Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[Revoltingest]

What does "they can simply not go there" imply for a worker? It's not like Michigan is swimming in job openings.

Do what most everyone else in MI does when looking for work....move to Texas.

I question whether we can assume they've made a truly free choice.

No one has a right to work in a cigar bar.
Might as well ban alcohol in bars because it puts alcoholic bartenders at risk.
(You wacky Canucks don't do that too....do you?)

 

[Panda]

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.

The minority are the smokers by far. The majority of people don't smoke.

 

[Panda]

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.

And you totally miss the point. Over the summer I was working on the electricity distribution network on voltages up to 132,000. It is my employers responsibility to provide me with the correct safety gear to minimise the risks of that job. How is this any different?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do what most everyone else in MI does when looking for work....move to Texas.

Great if you can afford it, but if someone's making minimum wage as a busboy, he probably can't afford first and last month's rent on a Texas apartment, not to mention the cost of actually moving there.

No one has a right to work in a cigar bar.
Might as well ban alcohol in bars because it puts alcoholic bartenders at risk.
(You wacky Canucks don't do that too....do you?)

Everyone has the right to be safe at work (with the possible exception of inherently dangerous jobs like firefighting, but even then, I'd say they have the right to be protected against unnecessary risk).

Drinking alcohol is not part of a bartender's job.

 

[Badran]

Frankly, I see other reasons to ban smoking in trucks besides health concerns.

Like what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like what?

Distraction.

A lit cigarette needs a certain amount of attention. Also, it's not like a pipe where if you ignore it, the worst that will happen is that it'll just go out. Sometimes, when a cigarette needs attention, if you don't give it, you'll have hot ash down the front of you. If this happens to occur when some event on the road needs your attention as well, neither one will get its due amount of care.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, see, the problem is that non-smokers have no choice but to go in there.

Don't they? Do they have non-cigar bars there? I would assume they do, and so there is a choice. Then again, maybe I should just let you continue with your strawmen and mischaracterizations.

I have no idea who or what is forcing them to though.

Me either. I do know what was forcing non-smokers to go to bars that allowed smoking, though, when there wasn't a ban: the lack of non-smoking bars and the desire to hang out with their friends who went to bars and not sit at home by themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Great if you can afford it, but if someone's making minimum wage as a busboy, he probably can't afford first and last month's rent on a Texas apartment, not to mention the cost of actually moving there.

Then he has rough times ahead if the only job he can find is working in a cigar bar. People find work here still.
Tis a matter of how long one wants to wait, & what one is willing to accept.

Everyone has the right to be safe at work (with the possible exception of inherently dangerous jobs like firefighting, but even then, I'd say they have the right to be protected against unnecessary risk).

If indoor air quality meets legal requirements, then I see no need to ban cigar bars.
The issue seems to boil down to how much of a nanny state we want.
I'd just draw the line in a different place from yours....a more libertarian direction.

Drinking alcohol is not part of a bartender's job.

No. But exposure to its availability is a risk which interferes with his safety.
Where you might have gov't lean towards a more one-size-fits-all workplace, I'd leave it up more to the employers & workers.

 

[Badran]

Distraction.

A lit cigarette needs a certain amount of attention. Also, it's not like a pipe where if you ignore it, the worst that will happen is that it'll just go out. Sometimes, when a cigarette needs attention, if you don't give it, you'll have hot ash down the front of you. If this happens to occur when some event on the road needs your attention as well, neither one will get its due amount of care.

That makes sense. As far as health concerns, if the truck driver is accompanied by somebody else in the car, that also makes sense.

I doubt that this is applied to everything else though that meets the same criteria. I think its more of an attitude towards smokers rather than genuine concern for the public.

 

[Storm]

That makes sense. As far as health concerns, if the truck driver is accompanied by somebody else in the car, that also makes sense.

I doubt that this is applied to everything else though that meets the same criteria. I think its more of an attitude towards smokers rather than genuine concern for the public.

Yeah, the same argument could be made for banning music while driving....

 

[darkstar]

Distraction.

A lit cigarette needs a certain amount of attention. Also, it's not like a pipe where if you ignore it, the worst that will happen is that it'll just go out. Sometimes, when a cigarette needs attention, if you don't give it, you'll have hot ash down the front of you. If this happens to occur when some event on the road needs your attention as well, neither one will get its due amount of care.

That's all fine and well, but by that logic one should not be able to eat or drink in a vehicle either. But these things aren't illegal, even though they can pose even higher distraction than flicking a cigarette in your car's ash tray.

