Since when is banning smoking a liberal thing to do?

Tonight at midnight the entire state of Washington becomes smoke free.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002669007_smoking07m.html

No smoking in any public places including restaurants, bowling alleys, skating rinks, nontribal casinos, private clubs and reception areas. Even cigar rooms and hookah bars are affected. Smoking within 25 feet of doorways also will be banned.

Now, I understand not wanting to be around smoke, and I'm all for smoke free environments. But why the hell do liberals vote for all out bans on smoking? Is it not possible to have smoking establishements and smoke-free establishements?

I am in Oregon, and the marketplace has been dealing with this issue just fine. There are dozens of non-smoking bars, and there are many music clubs that don't allow smoking, and the majority of restaurants don't have smoking sections. Business owners saw that people wanted smoke-free places to go, and decided to cater to those people who are most likely in the majority.

Since when is prohibition a liberal ideal? Here you have a choice, go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking or go to one that does. It's as simple as that.

If there is such a demand for non-smoking establishments, which I think there is, then why does it need to be legislated?

By the way, I am working on opening a bar, and it will be non-smoking. By choice, thank you very much. Not by law.

I'm sorry, but I'm saddened by liberals who think that this is the right way to go.

Flame away.

Or just people who are tired of smoke in their eyes? And the stale, sour smell of old smoke clinging to everything else.

The only options are not smoke everywhere and smoke nowhere. I'm saying that in any city there is a market for smoke-free environments, so the marketplace should give you places to go if you don't want to be around it.

I don't see why there can't be a sign on the front door of an establishement that says "Warning: We allow smoking here. Do not enter if you do not want to be exposed to smoke."

What's wrong with that?

As a employer you can not safely harm your employees health.

Which would the majority of the people in the town go to? I think they would go to the non-smoking bar. No laws needed.

Small town with four cafe type restaurants, one goes smokeless. The owner's hubby died of lung cancer, wife now hates cigarettes. Lost business, lots of business, she had to let the smokers back in because folks were willing to oblige their smoker friends. True story. I know the town and have eaten in the restaurants. :shrug:

There is no accounting for the irrationality of human beings.

Would the customers just go somewhere else? Would they start private clubs that do allow smoking?

I'm not pro-smoking by any means, I'm just pro-choice. I know that sounds strange to be using that term in this case, but that's one of my most treasured liberal ideals -choice.

I think it's sad that the town couldn't support a non-smoking bar. Not yet, but it will someday.

Until then, the will of the town has spoken I guess. It sounds like the notion of passing a non-smoking law in that town would be pretty much nil. But times are changing, and eventually the younger people there will want to have the choice to be in a less toxic environment. It's just a matter of time.

But, then, that is by state law. I think this is a grey area even for libertarian leaning folks. Public accommodations like restaurants and hotels have to serve the public, all of the public. If folks stay away because the second hand smoke can make them sick, that is an valid issue. I don't know if an out right ban is the best way to go, but some relief needs to be found.

I do believe that eventually the number of smokers will decrease, but it will be a long time before that would impact safety in restaurants and hotel rooms. Some businesses have found that when they do go smokeless they see an entirely new population of customers who had been staying away precisely because of the smoke. Some chains are smokeless like Outback Steakhouse, I think they are still doing quite well. Here in Colorado Springs there is a listing of smoke free restaurants, as well.

Recently there was a report from Pueblo, a city just south of here, that has banned smoking. There has been a dramatic decrease in heart attacks coming into the city hospitals. They are at close to 25% of their former numbers.

People used to ask if it was OK to smoke, many wouldn't smoke around women or children at all. That was, of course, before women started smoking in greater numbers. Now smokers are miffed if they are asked not to smoke.

This isn't an easy issue, but there are many people who support no smoking regulations, including the people who staff the establishments. It really isn't all that easy to pick and choose between jobs in many parts of the country. Wait staff often need the jobs they hold and are, quite virtually, captive victims of second hand smoke.

When does one person's right to smoke trump another person's right to breath and enjoy good health? Telling nonsmokers just to stay away doesn't seem quite fair. It's a dilemma.

And...I haven't even mentioned the cleaning bills and extra hairwashing being in a smokey environment causes. ;)

Before California adopted it's strict laws, I couldn't enjoy restaurants. Smoke doesn't stay in the "no-smoking" section. I honestly feel that a smoker's right to smoke ends where the public health begins and that means no smoking in public buildings. Why should folks with health problems have to stay away just because other folks have an unhealthy addiction they must constantly feed? Sorry, but my right to breathe comes first.

Even in the South, there are smoke-free bars and restaurants - by choice.

Given the choice of eating a good meal in a smoking vs a smoke-free environment, I'd choose the former. Given the choice between eating mediocre food in a smoking environment or excellent food in a smoke-free environment, I'd go with the latter.

So would most smokers, unless it was 3am and they were shit-faced.

They have studies also where bar owners and restaurant owners had expressed a desire to go smoke free but would not because of the scenario you just illustrated.

The idea that you should let the free market dictate who's employees get exposed to possible carcinogens is completely asinine.

I've lived in many small towns and never heard of or saw a no smoking bar in one. I've been in several small town bars in California where smoking was illegal and the bar let anyone that wanted to smoke anyway.

The idea that the owner of a bar or any other damn thing gets to call the shots is not a liberal view, however it is a libertarian view.

after going to the restroom as an unconscionable infringement on restaurant owners' property rights. If the restaurant owner wants to run his restaurant however he sees fit, why should the government micromanage his daily operations? If people feel strongly about hand-washing, they will flock to the clean-hands restaurants and the market place will sort it all out.

No one seems to get it!

We live in a capitalism so business owners should get to run their businesses however they see fit without the government butting in and telling them how to micromanage their business on a day-to-day basis.

Damn OCD riddled clean-o-phobics!

:rofl:

All I'm talking about is the right to have choice. I guess you can't be trusted to make healthy choices for yourself, so we'll just sanitize away all of the bad things to protect you.

That's not democracy, that's fucking big brother! If I want to go to or operate a cigar bar, I should damn well be allowed to as long as it doesn't harm anyone outside the enclosed space.

All it takes is a warning sign - you can choose to come in or not.

science which supports the ban doesn't change it from a health regulation into a restriction on property rights or choice. Lots of people feel the same way about teaching evolution. Go figure . . .

By the way, public smoking impacts the nonsmoking public in many ways. I agree that a "Smokers Welcome" sign takes care of all those who might choose to go elsewhere, but it doesn't address the smoky workplace the staff must endure and it doesn't address the extraordinary societal health care costs attributable to smoking. That cost is substantial, it is a burden on our health care system, and it is a burden paid for in large measure with public funds which I would personally like to see used to treat ailments that are not self inflicted. See <http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html>, <http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html>, <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5339a2.htm>.

