Blogcritics: Comments on Government Butts into private club affairs

Comment by Tom

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:14:23 EDT

Can't we all just agree to disagree?

Comment by Semi-Anonymous Banned Fella

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:23:59 EDT

"It doesn't matter if they do or don't have a choice to work elsewhere. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe workplace." Tell that to cops, firemen, cabbies, convenience store clerks, coal miners, deep-sea fishermen, military personnel, etc.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:43:52 EDT

Again, a la Voltaire, I don't smoke, but I'll defend the right of persons to do it if they choose, and the right of employers to set their employment policies. If I owned a bar, it would be equipped with a super ventilation system, such as many of the Vegas casinos have. I hate sidestream and secondhand smoke. My concern is the slippery slope of banning things we don't like ourselves, or think stupid for others to do. The anti-smoking crowd can make a compelling case on the grounds of a safe workplace. It's tough to defend smoking. But, I think anyone reading this can foresee the banning of junk food because it is unhealthy. Ergo alcohol, red meat, white flour and sugar, aspartame, darts, guns, porn, automatic nailers, roofing materials, excavation machinery, etc. Can you make the connection to other things that bother others, such as unpopular opinions? Hey- they should be banned because they cause stress, and stress is unhealthy. The remaining question is: who shall decide what will be permitted? One good look at either the right or the left ought to leave freedom loving people with deep concerns.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:32:39 EDT

The article I wrote is about private clubs to begin with. oh, so it is. Well, I agree with you, Tom. And so we come full circle? I have Don't Ask, Don't Tell and you have Don't Smoke, Don't Smell? Just think, now that you're oppressed, you're on our side!

Comment by Dwaine AKA Scooter

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:27:06 EDT

I don't understand you smokers. What's so pleasuring about inhaling contents found in urine, tar, and toilet bowl cleaners, knowing that there's a high chance of getting some type of lung cancer? Have you ever seen a picture of a smoker's lung? It looks like an overcooked, black pancake! And the smell!!!

Comment by Tom

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:13:53 EDT

I'm not a big fan of smoking, but I agree with the smokers on this thread. There should be a place where consenting adults (in this case, smokers) can go to socialize together. What about if the restaurant was a private club for smokers?

Thank you. The article I wrote is about private clubs to begin with. What about Cigar shops. Should you not allow smoking in a cigar shop. It's a cigar shop for cryin out loud. Why is it so friggin hard for you freedom of choice haters to get it through your fat heads. If I want to enjoy a cigar( a legal product) with a single malt scotch (a legal product), I have the right to go to place that allows it, and a bar owner has the right to cater to those people. Sheesh

Comment by Dwaine AKA Scooter

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:47:55 EDT

How about in their homes?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:34:38 EDT

In different cultures, smoking is a social event. Old, unbathed men with no teeth gather around their hoopahs (or whatever they call those oversized bongs) and smoke all sorts of crap together and have a good time. I'm not a big fan of smoking, but I agree with the smokers on this thread. There should be a place where consenting adults (in this case, smokers) can go to socialize together. What about if the restaurant was a private club for smokers? The Supremem Court ruled that private groups like the Boy Scouts can be selective in membership, perhaps a private restaurant can be selective in it's patrons AND employees (smokers only)? That way everybody can be happy.

Comment by bhw

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:03:09 EDT

I love the argument that people who work in bars have no choice but to work in the bar. It doesn't matter if they do or don't have a choice to work elsewhere. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe workplace. Second hand smoke has been proven to be a health hazard. There's nothing inherently dangerous about waiting tables or tending bar. Only smokers make it an unhealthy environment for the employees.

Comment by Dwaine AKA Scooter

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:37:26 EDT

Smoking down, pornography up. Porn never killed anybody.

Comment by Dwaine AKA Scooter

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:33:38 EDT

Smoking kills and it should be banned in public. Cigarettes smell and they sting my eyes sometimes. A person somking is the equivalent of a suicide bomber, only that the people around the smoker die more slowly.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:28:03 EDT

you do have freedom of choice. you could choose to control your addiction for an hour while you eat your dinner. instead, the addiction wins out and others are forced to suffer for it. yep, i can exercise my choice and seeks out non-smoking establishments. yet, there are almost none. and as far as other commenters talking about second hand smoke and 'junk science'. that's a big loada hooey. i spend one hour in a bar and i get a two day headache and bleeding sinuses. freedom's such a lovely thing.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:26:26 EDT

How is it "freedom" when people make an environment uninhabitable? I'm sorry you're a tobacco junkie. Get help to cure your addiction, but don't feel you need to spew your sickness on the rest of us. Again, as long as you don't exhale, I'm fine with your pathetic sickness.

