Smoking ban

[Grumpy]

Michigan's smoking ban takes effect on the 1 st of May. Obviously I do not agree with it but what can you do.

My question is, does the gooberment have the authority to tell a private club to enforce the ban. One local club, in the town of Royal Oak, is announcing they will not comply. What do you think ?

Grumpy

[Sandy G]

...But, but, but...It's GOOD for you...Gov't is saving you from yourself...Now, go out & bust yr ass...We have TAXES to collect from you, you filthy peasant !!! Mbwahahahahahaha...

[Charles]

Smoking ban good, Arizona law bad...it's an uplifter thing.

Chas

[merrylander]

If it is a private club then what they want to do inside, short of murder and such like, is their own business.

[rickr15]

Had a smoking law in AZ for years. Soon it will be banned outdoors.

Get ready Dave to be treated like a criminal.

BTW when people are forced to quit smoking they will enact a a higher tax on the few of you who can't quit in order to make up the revenue stream they have come to expect from the smokers.
Bet you money on that fact as I have seen it here.

[piece-itpete]

Here's how it went with the smoking ban in Ohio. During the campaign, they (pro ban folks) swore up and down that private clubs (particularly the VFWs, because of their overall voting power) would be exempt.

It passed handily. But surprise! If you even as a private club have one paid employee, no smoking. Which also covers most of the VFWs.

So screw you vets. (Anyone that goes to VFWs know that they must have a 99.9% smoker rate. At least.)

And OK, so you smoke outside. They can put up a covered outside area, right? Mostly wrong. It can only have 3 sides and must be something like 70 ft away from doors etc. This is Cleveland folks, we have cold winters.

And it's worse than it seems overall. It's the smoking nazis. The two stadiums (that were built with sin tax money) are now completely smoke free, even though they're practically outside.

Fortunately some of the old corner bars, where there's basically only regulars, will give you an ashtray for a buck (they say they toss it in a kitty in case they get fined). I can't imagine that'll last forever though.

It'll get worse before it gets even more worse Grump.

Pete

[rickr15]

Hey Grumpy I don't know if you remember the old Hambone bar from your time down here but they got creative and replaced all their windows with screens and called it an out door smoking area.
The indoor "bar" area is now the little glassed in room back by the commodes. So far they have gotten away with it.

[Fast_Eddie]

Smoking ban good, Arizona law bad...it's an uplifter thing.

Chas

Sooooo. You're saying what? Smoking ban bad, Arizona law good? What's the difference Chas?

Here's the thing. Your rights end where mine begin. You can smoke all you like. But I shouldn't have to breath your smoke. These are tricky. I actually don't know about the smoking thing. It's like the seat belt thing. Should I be free to go out and have a meal without having to breath second hand smoke? Yeah, I guess I should. But in a perfect world there would be places that catered to non-smokers. It really is something the market should take care of- in a perfect world. In reality, I never saw it happen that way. And I do like being able to go out with my kids. So I don't know. I like it, but I'm not sure if it's right.

[piece-itpete]

I have always been a considerate smoker. But your car exhaust is killing me.

"1st smokers.
Then fat people.
Then you."

New Deal era saying

Pete

[finnbow]

In Maryland (or maybe just Montgomery County, MD), the smoking ban in bars and restaurants was justified as an occupational safety and health issue (i.e., not exposing employees to the hazards of second hand smoke). On its face, it had nothing to do with the patrons. That said, as a non-smoker, I'm good with it.

[Boreas]

I have always been a considerate smoker. But your car exhaust is killing me.

But the exhaust from that land yacht you just bought is just dandy, I guess. ;)

Given the health risks associated with smoking, including second hand smoke, the only way to be a considerate smoker is to never smoke in the proximity of another human being.

"1st smokers.
Then fat people.
Then you."

New Deal era saying

Ah, the nameless dread that somehow, someday, someway the government's gonna get you!

John

[Boreas]

In Maryland (or maybe just Montgomery County, MD), the smoking ban in bars and restaurants was justified as an occupational safety and health issue (i.e., not exposing employees to the hazards of second hand smoke). On its face, it had nothing to do with the patrons. That said, as a non-smoker, I'm good with it.

Right. Just like the ordinance Pete spoke of in Cleveland. If a location is anyone's workplace their presence there is a requirement of employment. They can't simply opt to leave if a smoker shows up. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be made to choose between endangering their health and simply being in a communal setting.

John

[piece-itpete]

It's nice to be able to quit a job you don't like.

But the exhaust from that land yacht you just bought is just dandy, I guess. ;)

Given the health risks associated with smoking, including second hand smoke, the only way to be a considerate smoker is to never smoke in the proximity of another human being.

Ah, the nameless dread that somehow, someday, someway the government's gonna get you!

John

I'm not passing a draconian law based on your car.

The 1st smokers thing was an anti nazi saying. I learned it from an old New Dealer years ago.

You, Eddie, all you other godless wildeyed pinko commie lefties :D may be surprised that I voted for the Ohio ban, because - get ready - drum roll - it's almost there - it's a horrible thing and I don't want the kids exposed to it or at least as little as possible. I didn't realise it would make me a criminal outcast. (rimshot)

Pete

[finnbow]

Without trying to get all preachy and soap-boxy, I think there are a lot of smokers who don't realize how intolerable second-hand smoke is to many non-smokers. I, for one, simply cannot tolerate second-hand smoke (from active smokers or even on the curtains/bedding of a hotel room) and it has nothing to do with health concerns or a holier than thou attitude. It just makes me sick to my stomach - really.

