A nurse/Dr/whatever are not allowed to wear perfume/cologne for the same reason.

There is an alley about 1/4 a block away from the hospital where the smokers go on lunch in order to be off the property. It's perhaps 4 foot wide and 20 feet in length. It's disgusting. The entire length is nothing but butts and trash. You can't even see the concrete below your feet. Several local businesses have complained, but there's not really anything the hospital can do about it, even though it's our employees creating the issue. I could see a ban on hiring smokers as a potential solution to that problem, or simply justfication for those that are so firmly against it.

If there wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be a need to regulate or straight up ban smoking a the work place. I can easily understand how an employer would just be like "fuck it, I don't want to deal with all this" and just ban smoking entirely.

Should the government control smoking in private establishments?