Comment by Tom

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:16:27 EDT

Jim, No one is forcing you to go to that event which allows smoking. It must not bother you that much because you went. If you are that anti-smoking don't go to the event which allows smoking. It's called freedom of choice.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:23:54 EDT

Conflating booze with smoke is foolish. When you go into a tavern or bar, nobody forces booze into your mouth. Yet, sad tobacco junkies insist on spewing toxins into the air. Smoke all you want, just don't exhale. I'm really sick of having my clothes stink of tobacco when I go to an event where smoking is permitted. People who rail about "freedom" are just the same as drunks who espouse puking on my shoes.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 07:50:59 EDT

I love the argument that people who work in bars have no choice but to work in the bar. If there is a bigger cop-out available, I'm not aware of it. Oh, helpless me! Any person capable of twisting a cap off the bottle of the other legal drug and handing it to a patron with a smile is certainly capable of selling clothing or cars and making a living. Maybe, though, it is just that people who work in bars actually like working in bars and are willing to deal with the smoke; or, if they don't, they fail to poke around hard enough to find employment elsewhere, or honestly aren't concerned with second-hand smoke enough to go find another job. I have watched the drives in a few communities to ban smoking in bars and restaurants and have observed that it is *never* bar workers who are pushing for it. It has always been a city council person or a mayor. Curiously, in Indianapolis, it was a Republican.

Comment by Semi-Anonymous Banned Fella

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:19:09 EDT

"Children reared in the presence of smokers do often suffer medical consequences. It is information you should probably include in medical reports in case some of the risk factors are still present. Also, having suffered the ill effects of passive smoke on developing lungs, it would be a really bad idea to become an active smoker." I agree. Thanks for the advice. However, what should be done about it? If we are to ban smoking in public facilities, regardless of the opinions and free-will choices of private business owners and employees, what about kids who do not have a choice in the matter? Surely the government should be more interested in protecting involuntary second-hand smokers (who are children!) than adults who voluntarily place themselves in a slightly-unhealthy environment for a relatively short period of time. So, should the gov't ban indoor smoking in privately-owned homes where children are present? If not, then why is the gov't more interested in protecting part-time waiters than it is full-time children?

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:06:31 EDT

Children reared in the presence of smokers do often suffer medical consequences. It is information you should probably include in medical reports in case some of the risk factors are still present. Also, having suffered the ill effects of passive smoke on developing lungs, it would be a really bad idea to become an active smoker.

Comment by Semi-Anonymous Banned Fella

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:53:58 EDT

BHW: My point is simply that ALL professions carry some level of risk. Why should waitresses and bartenders be "specially protected" by the government from one particular type of risk? Why should private business owners and their smoking customers have their rights taken away? If you don't want to carry the "risk" of being around second-hand smoke 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (at most), you will work elsewhere. If this isn't "convenient" for you, too friggin' bad. (BTW, both my parents smoke. So, I was FORCED to live with second-hand smoke every second of my home life for 17+ years. Should the government have stepped in and removed me from this "unsafe" environment? Should the government have banned my parents from smoking inside the home? Should I sue my parents? Or should I just kinda sorta deal with it and get on with my life? Serious questions...)

Comment by bhw

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:43:04 EDT

Whoops, changed tenses in the middle of that sentence. Oh well.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:41:42 EDT

Second-hand roofing and lifeguarding do not kill people who chose not to engage in roofing or lifeguarding but who worked near those who did.

Comment by Semi-Anonymous Banned Fella

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:41:30 EDT

We should also ban coal-mining. Black lung disease is no joke. And dental X-Rays? Puh-Lease. In order to appease Big Tooth, we are greatly enhancing the risk of minorites and the poor who are more likely to have cavities. And people should be prevented from joining the military. I mean, those people sometimes go to war and die and stuff! Police officers are often shot in the line of duty. Hey, dealing with criminals all day is just plain dangerous! We need to save otherwise unemployable cops from being forced to enter this line of work. Gas station clerks are also at grave risk. We need to close those bastions of criminality down! Are there any other professions out there that are not risk-free? If so, we must STAMP THEM OUT. It's the humane thing to do...

Comment by Semi-Anonymous Banned Fella

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:34:29 EDT

Perhaps we should ban roofers and lifeguards from working in Florida and California? After all, skin cancer kills...(of course, so do sharks...)

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:58:10 EDT

That is the price of producing a product that kills people. Death, the really onerous burden, is a risk for anyone who regularly comes into contact with smoke from tobacco products. Employees are often not free to just get another job. As I said above, we're curtailing smoking in bars in Portland. Oregon has had one of the highest unemployment rates for years. The workers who were inhaling that smoke over those years had no real choice. What I see here is doctrine of the elect thinking. A preference for the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless. Phillip-Morris' stockholders and executives are not more important than the waitresses and bartenders forced to inhale smoke from their products in my opinion. They are in yours.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:03:58 EDT

I don't think smoking is a good idea. I don't smoke myself, but I take the Voltaire approach, if you know what I mean. This business of banning smoking in restaurants and bars is just another attempt by others to impose their morality upon others- even upon those who are aware of the risks and accept the risks. It is an easy thing for a bar to post a huge sign on the door that says, "Smoking permitted inside. Those who are concerned about the health risks posed by second-hand smoke should consider going elsewhere," thus giving prospective patrons an informed decision to make. I find it awfully convenient to describe the tobacco side as the only one with money or power. Can you imagine being in a business where you air ads telling people not to use your product? This is not done because Phillip Morris thinks it a good business strategy. It is done because a combination of the Federal and various states governments force it to be done. Now that's proof of where the power lies.