Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[Poisonshady313]

It seems as if you're conflicted yourself. On one hand its "i'm entitled to so I will" but on the other you seem to make distinctions for consideration.

Extending courtesy should be a two way street, but it seems like Storm is giving consideration and not getting any in return.

 

[Kathryn]

The problem is if it's allowed, everyone has to have a smoking section or just allow smoking. The only real way to do it is to ban smoking in bars and restaurants completely.

Why? Why should a privately owned bar be forced to have a smoking section? Why should a privately owned bar be forced to ban smoking?

No one is forcing anyone to be there. The place was PACKED when smoking was allowed, so obviously lots of people didn't mind going there, regardless of the smoke.

As soon as smoking in bars was banned, their attendance and revenue dropped significantly.

 

[Kathryn]

Working topless is not a hazard to your health. If my employer doesn't equip me with the correct safety gear to carry out the work I do then I am not allowed to do it legally. Maybe giving all staff respirators would have been a solution?

Sorry, but this sounds ridiculous. If you have employees who are more than willing to work in a smoking environment no one is being forced to work in that environment. Odds are that they are smokers themselves anyway, or live with a smoker.

Using sharp knives is dangerous. Cooking with hot grease is dangerous. Carrying massive trays of food is dangerous and can really hurt your back over time.

Let people CHOOSE - that's my position. If people want to work in a bar where smoking is allowed, let them. If people want to go to a bar where smoking is allowed, let them.

By the way, the waitstaff at my brother's bar suffered from lost revenue too when the smoking ban went into effect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, but this sounds ridiculous. If you have employees who are more than willing to work in a smoking environment no one is being forced to work in that environment. Odds are that they are smokers themselves anyway, or live with a smoker.

Using sharp knives is dangerous. Cooking with hot grease is dangerous. Carrying massive trays of food is dangerous and can really hurt your back over time.

Let people CHOOSE - that's my position. If people want to work in a bar where smoking is allowed, let them. If people want to go to a bar where smoking is allowed, let them.

By the way, the waitstaff at my brother's bar suffered from lost revenue too when the smoking ban went into effect.

How is this different from any other workplace safety issue?

I'm a race marshal. I "play" with high speed traffic for fun in my spare time. Does this mean that if I was a highway construction worker, my employer wouldn't have to worry about barriers or crash trucks for me? These things aren't cheap - a construction company that didn't have to pay for traffic safety measures would have a lot more money kicking around to, say, hire more staff or pay its existing workers more.

How is smoking any different? In both cases, you have a workplace hazard. In both cases, addressing the hazard has a cost associated with it. Well, it's just part of the cost of doing business, IMO.

Now... I'm not completely insensitive to the issue. I remember before Ontario passed its smoking ban when Toronto tried to do a ban of its own; people just drove to bars in the suburbs. But when the smoking ban went province-wide, people went back to their "local". So... I wonder how much of the revenue reduction for your brother's bar is because of the smoking ban itself and how much is because other nearby places DON'T have a smoking ban.

 

[Commoner]

Well, here's my opinion, for what it's worth...

I love the fact that I can come home from a night out now and not smell like an ashtray, I mean - I LOVE IT! I don't know why a law had to be passed to get me here though? I mean, the smokers I know would generally excuse themselves and go outside to smoke in any other social situation, but it seems it had become a standard practice to light up in the bar - that's what I don't get, how did that become ok? I mean, even if I get a call somewhere where I think that could be disruptive, I step outside. How is smoking any different?

 

[McBell]

I love the fact that I can come home from a night out now and not smell like an ashtray, I mean - I LOVE IT! I don't know why a law had to be passed to get me here though?

Because you CHOSE to go places where people smoke...

I mean, the smokers I know would generally excuse themselves and go outside to smoke in any other social situation, but it seems it had become a standard practice to light up in the bar - that's what I don't get, how did that become ok? I mean, even if I get a call somewhere where I think that could be disruptive, I step outside. How is smoking any different?

Because there are some places where smoking is allowed.

Now if you go somewhere where smoking is allowed, you will come home smelling like smoke.

 

[Magic Man]

Why? Why should a privately owned bar be forced to ban smoking?

Because that's the only way it's going to happen. I thought that was clear in my last post when I said "That's the only way it's going to happen".

No one is forcing anyone to be there. The place was PACKED when smoking was allowed, so obviously lots of people didn't mind going there, regardless of the smoke.

As soon as smoking in bars was banned, their attendance and revenue dropped significantly.

