Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[Kathryn]

My brother and his wife own an Irish pub. A large percentage of their patrons smoke. Even the ones who don't smoke regularly (for instance, me) will sometimes smoke while they are drinking.

Recently smoking in restaurants and bars was outlawed in their area. I mean - they can't even have a smoking section - it's OUTLAWED. The hit to their business - their privately owned business - was substantial. In fact, this law was enacted about two years ago, and they STILL haven't recovered some of the business they lost.

Whether others like it or not, some people really enjoy going out on the weekend and sitting at a bar drinking and smoking with their buds after a long week of work.

If others don't want to be around that, they should go to a restaurant or pub which doesn't allow that. People don't have an inherent right to demand that every piece of private property they are on is smoke free. Their own property - yes. But to voluntarily go to a place where their presence is not required, and where there may be smoke, and then demand that others conform to their preferences is the absolute HEIGHT of intolerance in my opinion.

If there's a large enough demand for a smoke free bar, someone will open one and they can go there. (But it won't be as fun as my brother's pub!)

 

[Panda]

I really hope people realize you can't "ban away" addiction. Effectively making it impossible to smoke anywhere is just unenforceable.

Here anyway I get the impression their job is to make smoking less of a sociable experience and make it more a social taboo and it does seem to be starting to work (from personal experience). They are trying to change people opinions of smoking to stop them from starting.

 

[darkendless]

Here anyway I get the impression their job is to make smoking less of a sociable experience and make it more a social taboo and it does seem to be starting to work (from personal experience). They are trying to change people opinions of smoking to stop them from starting.

Sounds good in theory but in practice people are just too stupid. In Oz the kids love to do it to be cool.

Heap of smokers at uni. Have to walk through their cancer clouds to get from class to class. Annoys me to death, I really despise smoking and feel its disgustingly inconsiderate to smoke near others.

I don't think banning it would do much but raising the price to make it very difficult to afford to smoke couldn't hurt. I wouldn't have any problems making it financially difficult to smoke.

They should also refuse to treat people who have smoking related illnesses because they did it to themselves. Why should public resources be stretched to accommodate people who willfully destroyed themselves?

 

[Barcode]

Scenario: I open my house windows because it's a beautiful day, and instead of getting a nice, fresh breeze, the construction worker building the house next door lights up and now my house smells like an ashtray.

I'm all for personal choice, but where do his rights to smoke end and my husbands, children's, and my rights to fresh air in my own smoke-free home begin?

Edit: I forgot to mention that my neighbor across the street smokes cigars and we get that smell in our house too. So what do you think?

Well, the most common thing that I would think others would suggest is closing your windows? Or kindly let them know that their smoke is rather "intrusive."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To an extent - but the occasional whiff of the scent of someone smoking on their own property is something that I think people should just deal with in a tolerant society.

For instance, if someone's smoking in the apartment below you and you can smell the smoke through an open window - damn, people, close your window (thanks, ssainhu). The same people smoking below you are the ones your kid wakes up when he's running through the house after they've gotten home from working the night shift. You expect them to exercise some tolerance - practice what you preach.

And expect them not to use the balcony they're paying good money for, too, apparently.

The last time I lived in an apartment, I'd smell smoke from downstairs even when I had all the doors and windows closed. It would just sneak in somehow.

I found this worrying for other reasons - because if cigarette smoke could travel that much between floors, other smoke probably could, too, such as in a building fire - but regardless, I did everything I could to keep my home smoke-free, but I got smoke anyhow.

In a situation like this, we have two people who have clearly expressed their wishes for what they want in their home, but these wishes are incompatible. Why should it be the non-smoker who doesn't get his way? A cigarette is portable; it can be smoked anywhere. OTOH, if there's something wrong with my home, it's not practical for me to go sleep in the park.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kathryn, can you name any other workplace with a long-term toxic health hazard and where the employees wear no personal protective equipment, where we approach it with the attitude "oh, well if everyone there chooses to be there, it's okay"?

If a mine owner got busted by the Department of Labour for not using proper respirators, could he use this excuse, too? Why should tobacco smoke get a free pass?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Second hand smoke is a health hazard, smoking should be banned. Done.

While we are at it, let's legislate world peace too. Problem solved.

I have heard history repeats it's self. :yes:

Does this not sound like prohibition? How did that work out?

This sounds like the war on drugs too.

We have gun free zones at many colleges but yet children still get lined up and shot.

fenrisx, do you want to instantly criminalise millions of addicted folks?

Do you really believe you can cure addiction with the stroke of a pen?

How do you feel about the obese in this country?

Should we outlaw McDonalds too?

 

[Magic Man]

My brother and his wife own an Irish pub. A large percentage of their patrons smoke. Even the ones who don't smoke regularly (for instance, me) will sometimes smoke while they are drinking.

Recently smoking in restaurants and bars was outlawed in their area. I mean - they can't even have a smoking section - it's OUTLAWED. The hit to their business - their privately owned business - was substantial. In fact, this law was enacted about two years ago, and they STILL haven't recovered some of the business they lost.

Whether others like it or not, some people really enjoy going out on the weekend and sitting at a bar drinking and smoking with their buds after a long week of work.

If others don't want to be around that, they should go to a restaurant or pub which doesn't allow that. People don't have an inherent right to demand that every piece of private property they are on is smoke free. Their own property - yes. But to voluntarily go to a place where their presence is not required, and where there may be smoke, and then demand that others conform to their preferences is the absolute HEIGHT of intolerance in my opinion.