This desire for a clean workplace and for the reduction of avoidable health care costs is not a liberal or a conservative issue. It's sound health policy.

Fat isn't good for anyone, and we can't have situations where people who work in restaurants are forced to sample the quality of unhealthy food.

I agree that smoking is a huge burden on the healthcare industry. But so are car crashes, and so is obesity.

I'm just saying that we're getting into some big brother territory here. I don't like the idea that liberals would prefer that the government legislate to make sure that I can't choose to do something by choice.

By the way, how do you feel about hash bars in Amsterdam?

on someone else's plate at a restaurant once so I see exactly why smoking and fatty foods raise an identical issue.

For the record, I think that the public enjoys the right to pass laws which curb the fat content (or nicotine content, or hashish content, or red dye content) of any food it sees as a heath problem. If a majority of the public concludes that certain foods are unnecessarily driving up health care costs, I wouldn't question the public's authority to pass a regulation to address that issue. Is this anti-fatty-foods legislation pending anywhere? If so, please let me know because I'm sure my father would be interested in moving there in light of his unique health concerns after the second-hand blocked artery he suffered.

I do not know much about the affects of hash. If it makes you drive poorly, I would be in favor of a law that makes it illegal to drive while under its influence. If hash use is responsible for, say, ten percent of Amsterdam's public funds for health care costs, I think they might want to consider allowing the public vote on whether they should ban it.

Do you feel differently about hash?

Out-of-wedlock pregnancies put a burden on the welfare system. I'd rather pay for people who were responsible with their bodies. AIDS and other veneral diseases drive up the cost of healthcare. In fact, since homosexuals have AIDS at a higher rate, I think we should pass a law that bans all homosexual sex. In fact, since homosexuals destroy the family, I think we should pass a law that would kill all homosexuals.

Go take a smoke break.......---> Outside of course. :hi:

does not protect any right of reproductive privacy.

Second, I would think a fascist judge like him would also believe the Constitution doesn't protect a smoker, a bar owner or a pro-smoking employee from congregating at a space and serving drinks, while smoking.

I have personally read about 50 opinions written by Alto. I feel confident he would rule in favor of the corporation and against the individual and then he would adopt whichever interpretation of the Constitution helped him reach that result, and ultimately he would say that his interpretation was the inevitable result of his analysis of the original intent of the persons who drafted the Constitution.

I can choose between greasy bar food, A&W, or pizza & fried chicken. I would prefer that there be a good restaurant with a salad bar, some lean grilled meats, whole wheat pizza crust and vegetarian dishes on the menu. I think I would like to mandate that these restaurants have to provide a large part of the menu, for MY tastes. And, since fatty foods drive up our healthcare costs, I think we should pass a law that says no more than 10 percent of the food on the menu have a saturated fat content of more than 1 gram for every four ounce servings. And since everyone has the right to work at the places, we can't expect employees to be responsible for making choices that affect their own health. They might be tempted by the fatty foods that are still on the menu. I think we should make a law that says no fat should be served in any of the restaurants.

from serving fatty foods to other people. Since there is an overwhelming body of scientific literature to support the fact that working in an environment where fatty foods are served leads to increased incidents of asthma, bronchitis, allergies, emphysema, and (less clear) maybe cancer, we should consider whether those work environments should be cleared of those contaminants.

whether they want to stuff their face with patty melts, since they have to assume no occupational risks, including having the self-control to stay away from the cole slaw. We MUST make a law that keeps them from even having the option to choose the environment in which they want to work.

workplaces just go out and find other jobs. I think the asbestos industry has gotten an unfair portrayal in the liberal media. To me, this is all about personal choice and personal responsibility (the business owner's right to choose asbestos as a cheap building material and the workers' responsibility to know better than to accept a job in an asbestos-rich workplace if he knew he was likely to get mesothelioma).

their workplace and inhaling asbestos particles. In fact, you could probably find lots of workers who would tolerate asbestos inhalation. Some of them probably even do it at home.

because lots of free Americans fully enjoy going to their workplace and inhaling pot. In fact, you could probably find lots of workers who would tolerate pot inhalation. Some of them probably even do it at home.

scientific FACT you speak of. Or...is it the NON-SCIENTIFIC crap that has been spewed and lapped up by all that are foolish enough to believe it.

Site me one case, just one, where it was scientifically PROVED without a shadow of a doubt that a person contracted lung cancer, or any other type of cancer, heart disease or whatever illness you choose from second hand smoke. Just one.

from watching too many episodes of Law & Order. That's a legal concept in criminal trial, but it is not a standard from science. Here is research from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, American Academy of Otolaryngology, and other medical and scientific organizations (hardly "non-scientific crap"): <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html>.

In addition, I personally had stage IV nasopharyngeal cancer (about a 50 percent survival prognosis) and did not have any risk factor other than growing up in a household where both parents smoked over a pack a day. Here are papers which discuss the link between and secondhand smoke and nasopharyngeal cancer: <http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/fsh233266.pdf> ("causal relationship between SHS ... and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (relative risk 1.7 to 3.0)"), <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10652428&dopt=Abstract> ("Among lifelong nonsmokers, there was a strong and statistically significant positive association between NPC risk and exposure to substantial secondhand smoke as a child").

But he also didn't know you CITE evidence rather than SITE it.

prison because I like meth?

It's my choice.

I've never broken into a car because I was jonesing so hard for a smoke that I needed money. I may have scrounged around in my house for change, but I leave it at that!

:toast:

:toast:

Let the free marketplace decide is the mantra of the the Corporate master facist pugs.

I know it kinda sucks to be so.... addicted.... that you can't see that. Been there.

To me it is a public health issue. We voted for a smoking ban by an overwhelming majority here (I think it was at least 70% in favor). So in many places it is what people want. And that is okay by me. Put it to a vote.

Last September, Houston made all restaurants no-smoking. The ban was news to me--but it was good news. It must have been instituted by the City Council--it wasn't on a ballot.

Our Democratic Mayor may have approved the ban. Perhaps that is the reason he only got 90% of the vote in the last election.

basically forced them to put it on a referendum and they lost,big-time. I have no idea why because the only signs I saw were against the ban. The city council initially had approved but then they managed to get it on the ballot for Sept. so enforcement was delayed until the outcome was determined. It was a single-issue vote which worried me becuase they usually have low turnout but the ban was overwhelmingly approved. I am guessing the ones against the ban misjudged the mood of the electorate (or at least the ones who cared enough to vote).

:popcorn:

on my popcorn

:popcorn:

It's about public protection.

;-)

there were no laws preventing people from buying a car, just laws trying to make the cars safer. We have the laws about smoking already on the books. Banning outright is no answer.

Freedom of choice is a liberal value. To each his/her own, and let the market sort it out.

If enough people stop smoking there will be no demand for places to smoke.

this goes way too far.