And that sucks for them. However, to get to a point where we can have some non-smoking establishments and some smoking establishments, we have to ban it completely first. If you continue to allow anyone to allow smoking, everyone's going to continue to allow smoking.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, here's my opinion, for what it's worth...

I love the fact that I can come home from a night out now and not smell like an ashtray, I mean - I LOVE IT! I don't know why a law had to be passed to get me here though? I mean, the smokers I know would generally excuse themselves and go outside to smoke in any other social situation, but it seems it had become a standard practice to light up in the bar - that's what I don't get, how did that become ok? I mean, even if I get a call somewhere where I think that could be disruptive, I step outside. How is smoking any different?

This is a very good point. When I used to smoke, I would go outside when at a party at a friend's house. All my friends who are smokers go outside at someone's house. Now they go outside at the bar. I do understand how convenient and nice it used to be to be able to smoke inside, but that's because I used to smoke. For non-smokers, it's much nicer that smokers aren't able to smoke inside.

 

[Magic Man]

Because you CHOSE to go places where people smoke...

Because there was no choice. Up until the ban, you couldn't go to a bar or restaurant that didn't allow smoking. At least not in my area. That's because they were trying to appeal to the largest possible base. I don't blame them for doing it, but it's not like we had a choice if we wanted to go to a restaurant or bar.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Because there was no choice. Up until the ban, you couldn't go to a bar or restaurant that didn't allow smoking. At least not in my area. That's because they were trying to appeal to the largest possible base. I don't blame them for doing it, but it's not like we had a choice if we wanted to go to a restaurant or bar.

And that is it in a nut shell. The minority wants to dictate what the majority does and controls them by legislation.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you are saying non-smoking bars would not be profitable if smoking bars where allowed too?

I would think all the complainers would love to frequent non smoking establishments.

Call me stupid, but I see a market for both kind of places.

 

[Commoner]

Because you CHOSE to go places where people smoke...

Because there are some places where smoking is allowed.

Now if you go somewhere where smoking is allowed, you will come home smelling like smoke.

It's not a matter of "allowed", it's a matter of courtesy. Just as I excuse myself to make a telephone call, if I'm in an environment where I would bother other people, a smoker can take it outside. I don't think it should be banned, I think it should be something that is frowned upon, just as having a loud, annoying ringtone play every other minute would be...

 

[McBell]

It's not a matter of "allowed", it's a matter of courtesy. Just as I excuse myself to make a telephone call, if I'm in an environment where I would bother other people, a smoker can take it outside. I don't think it's should be banned, I think it should be something that is frowned upon, just as having a loud, annoying ringtone play every other minute would be...

Why does this "courtesy" only work one way?

Like in the situation Storm described, why is it on HER to be "courteous?
Is it simply because she is smoking?

Do not non-smokers need to be courteous as well?
If I am in a room full of smokers, I do not feel I should have to leave the room in order to smoke just to satisfy some self righteous non-smokers idea of "courtesy".

If I am alone in a bar that allows smoking and light one up, the courteous thing for the non-smoker who entered the bar AFTER I lit up would be for them to go back outside, right?

 

[Magic Man]

And that is it in a nut shell. The minority wants to dictate what the majority does and controls them by legislation.

Incorrect. As you said, I want there to be bars and restaurants where you can smoke, as well as bars and restaurants where you can't. If that is achievable, the only way to get there is to start by banning it everywhere. If you don't ban it everywhere, nothing is going to change.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you are saying non-smoking bars would not be profitable if smoking bars where allowed too?

Yes, I'm saying until we can break the mold, that would be the case. Maybe a few, or many, years down the road we can open it up so that businesses have the option, but we can't go straight to that.

I would think all the complainers would love to frequent non smoking establishments.

And I'm sure most would. There are just a few problems. Right now, if you give a business the option, they are going to allow smoking almost 100% of the time because they're trying to appeal to the broadest base possible. And most non-smokers have smoking friends, and if they're all going somewhere usually the smokers in the group win out, if smoking is allowed.

Call me stupid, but I see a market for both kind of places.

Me, too, but to get to a market where we have both kinds of place, we have to start by banning it altogether. If you don't, nothing is going to change.

 

[McBell]

Because there was no choice. Up until the ban, you couldn't go to a bar or restaurant that didn't allow smoking. At least not in my area. That's because they were trying to appeal to the largest possible base. I don't blame them for doing it, but it's not like we had a choice if we wanted to go to a restaurant or bar.