I do agree that people have far too many distractions on the road, and I do agree that a Truck is a workplace and all. However, with that being said, it should be up to the employer and not the government to fine a trucker that is smoking in the vehicle. On top of that, Truckers already have so much against them that their lives are stressful enough. Add to that an addiction that they can't partake in, and now we have a jumpy and likely frustrated trucker that is behind the wheel of a behemoth of a vehicle. It doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, the same argument could be made for banning music while driving....

Shhhhhhh! Don't give'm ideas.

 

[beenie]

I'm sorry if you don't see the similarity. If there actually is a meaningful difference that you perceive, you could always try explaining it. I know, sounds crazy.

Curry smell is not a health hazard. All food smells, and well, we have to eat.
Until they come up with another alternative to gas-guzzling, fume-emitting cars, we have to manage with what we have.

People choose to START smoking.

 

[Erebus]

I thought I was doing the people getting my second hand smoke a favour? I have to pay for my cigarettes! They should at least be grateful I'm sharing

Honestly, I think common courtesy applies to smoking. If somebody doesn't want me smoking in their house I'll happily go outside. If somebody doesn't want me smoking in public they can stay at arm's length away from me. I try and blow the smoke away from people and doors/windows anyway, if people then walk through it that's their own fault. It'd take a direct blast through a door or window to actually allow the smell inside and even I'm not that obnoxious.

I had a great time when I had an electric cigarette "lighting up" in buildings. People look at you as if you just slapped them across the face and desperately look for a reason why you shouldn't be "smoking" indoors. Honestly hilarious

 

[Panda]

That's all fine and well, but by that logic one should not be able to eat or drink in a vehicle either. But these things aren't illegal, even though they can pose even higher distraction than flicking a cigarette in your car's ash tray.

They are here.

 

[darkstar]

I had a great time when I had an electric cigarette "lighting up" in buildings. People look at you as if you just slapped them across the face and desperately look for a reason why you shouldn't be "smoking" indoors. Honestly hilarious

That's one of the points I tried to make earlier in the thread. How many of these people swore that they could smell the cigarette smoke from the electronic cigarette that emits no smoke? I've seen it a lot before. But since you brought it up, I'd like to know if you also experienced this phenomena

 

[darkstar]

They are here.

That is actually logical. But they're not illegal here. And as far as I know, these actions are also not illegal in the area in question. That's my point. It's an anti smoking crusade, it has nothing to do with distractions. It also has nothing to do with work place for that matter.
These are just excuses to carry out the crusade against smokers in another form.

 

[Erebus]

That's one of the points I tried to make earlier in the thread. How many of these people swore that they could smell the cigarette smoke from the electronic cigarette that emits no smoke? I've seen it a lot before. But since you brought it up, I'd like to know if you also experienced this phenomena

A fair few did actually, I think it might be psychosomatic personally. Rather like people who start coughing when they so much as see a cigarette.

An electronic cigarette does have a very faint odour, but it's nothing like the smell of a regular cigarette. If anything it's fairly sweet.

 

[darkstar]

A fair few did actually, I think it might be psychosomatic personally. Rather like people who start coughing when they so much as see a cigarette.

An electronic cigarette does have a very faint odour, but it's nothing like the smell of a regular cigarette. If anything it's fairly sweet.

Exactly. And that was one of my points about smoke, and the smell of such at long distances. I don't dispute getting a small whiff of smoke from a distance, but it's not overpowering and doesn't linger. It also likely has less negative health effects than breathing the pollution already in the air to begin with.

Basically the strong smell people pick up on is usually psychosomatic and stems from seeing the cigarette. Or smelling something that triggers the mind to recall the cigarette smell, which can indeed even be a faint hint of cigarette smoke that the mind blows out of proportion. I recall a social experiment done by someone in my high school that dealt with this. It was quite interesting to see.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Curry smell is not a health hazard. All food smells, and well, we have to eat.
Until they come up with another alternative to gas-guzzling, fume-emitting cars, we have to manage with what we have.

People choose to START smoking.

Right, and it's their right to choose to do so. Just as it's your right to cook strong smelling foods, or run an engine which outputs toxic gases.

The idea that second-hand smoke dispersed over the area between two separate houses is dangerous is rather ridiculous, as even the science behind the effects of more direct second-hand smoke are flimsy at best.

So, essentially it comes down to discomfort caused by a smell you don't like, such as a neighbor cooking foods whose odor you find objectionable.