That was about a commercial product that was being sold as safe.

All I am asking is why there can't be smoking establishements for those who choose to do so, and non-smoking establishments for those who choose not to.

I can think of dozens of non-smoking bars in my city. And I can think of dozens of smoking bars. Go to the one that suits your idea of a good night out.

It's as simple as that.

But when you have a majority, fuelled by self-righteous indignation, nothing is simple.

No cigar bars. No hookah bars.

No smoking within 25 feet of a doorway of a business.

They only need their nicotine fix.

That's why things get so heated around here regarding smoking and bars. I guess it's hard for some people to envision changing their habits that involve two addictions at once.

If a bar wants to stay smoking they put a warning sign on the door.

Then it will be only populated by the alcoholics, and you won't have to be around them either. You will be going to the smoke free bar down the street with the majority of people who know how to drink in moderation. :shrug:

...and would be more than happy to leave you in peace, if you would only leave us in peace.

Look at the smoking ban experiment that took place in Tacoma a couple of years ago. They tried to implement a smoking ban down there and you didn't see many anti-smokers flocking to the taverns and bars there now did you? Businesses closed down. How come not many non-smokers flocked to the bars then??? Come on fellow non-smokers. You best better get your fannies to the bars now that the ashtrays have been thrown away! Come on in and drink up!

John

How odd.

Go to a non-smoking establishment if you don't want to be around smoke. It is that simple. I

f there isn't one where you live, open one and you will become wealthy beyond your dreams.

You see, the kind of people who are extremely worried about second hand smoke are generally not the kind of people who regularly attempt to drink enough booze to sink a battleship. The real money in running bars is catering to people who really don't care much about their health.

There are dozens of smoke free bars that are making money hand over fist. You want to smoke? Step outside.

Case in point is the McMenamins empire of brewpubs. They have by my count 53 pubs in Oregon and Washington, and almost all of them are smoke free. They can't open pubs fast enough. They now own multiple hotels and a giant music hall. They went smoke free in about 1992, and never looked back. They can't count their money fast enough.

I smoked for years and was always very considerate about it.

health issue. You are still free to smoke where it doesn't infringe on someone else's health.

Like you, I am also saddened when I hear progressives say to the restaurant and bar employees "if you don't like it, move to a different job". I suppose they would say that to a factory worker regarding asbestos or some other carcinogen.

As a liberal/progressive, I think of it as the natural order of things. Just because smokers have always been able to infringe on my health doesn't mean they should always be able to.

I worked in a sales job where I had to endure long meetings in smoke filled closed offices for 10 years. It was so bad, it would sometimes make my boss sick and he smoked. Thank god for indoor smoking laws. Of course, my asshole boss (militant asshole smoker) refused to stop smoking for several months until he was issued a citation by the city.

that's prohibition.

:thumbsup:

A workplace is responsible for the safety and health of its employees that it potentially exposes to health issues. A bar is a business of choice-no one forces people to go to a specific bar to work, and if there's a bar that is non-smoking, then non-smoking employees can work there just as easily as smoking employees. However, if you're a welder you have a set of common health issues that all welders may be exposed to. It's not like a welding shop will have a non-acetylene section, or that there are non-acetylene welding shops. That's part of the job, period, and that's why the employer is responsible.

"A workplace is responsible for the safety and health of its employees"

harassing workplaces - no on HAS to work at an office where the boss grabs your ass.

And smoking is not the purpose of a bar, the way welding is the purpose of a welding shop. Selling alcohol is.

If I am a cigar enthusiast (which I'm not), and I want to work somewhere where I can share my knowledge of and love for cigars with others like me, the law says I can't do that. That business can't exist anymore.

Since when are we as Americans so stupid that we can't make a decision about where we want to work based on the risks involved?

Every job has a risk.

Taxi driver - could get shot in a robbery.
Doctor - might contract AIDS from patient's blood.
Baker - might be burned.
Swim instructor - might get skin cancer.
Musician - might go deaf.

You weigh the risks, and act accordingly.

We can't go about legislating ourselves over every single thing like this.

People can make choices, and should be allowed to do so as long as they are not harming anyone else in the process.

All you need to do is put a sign on the door of the establishment that says: Warning. Smoking Is Allowed Here. Enter At Your Own Risk.

It's really not that different from: Warning: Microwave In Use That May Interfere With Pacemaking Equipment

But as a rule, employers are required to minimize even the essential risks, and to eliminate as best as possible the non essential risks.

We expect lifeguards to assume some heightened risk for cancer. Nothing can be done about that. But that doesn't mean a factory can knowingly maintain a cancer risk that could otherwise be eliminated.

What you're talking about is maintaining a NON ESSENTIAL risk to working in a bar.


And the law doesn't say you can't work somewhere where you can share your cigar enthusiasm - there are cigar shops, after all.

Or we could mandate that all pools be indoor pools. I don't think you want to go there...

Far easier.

But nice try at ignoring the difference between essential and non essential risks.

to keeping lifeguards free of skin cancer. The only way to fully protect oneself, over the long term, is shade. Period. Roofs on ALL POOLS NOW!!!

because it's too silly to gain support.

A ban on all smoking will include a ban on smoking in tobacco stores, which is absurd. NO ONE who doesn't want contact with smoke will work in a tobacco store. That's where the sense of the law breaks down.

Smoking in the Malls has been banned for decades. :shrug:

The Washington legislature just put every cigar parlor in the state out of business, and they probably killed off the entire retail trade in high-end cigars for all time.

Washington State has THE highest tax on cigars in the United States. IIRC it's 142 percent of the pretax retail price, so if you're selling cigars that retail for $10 pretax, you're looking at a shelf price of $24.20 per stick. NO ONE is going to pay twenty-four dollars for a $10 cigar--unless there are additional benefits, like the ability to sit in a leather recliner, sip good brandy and engage in stimulating conversation.

Now? You get to pay $24.20 for a $10 cigar...and then you get to take it home and smoke it on the back porch because your wife won't let you smoke cigars in the house. Who the hell is going to do that? No, you'll send JR or Thompson's your money and you'll pay North Carolina (JR's) or Florida (Thompson's) cigar tax on your purchase. 'Course, you'll have to buy a whole box at once.

The concept of protecting employees from harm kinda goes out the window when you're dealing with a cigar parlor. Cigar parlors tend to employ people who are highly knowledgeable about cigars--and you get that way by smoking a lot of cigars. (That JR Cigars place I like to talk about has a rather unique employee training program: each cigar room employee is allowed to mark down and smoke up to five cigars cumulatively worth $10 every day--that's one $10 cigar, five $2 cigars, or any other combination.)

Listen, kids, take my word for it: if you want to get RICH beyond your wildest dreams, move to Oregon or Idaho and build a huge cigar store right on the Washington state line.

in which some people want us to live. Thanks for your post.