If there's a large enough demand for a smoke free bar, someone will open one and they can go there. (But it won't be as fun as my brother's pub!)

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.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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 not let the business decide what the rules are inside his establishment?

Some bars have nudity. There should be a sign on the door to warn you of what is going on inside.

I think there should be smoke free bars, smoking bars and hybrids, (smoking on the patio only).

 

[Rakhel]

I wonder how one can tell the difference between the health risks from second-hand smoke and smog.

I had asthma long before I married a smoker, and I will tell you, living in the city, surrounded by smog, has had more effects on my health then my husband's smoking ever did.

My children got asthma living behind a plywood factory. Their asthma went away when we moved away. Even after my marrying a smoker, their asthma never came back.

My grandmother had lung cancer before she started smoking.

Every member of my family that has died of cancer, not one died because they smoked

NYC has had at least 5 people die in the last 5 years from the air quality they breathed in in the days,weeks after 9/11/2001. I expect the number to go up.

 

[Panda]

I think there should be smoke free bars, smoking bars and hybrids, (smoking on the patio only).

What about employees though? Employers shouldn't be putting their staff at risk for no reason should they? Don't we all have the right to work in a smoke free environment?

 

[Magic Man]

Why not let the business decide what the rules are inside his establishment?

Because, as I said, then everyone has to have a smoking section to compete. That was the whole point of my last post.

I think there should be smoke free bars, smoking bars and hybrids, (smoking on the patio only).

And maybe one day this will be possible. But to get to that point, this is the only way to go. Just letting owners decide for themselves isn't going to get us to the point of having the 3 different kinds of bars; it's going to continue the state of having only bars where smoking is allowed. Believe me, I used to smoke, and I know how annoying it was when these bans started going into effect. I couldn't believe I couldn't smoke in a bar in New York soon after their ban went into effect.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What about employees though? Employers shouldn't be putting their staff at risk for no reason should they? Don't we all have the right to work in a smoke free environment?

No one should be forced to work around smokers just as no one should be forced to serve beer topless.

If you want a job going topless, take the job. If you are a smoker and want to serve smokers take the job.

Things can't always be all inclusive, I can't get a job working at Hooters as a waitress for example.

In case you have never had the opportunity to eat there, it is a bar/ restaurant that has scantly clad servers with ample endowments.

 

[Rakhel]

Why not let the business decide what the rules are inside his establishment?

Some bars have nudity. There should be a sign on the door to warn you of what is going on inside.

I think there should be smoke free bars, smoking bars and hybrids, (smoking on the patio only).

They have this option in Little Rock, AR. Any establishment that serviced people 21 and under, either had to become non-smoking or have an advance ventilation system. This law had a weird effect on employment. Adults(18-20 yr old) who were legally allowed to work in bars, were fired.
One bar in particular(that I used to attend), had three rooms, each with it's own bar. In order to keep their clientele, they put in a ventilation system in one of the rooms. That room was for those over 21.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about employees though? Employers shouldn't be putting their staff at risk for no reason should they? Don't we all have the right to work in a smoke free environment?

I agree. A hazard is a hazard.

I'm sure that there are plenty of construction workers who find it annoying to wear a hard hat, and there are even whole companies that hsve closed because they found their safety requirements too expensive or onerous. But in these cases, we say that if a company can't afford to do business safely, then too bad for them.

What argument for allowing a known hazard in a restaurant wouldn't apply to other hazards in other workplaces?

 

[Panda]

No one should be forced to work around smokers just as no one should be forced to serve beer topless.

If you want a job going topless, take the job. If you are a smoker and want to serve smokers take the job.

Things can't always be all inclusive, I can't get a job working at Hooters as a waitress for example.

In case you have never had the opportunity to eat there, it is a bar/ restaurant that has scantly clad servers with ample endowments.

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?

 

[Panda]

I agree. A hazard is a hazard.

I'm sure that there are plenty of construction workers who find it annoying to wear a hard hat, and there are even whole companies that hsve closed because they found their safety requirements too expensive or onerous. But in these cases, we say that if a company can't afford to do business safely, then too bad for them.

What argument for allowing a known hazard in a restaurant wouldn't apply to other hazards in other workplaces?

I know about the joys of PPE . Spent summer having to wear helmet, flame retardant overalls, steel toe cap boots and often gloves and eye protection. Trust me, we moaned

 

[Reverend Rick]

I know about the joys of PPE . Spent summer having to wear helmet, flame retardant overalls, steel toe cap boots and often gloves and eye protection. Trust me, we moaned

I have to buy all that stuff for my employees. What if the business owner served the customers on the deck smoking and he was a smoker himself?

Would that be OK?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have to buy all that stuff for my employees. What if the business owner served the customers on the deck smoking and he was a smoker himself?

Would that be OK?

If you had an employee who liked hittimg himself over the head in his spare time, would he still have to wear a hard hat on the job?

Edit: I may have responded too quickly. I don't have a problem with outdoor, unenclosed smoking areas.

 

[Storm]

If you had an employee who liked hittimg himself over the head in his spare time, would he still have to wear a hard hat on the job?

Edit: I may have responded too quickly. I don't have a problem with outdoor, unenclosed smoking areas.

Then why did you say the jerks in my example aren't being unreasonable?