So your claim is that you have no choice but to go into a bar or restaurant?

 

[Magic Man]

So your claim is that you have no choice but to go into a bar or restaurant?

Nope. My claim is that, if I wanted to go to a bar or restaurant pre-ban, I had no choice but to go to a smoking establishment. I thought that part was clear.

 

[McBell]

Incorrect. As you said, I want there to be bars and restaurants where you can smoke, as well as bars and restaurants where you can't. If that is achievable, the only way to get there is to start by banning it everywhere. If you don't ban it everywhere, nothing is going to change.



Yes, I'm saying until we can break the mold, that would be the case. Maybe a few, or many, years down the road we can open it up so that businesses have the option, but we can't go straight to that.



And I'm sure most would. There are just a few problems. Right now, if you give a business the option, they are going to allow smoking almost 100% of the time because they're trying to appeal to the broadest base possible. And most non-smokers have smoking friends, and if they're all going somewhere usually the smokers in the group win out, if smoking is allowed.



Me, too, but to get to a market where we have both kinds of place, we have to start by banning it altogether. If you don't, nothing is going to change.

So you are basically saying that everyplace will always allow smoking because it makes them more money?
That non-smokers are just completely unable to stop them selves from going into smoking allowed businesses and the ONLY way to get the non-smokers to not go into smoking allowed businesses is to ban all smoking?

Really?

 

[Songbird]

It's not a matter of "allowed", it's a matter of courtesy. Just as I excuse myself to make a telephone call, if I'm in an environment where I would bother other people, a smoker can take it outside. I don't think it's should be banned, I think it should be something that is frowned upon, just as having a loud, annoying ringtone play every other minute is...

Cell phone usage actually is banned - or at least requested to not be used via big signage - in several places - theaters, doctors' offices, fitness centers. Although those aren't legal sanctions, one outlawed example is while driving.

I guess if I pick a side, I favor a ban of indoor smoking of public places (which my state has enforced for the last few years). I'm not offended by an encounter with smoking, but I like knowing I can choose any restaurant or bar and not risk potential health hazards or leave smelling like smoke. And I have a slight allergy to smoke, which accumulates over time of exposure, so it's a relief to not get watery, itchy eyes indoors.

None of those factors separately is a big deal, but I think smoking has a longer list of annoyances than other things like perfumes or cell phones. Though the severity of some of those annoyances is less. A loud ring tone, sickening perfume scent, crying baby, or permeating cigarette smoke smell is annoying. But hey, that's the cost of being around people.

 

[McBell]

Nope. My claim is that, if I wanted to go to a bar or restaurant pre-ban, I had no choice but to go to a smoking establishment. I thought that part was clear.

So you want the government to ban smoking so that you can into your favourite bar?
But wait, you already go into your favourite bar, even with the smoking.
So the smoking does not bother you enough to stick to your own guns and not go into the bar?

Seems to me that you want the government to ban smoking because non-smokers are unable to stop themselves from entering a smoking allowed establishment.

 

[Commoner]

Why does this "courtesy" only work one way?

Like in the situation Storm described, why is it on HER to be "courteous?
Is it simply because she is smoking?

Do not non-smokers need to be courteous as well?
If I am in a room full of smokers, I do not feel I should have to leave the room in order to smoke just to satisfy some self righteous non-smokers idea of "courtesy".

If I am alone in a bar that allows smoking and light one up, the courteous thing for the non-smoker who entered the bar AFTER I lit up would be for them to go back outside, right?

Yup, it's simply because she's smoking. And it's simply because I'm the one with the annoying ringtone. It's all a matter of measure, if you're alone in the bar nobody is going to mind you making an obnoxious phone call either or having your annoying ringtone ring every two minutes. The point is, it is never the case with smoking that it is considered a no-no, while other things are. There's simply no reason this should be the case. Should I not be allowed to fart to my heart's desire by the same token - without being frowned upon? It's allowed, after all...

 

[Storm]

Yup, it's simply because she's smoking. And it's simply because I'm the one with the annoying ringtone. It's all a matter of measure, if you're alone in the bar nobody is going to mind you making an obnoxious phone call either or having your annoying ringtone ring every two minutes. The point is, it is never the case with smoking that it is considered a no-no, while other things are. There's simply no reason this should be the case. Should I not be allowed to fart to my heart's desire by the same token? It's allowed, after all...

Why? When I make every effort to be courteous, why can't people accept that as good enough? Why do they have the right to be DIScourteous?