Is that satisfactory?

The purpose is cigars and usually a brandy or scotch or whiskey.

Under this law, those items are no longer allowed to exist in tandem. By choice or otherwise.

Congratulations on achieving a sanitized for your protection society.

Though of course under this law a cigar and whiskey in tandem are not prohibited, except in public accommodations.

Or, more to the point, the SMOKING of cigars is the purpose of a cigar bar.

Build a cigar parlor in a state that doesn't allow smoking in public buildings, and what do you have? A cigar store.

A cigar store in a state with a 143-percent excise tax on cigars.

We don't need any restrictive environmental rules for welders or factory workers. They can get jobs as school teachers. It's fascism I tells ya....

:sarcasm: of course

WOw, I always thought businesses could ban smoking in their own establishments if they wanted to. I wasn't aware that the government forced bars to allow smoking, and forced unwitting customers thru the doors. Jesus, this explains everything.

for 11 years until it was banned. After that, it took another 6 months when my boss was cited by the city before he enforced the ban. He would walk around saying "fuck this, I can do what I want" with his cigarette in his hand until it cost him money.

It's a health issue pure and simple. I don't know why that's so fucking hard to understand.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the liberal instruction manual chapter that showed us WHY we are supposed to be sending financial support to CORPORATE WHORES like the tobacco companies... Some liberals here have no problem attacking any corporations for everything, yet apparently support enriching a death industry. Tobacco companies market to children, and now they are marketing death to countries all over the world. Now... I'm supposed to cry in my beer because those that enrich the death industry are incovenienced??

You have apparently never known a musician, a bar worker, or someone with lung disease. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to wrap a HEALTH issue up in some obtuse issue about liberalism.

FIrst and foremost, liberals CARE about the well being of all people and the environment. I suggest you reread the liberal manual, yourself.

I am a musician. I am a bartender in a non-smoking bar, and have worked at many smoking bars. I didn't like it, and I went to work for a place that didn't allow smoking.

There is a huge market for non-smoking bars, because there are a lot of people who think just like you. They open nearly every day here in Portland.

There is absolutely no need to legislate this. Public attitudes have changed, and business owners actually make more money here if they don't allow smoking. But there are the old guard that still do, and their clientelle likes that fact. Those who don't like it don't go there.

As for your strawman about the environment, if you don't like it don't go there. It's really not that hard.

But don't tell me that I shouldn't buy a product just because it's bad for me. What's next...butter?

I respect your desire to live a smoke free life, and commend you for doing it, but we don't need more laws to sort this out. We just need people to keep opening non-smoking bars. Believe me, I can tell you from experience that there is a huge demand.

Are you saying we should stop buying everything that "is enriching corporate masters"?

It's simple: people want to smoke. Things can be arranged so that it doesn't bother non-smokers. We can't make it a perfect world, some people die due to drunk driving as well - should alcohol be banned as well (again)?

Liberals care about well being etc, but liberals also care about freedom.

Banning smoking is over-doing it as much as a ban on guns or a ban on video games would be.
The liberal thing to do is not banning, but to control, to regulate. Control of gun ownership, regulate sales of video games, regulate corporations, regulate smoking.

are also workplaces, and no one should hafta work in a place that's gonna kill 'em. go outside to smoke. it's simple. your freedom of choice ends at my right to breathe.

I agree that there should be no smoking allowed in offices, bus stations, and other indoor public places.

I live in a town that supports dozens of non-smoking bars. My freedom of choice has nothing to do with your right to breathe if we go to completely separate places.

That's a complete zealot's argument.

"Go work somewhere else!"

OR

"That asbestos making your lungs wheeze you whiner?

"Go work somewhere else!"


Doesn't sound right in those instances does it?

So, you can't just go outside. That's what people do here at the multitude of non-smoking establishments, which are doing better than their smoking allowed counterparts. But I don't see the problem with having a cigar bar or a smoking bar, where everyone knows that they will be subjected to smoke. It's really not that big of a deal.

I get what you are saying about employee safety, but that could extend to anything at all. The fact is, there is now more of a market for non-smoking establishments. There is no need to enter into this bizarro liberals-gone-amok world where nothing unhealthy will be allowed.

Are we going to be taking on dessert shops and roller rinks next? Someone might get fat! Someone might break an arm! Quick, we need to legislate!

Utah banned it.

I would be willing to bet you could count all the Liberals in Utah on one hand. lol


This really isn't about liberals or conservatives.

That is what I just don't get. Liberals voted this ban in, that's why I'm attributing it to Liberals.

And don't tell me that small town Republicans want to ban smoking - they all smoke like fucking chimneys! You'd have better luck taking away their guns! :P

I just thought that Washington as a whole respected choice (a liberal ideal) much more than to completely ban smoking in such a severe way.

It's only a step away from living in Singapore under their famous chewing gum ban.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/26/world/gum040526

health issues than conservatives do, IMO.

Think of it is a local Kyoto Protocol.

Mormons think tobacco use is a sin. And coffee, too.

:hi:

What if you can't lift 50 lbs., and the job requires it?
What if there is a job that requires "busy work," that isn't integral to the operation of the business, and you don't like it? What if you have a job and you don't like one of your co-workers -- can you demand that he or she be fired, so the job is the exact way you want it to be?

Just because there is a job, does not mean one is entitled to it. I think it would be absolutely fine to say that for some people to run a bar, with the atmosphere they wish to have, that smoking is a necessity. Smoking and drinking have a lot to do with the culture of pubs and other drinking establishments. It's part of the mythos.

Then you can't do that job.

Being exposed to smoke isn't an essential part of working in a restaurant. Serving food is.

irritating co-worker. Or the irritating co-worker's perfume. Or doing busy work, just because the boss thinks you should be singing for your supper. There are plenty of job duties and requirements that don't have to do with the functioning of the place. I don't care about banning smoking from restaurants. I think you'd have a difficult time arguing against the idea that part of the purpose of a bar is for drinking AND smoking, and other adult activities, such as shooting the breeze, playing pool and pub quiz.

And plenty of tiresome but non-cancer-causing activities that people do at work.

Which has nothing to do with harmful activities that are not essential.

workers need LESS rights?

Workers who would choose to, and be happy to work in a smoke-filled bar do not need protection from the government, just as workers who don't like fetching the boss's coffee don't need protection from the government.

Can't they just 'choose' to go elsewhere?

Should all strip joints be banned, because the strippers might be sexually harassed? Of course not, because the stripper has assumed the risk, because part of a strip club involves...stripping. It could be argued that, culturally, the mythos of the pub includes smoking, drinking heavily, looking for easy sex and other non-"PG" activities, that carry some risk.

Exotic dancers deserve the same respect as any other worker. Apparently you don't think they do.

and a customer comes in and starts going "whooooooooo. whoooooooo bay-bay. Take it off, that's right. Now the bra...woooooooooo," is that OK? No. But it's OK to do that to a stripper, who has chosen the job -- and I find it demeaning and damaging to women. Do I want to ban them? Of course not. I'm not an authoritarian.

on the Westin thread, too. Not too much Solidarity among SOME of the smokers here on DU for their brothers' and sister's health.

NO ONE has the right to dictate that a workplace cater to them for everything. A person may not like wearing a uniform, may not like their co-worker, may not like their co-worker's perfume, may not like having to fetch the boss's coffee, or do busy work. Some of these things might even stress someone out, so much, that they have to seek counseling or medication. Until there is a pact, signed on behalf of every worker or future worker that might want to work in a bar, that states that they refuse to work if there is smoking, that means that some people will be available to, and want to work in a place that allows smoking. WHO ARE YOU to tell a smoke-OK worker, a smoke-OK owner, and a smoking patron that they can't operate a BAR, an integral part of which is smoking, drinking, and other vices, on the off chance that YOU or some other non-smoker MIGHT want to breeze in for some White Wine spritzers and discuss the latest line of Precious Moments figurines? That's NOT your right, you don't HAVE that right, and you're being authoritarian by suggesting it.

The Westin thing was fine, because it was a business decision that the OWNERS of the businesses made of their own free will. Statewide smoking bans are SELFISH, and they are no less selfish than a smoker who walks into your living room and lights up a cigarette. There is no balance, and there must be balance, or there is no freedom.

Here's the right one:
I set up a business with my wife. She likes for me to grab her butt in public - it's a turn on for her, and I like it too. Only now the police come in and say that I can't do that, and close the business down.

A cigar bar, where everyone who goes in goes in to smoke - and all the employees are smokers.

It is patently ludicrous to ban these places. Everyone, EVERYONE, who takes part, is there because they want to.

Oh, and your analogy that this is the same thing as saying people can go somewhere else to avoid sexual harrassment is a strawman.

Even smokers have a right to a healthy workplace.

As for strawmans, see your post at the bottom of this thread.

It is a gratuitous assertion to claim it does.

:shrug:

show me this proff that second hand smoke kills. Show me ONE, just one proven case of second hand smoke killing someone.

Damn you red-state bush-loving evil liberals!

It's bullshit, and it sucks. Everyone has their reasons for wanting to "ban" something, and the reasons offered up by smoking-ban devotees are no less ludicrous than Rick Santorum explaining how homosexuality will undermine the family.

There is such a thing as left-wing authoritarianism, and this is it. It's no less pretty coming from the left.

:thumbsup:

Left wing authoritarianism - spot on!

and I can call it...





EX-SMOKERS! ;-)

They are the absolute worst when it comes to trying to rid the world of smokers. When I quit, I vowed I would never be one of those. An Ex-anything is often the most rabid. An example of that would be all of the ex-Dems who post in freeperland, for instance.

ever walk down the street in NYC?

hack..

I'm an ex-smoker, and I understand the grip the addiction has, but I also understand that we know alot more about certain health issues than we did a year ago, ten years ago, fifty years ago. People have a right to smoke as much as they want -- as long as they don't infringe on someone else's health. Public smoking does just that. SAnd workers have a right to a safe enviornment... telling them to go "work someplace else" is very, very unprogressive.

When I smoked, I never smoked in public unless I was outside without a lot of people around em, like a park. Or, if I was in my car alone. You have no right to bother someone with your smoke.

So, no, it's not ex-smokers who are nutsos... but the more I read these threads the last few days, the more I DO think some smokers on DU have lost their marbles over this issue.

It has somehow become a liberal idea that we should legislate away a person's right to do something unhealthy if they choose.

If I want to go to a cigar bar (which I don't), I should have the right to do so. It has nothing to do with affecting other people. It's just this absolutist view that any smoke anywhere any time is poison to society. Well, we let people poison themselves with alcohol all day every day.

Limiting what kind of business I could open is very unprogressive. With your view we should just ban dessert shops and burger joints for the common good. We don't want anyone to be subjected to anything unhealthy, so let's just protect them with laws.

I'm decidedly pro-choice, which I think is the ultimate liberal ideal.

I can choose to smoke, I can choose not to smoke. And if enough people don't want to smoke, then lots of non-smoking places will open up, just as has happened in Portland.

Being liberal is about tolerance and diversity, not mandated lifestyle legislation.

but the more I read these threads the last few days, the more I DO think some smokers on DU have lost their marbles over this issue.

Of course you do. You aren't the one be discriminated against. SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL. Why do you people have to have ALL the bars. ALL the restaurants? ALL the airplanes? ALL the rooms in a hotel? There's NO CHOICE for smokers and it IS STILL LEGAL TO SMOKE.. Ex smokers ARE the worst. Period.

I wonder if all the non-smokers are willing to put their money where their mouth is. I propose a hard lobby on outlawing smoking all together. Make cigarettes illegal. PERIOD. Then all you non-smokers can breathe easy. And pick up the millions of lost tax revenue that all the smokers have been paying. What's that I hear, was a gulp of fear at the thought of more of your money going to taxes?


Careful what you wish for , you just might get it,

I also think it's that Puritanistic urge to prohibit A, B, C that crops up again and again. Hmm- maybe I should start sewing a Scarlet "S" onto my jacket.

It's illegal in Florence and Eugene, I know that for sure. But once again, even when I go to Springfield, I never notice the smoke if there's a smoking section. I hadn't even thought about it until you mentioned it.

Some of us smoke outside, in the woods without any person or animal near. Some of us don't drink either. Predisposed by our left leaning 60s/70s parents.

Ask any waitress - smokers are better tippers.

and former smoker.

Gee, I'm sorry - I happen to finally care about my lungs and the lungs of others. Health care in this country costs a fortune. What ever preventive steps that can be taken to take care of me, my family and the citizens of this country is a welcome.

I can't afford to get lung cancer!

Rock climbing? Fatty foods? Skiing? Where does it end?

People can smoke in smoking designated bars and not effect you at all.

Your choice of lifestyle should not trump all others just because you believe you're living the "right" way.

There are plenty of people who are just like you and the free market can take care of it. Portland is a living, and yes breathing example. Most of the time when I go out it, I go to a non-smoking bar. How hard is that? They make lots of money, too! ;)

Everything else you mentioned does. I don't give a damn who smokes and who doesn't -- it's your business. But smokers don't have a right to bother people with their smoking, including employees who need the job, nor should they smoke around their kids. When I smoked, I knew it was a dirty, disgusting, often selfish habit -- I never justified it. I knew it was an addiction that caused me at 29 to hack up huge globs of sticky brown phlegm every day. I quit over ten teats ago, my lungs are clean. I don't want someone else's smoke invading them while I'm waiting for a bus, or walking into a store. Sorry.

And for everyone talking about smoking is legal: so's drinking, but you can't drink wherever the heck you want, either.

I'm talking about the right to own or frequent an establishment that explicitly allows it.

WARNING: SMOKING IS ALLOWED IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK - SMOKING CAUSES CANCER

How hard is it to have a sign like that?

It's just sad to me to see that liberals have come to such a point of self-righteous zealotry that people can't be allowed to choose to go into a place like that.

Maybe we'll reach the utopian state of Singapore someday where they banned chewing gum.

FAIRNESS. They want it ALL. As I said last night in another thread...this is going to come back to bite the so-called LIBERALS in the ass. They're traveling down a VERY slippery slope. Take my rights away, yours are next.

hi mom in_cog_ni_to is my mom

Oh, I'm sorry.... wouldn't want to offend you with the word "quit" and be accused of infringing on an imaginary "right" to be a junkie.

Last time I checked, you didn't live in this state. Nor do 3/4 of the people whining in these threads about this ban.

Well the voters of this state overwhelmingly DID choose the ban. That is the very epitome of democracy. I know we haven't seen it in a national election for a while, but yes, that's how it works.

So please.... all of you whiners, martyrs, freep lurkers, and tobacco industry lobbyists alike....

GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES ALREADY.

And thank GOD for smoke-free Washington :)

You can come up with whatever good reason you want for banning smoking, but it doesn't make you sound any less pathetic than Rick Santorum and his "pro-family" causes.

This is tyranny of the majority, and any liberal cause could be in line for the chopping block, next. I hope yours is up on the sheath.

especially skiing. Being a Colorado native, I am grossed out by the land grabs and McCondos, and McMansion's that have taken over Vail, Breckenridge and other ski areas.

and damn those rock climbers too!

I thought this thread was about smoking...better yet - not smoking.

Fatty foods should be outlawed - entire communities are over weight because of only having choices of fast food or unhealthy chain restaurants. I would demand a 24 hour salad bar be in every town and community across America.

I'm with you on the ski resorts and McMansions - I grew up there and barely recognize it anymore. :puke:

fascists are talking about banning smoking here too.

If they try, you will find me on the downtown bus mall every morning and every evening with a sign that says...

"I can't smoke standing here, but I can breathe in all the diesel fumes I want."

Don't Californicate Oregon!

I swear, this is just feel good shit to make people think they are living healthier lives. People who don't want to be around smoke can do so very easily.

Try standing at the corner of MLK and Burnside. You'll be sucking down diesel fumes and asbestos from brakes in toxic levels that are similar to spending an evening hanging out at Dot's.

:yourock:

By the way, I've always wondered if you own the record store of your name.

If I owned it, it would be a book store. ;)

I didn't know there was a record store named after me! were'z it at?

http://www.lifeclinic.com/healthnews/article_view.asp?story=528522

Lighting Up May Dumb Smokers Down

10/14/2005
FRIDAY, Oct. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Smoking can cloud the brain, according to a new study that found long-term tobacco use was linked to dulled thinking and lower IQ.

The finding contradicts what many smokers claim -- that smoking a cigarette helps them concentrate and feel more alert.

"The exact mechanism for smoking's impact on the brain's higher functions is still unclear, but may involve both neurochemical effects and damage to the blood vessels that supply the brain," lead researcher Jennifer Glass, of the University of Michigan, said in a prepared statement. "This is consistent with other findings that people with cardiovascular disease and lung disease tend to have reduced neurocognitive function."

I read the article, and it isn't even close to being considered science. It wasn't even a smoking study. So sorry, based on the belief in that article, it would suggest to me that the non-smokers pushing such an absurd and skewed study are the dumbed down ones, thank you.

that the gun industry and the gun lobby are not just right wingers, but nutcase right wingers.

If it seems to you that an idea being peddled by Tom Delay, Dick Cheney and John AshkKKKroft is liberal, I suspect you have a funny idea what "liberal" means....

which is undergoing an epidemic of gun violence, and has next to no gun laws....

One of the few laws they have, which is definitely conservative, is a ban keeping counties and towns from taking any legal action to hold the gun industry accountable, even when it acts irresponsibly.

What Hoosiers could use are a bunch of liberal gun laws...like closing the gun show loophole, a "one gun a month" rule, mandatory child safety locks, and an assault weapons ban.

Other liberal gun laws Indiana could use are common sense restrictions on concealed weapons. Right now, any dimwit who can get past a background check can waddle around with a popgun hidden in his pants, and can demand a permit to do so (police cannot even demand safety training).

I voted against the ban, by the way, but voting for it is not exactly a conservative stance.

I would have thought that Washington would have come up with a much less absolutist solution.

I agree about worker safety, but we let people become sky diving instructors, right?

Why can't they choose to work in a smoking allowed bar?

I don't think it is conservative, because I can't see the small town republican old guard voting for it at all. They like to go to their bars, drink cheap ass beer, and smoke cheap ass cigarettes. And anyone who tells them otherwise can deal with their gun collection.

I can only think that there are enough left-leaning health nut zealots that have moved from California to Washington who passed the law.

:shrug:

It's not the fundies either, because a lot of them smoke too.

Choice for others isn't.

And you perpetuate a frequent fallacy on this issue: There are sky diving instructors whose function is to teach sky diving. Yet they are required to take steps to make carrying out their purpose as safe as possible. Same with most other jobs.

You might as well say "There are factories lined with asbestos, and those that aren't. Why can't those who object just work in the non-asbestos factories?"

Or why not people choose to work in the non-sexually-harassing offices?

and that the industry has known it was a public menace, but lied about it and covered up facts.

When will we be banning all meat, fried food, and processed foods?

If we are going to use the government to protect people from themselves, then we've got a hell of a lot of work to do.

People can smoke in designated smoking establishments and not bother anyone who's not inside. There's just no need to be absolutist about it.

Should we ban alcohol? Cars? Skateboards?

I get the feeling that we are headed towards a mandated protectionism in our society, and I really don't like the way it's headed.

seated at the next table, it's not the same thing at all.

When you are looking for a job or choosing a career, you make choices. I am a drummer, and I've made a choice that I may suffer some hearing loss due to my chosen profession, just like a jackhammer operator or a baggage loader at an airport.

You've just got this notion that you need to protect the public from harming itself. I find that completely offensive.

I can't imagine why you continue to conflate the two.

And I feel zero need to protect the public from itself. I don't care what you ingest, inject or whatever you do to yourself.

But inflicting it on others is another matter.

an essential risk. This doesn't have anything to do with whether you like smoking, or not, or whether you have non-smoking access to anything you want. If you wish to make the argument that smoking in bars is not a part of the bar scene, go ahead. But, you'd be wrong.

is anything but silly.

I didn't say smoking isn't a part of the bar scene. But that doesn't make it essential, as has been amply demonstrated by other businesses.

And I think they're demeaning. It's also not essential, for the functioning of the business, to have to do busy work. I've pointed these things out. There's no reason you can't remove drinking, from the bar, as easily as smoking -- almost all of the same arguments can be used. Would you argue that drinking is not an essential part of a bar? No. Because you don't mind drinking, and you mind smoking.

There are essential risks, and non essential risks. Wearing a uniform is neither.

But by all means, if you wish to pursue these fallacious arguments, go ahead. You'll not win many converts, however.

to the person consuming it....it's not a hazard to bystanders. That doesn't mean that we should let McDonald's peddle crap to kids without regulation.

"If we are going to use the government to protect people from themselves, then we've got a hell of a lot of work to do."
Yeah...it's called being a progressive working for a liberal society.

"Should we ban alcohol?"
Should we let bartenders serve to minors? Should we let them serve intoxicated people? Should we not inspect breweries and just trust that the companies are keeping them clean?

not just a few chosen people. Smokers effect everyone around them and most smokers aren't willing to curb their use because someone asks them to.

Smoking in a smoking allowed bar infringes on the rights of no one. Don't like it? Don't go in there.

Why are people such zealots about this issue?

I don't feel that I should legislate away your right to eat unhealthy food.

If someone can smoke and it in no way comes into contact with you, you should have no right to say anything about it.

That's my choice, just like it would be your choice to have a steak dinner with a baked potato slathered in butter and sour cream.

Down the throat of someone with heart disease. When you smoke in public, that's what you do. You're "sharing" it. It stops being a personal choice when you harm someone with it.

Your personal choices are affecting my health. Please quit "sharing" your auto and power plant pollution with me.

conservation? Don't we seek alternative energy sources?

If I chose to eat food you think is nasty it doesn't do anything to you, unless it causes me to have gas. I won't fart in your air space if you don't smoke in mine.

"If someone can smoke and it in no way comes into contact with you, you should have no right to say anything about it." It's a deal, if you can find a way to smoke in a confined area without the second hand smoke leaving your personal space I'm all for it.

A boot stepping on a human face forever.

However this is about the control of individuals and bending them to one's will.

It is about the ultimate narcissism of making others change because one does not like them smell or appearance of another. Or if one unfortunately has a condition society must reconfigure itself to appease the individual.

.. I'm glad I'm not that kind of "liberal" - it's this bullshit that's made it easy for Rush et al to paint us as a bunch of loonies.

The arguments here are so lame I could bust them with half my brain removed, but I won't bother - some people just don't understand what FREEDOM is and they are no better than the right wing always trying to make someone else do what THEY think is right.

with a known carcinogen.

partake in their cigarette addiction.


"Or if one unfortunately has a condition society must reconfigure itself to appease the individual."

Are you referring to the condition of cigarette addiction and the fact that society, to it's detriment, has reconfigured itself to appease smokers for decades?

Posting that took some guts. I'll lend you an extra layer of asbestos for your flameproof suit.

Redstone

Saw your picture in the lounge, and knew I could trust you to have my back in a gunfight if it ever came down to it!

:toast:

Redstone

Employers have a responsibility to reduce risks to their employee's health and safety whenever it is reasonable to do so.

It's a public health issue - we all have a shared interest in reducing preventable diseases, from both a moral and a financial perspective.

It's a personal responsibility issue. If a corporation pollutes the air or water, I believe they ought to be held accountable for cleaning up their mess and picking up the medical tab for anyone their pollution has harmed. If a smoker contributes to another person's cancer due to second hand smoke - we all know there is no accountability. They walk away from it feeling nobody can prove they contributed to it, they were just one of a thousand people contributing to it in the case of a restaurant employee, so they feel they shouldn't have to be accountable. That's an ethics issue.

If you've smoked in public, you HAVE contributed to someone else's inhalation of your second hand smoke. What have you done about it? Nothing. You walked away feeling like it wasn't your problem. If the employee gets cancer in 30 years, and you were a contributor to it, you won't give a damn, you'll blame the victim for working there.

That's not personal accountability. It's a very republican way of looking at the world - damage whomever you please without worrying your beautiful mind about it.

:yourock:

I'm talking about having the right to own or go to a business by choice that allows smoking.

Choice is a liberal ideal. If you don't want to work there, then don't. If you don't want to go there, then don't.

We may as well just ban French cuisine - it's really not good for anyone, what with all of that butter.

is the "choice" you believe a business owner should have to refuse to make reasonable accommodations to protect the health of his employees.

The concept behind OSHA isn't "employees should find another job in this great economy if their current job causes fatal diseases." The concept is that employers have a legal responsibility to maintain as safe a work environment as reasonably possible for their employees.

in an establishment, such as a hookah bar, a bar, or a cigar shop, where smoking has culturally been an integral part of the operation of the establishment.

An integral part of the mythos of early medicine. lol

How about those?

We can't go around trying to protect people from every possible harm that may be done to them. I agree with OSHA laws, but this is taking it beyond where it should be.

Things have gone far awry when a person can't be trusted to make a decision whether or not to work in a smoky bar. First off, no one is forcing that person to work in a bar at all. There are many careers to choose from out there, including many that involve much more risk than being exposed to second hand smoke.

All I'm asking for is a little bit of sanity and a little less zealotry on the part of my liberal friends. It seems that in the quest to live healthier lives themselves, liberals have taken on a holier than thou approach to governance with this issue.

How do you feel about hash bars in Amsterdam? Is it okay for a person to be able to choose whether or not to go there?

That's simply untrue, and I don't know why you'd repeat a falsehood like that.

With regard to work safety, would you write "Things have gone far awry when a person can't be trusted to make a decision whether or not to work in an asbestos lined school"? Or "First off, no one is forcing that person to work in an office that allows sexual harassment bar at all."

Since when is LET EMPLOYERS DO AS THEY SEE FIT a liberal standard?

to protect the lifeguards from cancer?

Who doesn't allow the lifeguards reasonable protection against the suns rays should be liable. However, I don't know of any such employers who forbid their lifeguards from wearing UV protection.

wish to open and operate a pool, where all 20 lifeguards wish to bake to a fine golden brown, during their shifts? Should the state make a law to stop them?

where lifeguards are physically held down and UV protection is scrubbed off of them, putting them in a situation where they cannot avoid exposure to the UV rays, it would be illegal. However, again, I'm unaware of any employers that physically force a lifeguard to be exposed to UV rays. Most lifeguards have a CHOICE on the job to be exposed to the rays, or to protect themselves.

A choice ON THAT JOB to be exposed or not exposed to the hazard. That's very different than a choice to be exposed to a hazard or to be unemployed.

http://northhillsim.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/site.content/mode/dtl/type/2568/pack/1/post/82/section/21.cfm

Possible Hazards of Sunscreens

When used generously and appropriately, sunscreen products and sun avoidance help reduce the severity of many aging skin disorders, including squamous cell cancers. There are certain concerns, however.

Increased Risk or No Protection for Basal Cell and Melanoma Cancers with Sunscreen Use . Although sunscreens help prevent squamous cell carcinoma and other skin disorders, sunscreens to not appear to provide protection against melanoma and some basal cell cancers. In fact, some studies have reported a higher association with sunscreen use and these skin malignancies. The reasons for this are unclear and, furthermore, not all studies have reported such negative results. Some theories for these higher cancer rates including the following:
Many people may be choosing sunscreens with high SPFs but which contain ingredients that only or predominantly block UVB rays and not UVA, the deeper penetrating rays now known to be dangerous. Currently SPF ratings apply only to blocking UVB and do not yet describe protection against UVA. And sunscreens with the same SPF may have different UVA protection factors depending on their ingredients. FDA labeling requirements for both UVA and UVB are scheduled by 2002. It should be noted that it is still not known if even blocking UVA will protect against melanoma and basal cell cancers. < See Calculating SPFs.>


People who apply sunscreens may stay out longer during high sun-exposure hours than is safe. It should be strongly noted that even if a person doesn't sunburn, UVA rays can still penetrate the skin and do harm.


People do not put on enough sunscreen. In fact, according to one survey most apply about one quarter of the amount needed to meet standard recommendations for sun protection.


Some sunscreen products, notably those containing PABA, may actually break down in the presence of UV exposure and release the harmful oxygen-free radical particles, which theoretically could increase the risk for cancer. (Still some evidence suggests that some sunscreen ingredients protect against such oxidants. The long-term effects are not known.

Sorry, not going to cut it. Roofs on pools, everywhere. I DEMAND IT, in case I ever, someday, want to work as a lifeguard, even though I've shown no interest in it, don't know anything about safety in pools, and can barely swim.

arguments.

When you're ready to take the issue seriously there might be a real dialog.

I've taken this issue seriously, and I'm just rifting on the fascism in here, that stinks worse than smoking. We've debated this, just about to its bones, and I think that the one sticking point is, that to make this fair, there is no reason why a COMPROMISE (see -- I'm asking for a compromise, not totalitarianism) cannot be struck.

Or offices that permit sexual harassment?

Why do you think the compromise has to be YOUR compromise?

And you REFUSE to address either assumed workplace risks, the mythos of tobacco in bars, the fact that cigar bars and hookah bars need smoking for business, consentual adults congregating freely, and the possibility that there could be diversity. Weren't you even against private clubs, in the last thread?

And I have amply addressed workplace risks: some are essential, some are not.

But the electorate has the right to regulate commerce, and that is what it has done.

And though in fact I SUGGESTED (not opposed) private clubs, the MYTHOS can kiss my ass, just like the mythos about the male office can.

I voted against the ban in WA state, but I sincerely tell you as someone without a dog in this fight, the thing that would MOST compel me to vote FOR a smoking ban would be the fallacious arguments of the pro smokers.

That law is consensus building, and absolutism is for pugs, yeah? There is no "right" and "wrong," only compromise. And some people wish to be able to go to a bar to smoke. You think all the reasons are fallacious, because you don't want anyone to make an argument. (The pool thing is great, BTW -- and sunscreen won't work). But -- how about this -- YOU come up with a LOGICAL argument for people being able to smoke in bars. Like debate club.

And I've already proposed what I'd consider a legitimate compromise.

But your pool argument remains fallacious, because there are other more simple and easy solutions.

I've already told you, I don't have a dog in this fight, and in fact I voted AGAINST the ban in Washington. But the VERY poor arguments by the pro smokers are so plain offensive that you almost make me wish I'd voted for the damn thing.

But why did you vote against it? You must have some reason, right? What was YOUR reason for voting against it.

And, long-term sunscreen use for lifeguards does not protect them from skin cancer. What are your "more simple" solutions?

issue unenforceable and poorly thought out.

Secondary to that, I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, and in light of my one criticism i voted against it.

And what's simpler than a pool roof? A good sun umbrella, or all out shade areas, just like I've seen at pools. And of course many people consider long term use of sun block quite acceptable.

Big difference.

I'm not pro-stipper, either. But I am pro-choice.

I'm not pro-religion. But I am pro-choice.

I, as a legally consenting adult, should be able to choose whether or not to do something that will harm myself and no one else beyond the others that legally choose to do it with me.

exposure to just the person smoking it, I'll be gung ho in favor of it.

That doesn't make me pro choice for employers to make all the rules and leave employees at their mercy.

This isn't a Pro-choice vs. anti-choice issue.

The smoker can't choose to smoke without denying the person next to them the choice to inhale his second-hand smoke. The freedom of choice of the smoker and nonsmoker (whether another patron or employee) are incompatible. If one gets a choice, the other doesn't.

So the question is, who should have more right to make the choice? The obvious answer is the one who ISN'T harming other people.

In cases where you can smoke without harming other people, you should have that choice. In places where it harms other people, you shouldn't have the choice.

You can smoke, but not in a place where the public is exposed to it. Also, if you want to enjoy nicotine in public, you are still free to do so, but not in a form that is ingested or inhaled unintentionally by other people.

Kind of like when you are home in your own house, you can taste food on the stove by sipping a bit from the stirring spoon and put the same spoon right back in the cooking pot, or wash lettuce for a salad without wearing food prep gloves, or drink directly from the carton of milk. It's not a good health practice, and you could end up making yourself or your family sick. But it's not against the law.

However, once you move from your house to a PUBLIC eating establishment, meaning it's open to members of the public, the regulations change. As a business owner of a public establishment, you aren't free to make all the choices anymore. You become subject to labor laws, to county health inspections, etc. At the point where you open the kitchen up to the public, you lose your right to make all the choices without any oversight.

That's not fascism, nor is it being a nanny-state. It's a recognition that business owners need to be regulated in some areas for the good of the general public. Corporate regulation, and workers rights are liberal issues, with good reason. The EPA isn't a fascist organization (or at least it wasn't before Bush appointed his cronies). Unions aren't fascist organizations. Demands for minimum wages, employee provided health care, health inspections of restaurants, and labor laws aren't fascist concepts.

If the government told you you can't smoke in the privacy of your own home, if they told you you can't drink out of the milk carton in your own house, if they inspected your kitchen at home to make sure you wore food service gloves and appropriate head covering while you prepare dinner for yourself, that would be uncompromising.

You can have sex at home - but not on the bar.

But no one ever says there's a prohibition on sex. No one says it's fascism to prohibit anal sex or blowjobs on restaurant tables.

Well, most people don't.