[noonereal]

Here in NY smoking in all bars and restaurant is a no go for smoking. This I disagree with, these are private business and you do not need to patronize them if you don't want second hand smoke.

[Fast_Eddie]

I have always been a considerate smoker. But your car exhaust is killing me.


I think you're kidding, but no doubt.

[Boreas]

I, for one, simply cannot tolerate second-hand smoke (from active smokers or even on the curtains/bedding of a hotel room) and it has nothing to do with health concerns or a holier than thou attitude. It just makes me sick to my stomach - really.

Same here - and I smoked for thirty freakin' years! Walking through a cloud of second hand smoke put out by all the employees smoking on either side of the door to their workplace literally - literally - causes a reflex in me that stops my breathing.

John

PS: Does anyone know whether smoking rates are increasing? My gut tells me I'm seeing more and more people smoking all the time, particularly the young.

[Combwork]

Sooooo. You're saying what? Smoking ban bad, Arizona law good? What's the difference Chas?

Here's the thing. Your rights end where mine begin. You can smoke all you like. But I shouldn't have to breath your smoke. These are tricky. I actually don't know about the smoking thing. It's like the seat belt thing. Should I be free to go out and have a meal without having to breath second hand smoke? Yeah, I guess I should. But in a perfect world there would be places that catered to non-smokers. It really is something the market should take care of- in a perfect world. In reality, I never saw it happen that way. And I do like being able to go out with my kids. So I don't know. I like it, but I'm not sure if it's right.

Don't ban it in bars but if the owners want their customers to be able to smoke, they have to install whatever's needed to filter smoke particles out. Then monitor air quality.

Bit like the emissions tests on car exhausts, a lambda sensor built into the filter outlet could check and record partical levels. These get checked say once every couple of months or so. Occasionally going a little over the threshold gets a warning, regular low threshold failure gets a fine. Regular high level failure gets the bar closed down. Tampering with the sensor gets the bar closed down and the owner prosecuted.

Is it practical? I don't see why not. It would be expensive yes, but up to each bar owner to decide whether it's worth doing.

[finnbow]

PS: Does anyone know whether smoking rates are increasing? My gut tells me I'm seeing more and more people smoking all the time, particularly the young.


Not sure, but I heard on NPR this morning that 20% of adult Americans smoke. I think a demographic breakdown would be interesting, as I only personally know 2-3 people who smoke.

Here in NY smoking in all bars and restaurant is a no go for smoking. This I disagree with, these are private business and you do not need to patronize them if you don't want second hand smoke.

While I understand where you're coming from in terms of being a private business, should a private business have a right to:

1. Force employees to breath second-hand smoke as a condition of employment?
2. Exclude certain classes of people from their business (e.g., blacks, gays, Hispanics) because it's private?
3. Slap pornography up all over the walls (not a strip club, but a normal bar/restaurant).

In some cases, public good trumps private rights. Just sayin'.

[Boreas]

More than half of all states (26) have a nearly total ban on smoking in public. Just under a quarter (12) have no restrictions at all. The remaining 12 states have some sort of ban:

States with no restrictions on smoking:

Alabama
Alaska
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Mississippi
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

States with strictest regulation (banned in bars, restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces):

Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

States with partial smoking ban:

Arkansas (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)
Florida (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)
Georgia (restaurants)
Idaho (restaurants)
Louisiana (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)
Nevada (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)
New Hampshire (restaurants & bars)
North Carolina (restaurants & bars)
North Dakota (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)
Pennsylvania (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)
South Dakota (non-hospitality workplaces)
Tennessee (restaurants & non-hospitality workplaces)

John

[noonereal]

1. Force employees to breath second-hand smoke as a condition of employment?
2. Exclude certain classes of people from their business (e.g., blacks, gays, Hispanics) because it's private?
3. Slap pornography up all over the walls (not a strip club, but a normal bar/restaurant).

In some cases, public good trumps private rights. Just sayin'.


1) This is of course the strongest argument. I see it as no different than accepting a job at a coal mine or a nail salon. both clearly not health environments.

2) We are not talking about who can patronize a restaurant or bar we are talking about those who may seek employment there. Apples and oranges. (yet a clever argument ;))

3) Well this is a different conversation but why should porn not be allowed? I think this is ridiculous. For me it's about labeling. Leave the country free to do as one wishes but protect society by labeling so it knows what it is getting. Then we maintain our freedom to choose and don't have exposures we do not want. Just like with the media. News shows should be labeled as such and political activist shows should be labeled as such.

[Boreas]

Bit like the emissions tests on car exhausts, a lambda sensor built into the filter outlet could check and record partical levels. These get checked say once every couple of months or so. Occasionally going a little over the threshold gets a warning, regular low threshold failure gets a fine. Regular high level failure gets the bar closed down. Tampering with the sensor gets the bar closed down and the owner prosecuted.

Needs a little tweaking. The lambda sensor (actually probably an array of them) would need to be located in the general environment. Mounting it in the filter outlet would monitor the air being extracted, not the air being breathed.

Also, this is merely a monitoring system. What happens to chronic violators? Must they ban smoking or close? Eventually this would result in a de facto smoking ban unless there was some way to filter out or neutralize the smoke being introduced into the environment.

John

[d-ray657]

When I used to travel more, the smoking ban on airplanes helped me quit. The airport would have an enclosed smokers' ghetto that really reeked of stale smoke. It made flights much more enjoyable to not have a nagging nicotine urge halfway through the flight.

BTW Grumpy, how are the smokeless cigs going? Does anyone know if the no-smoking laws affect them? I remember there being something like them about 20-25 years ago, but they suddenly disappeared from the shelves.

Not smoking just gives me one less vice to deal with. Now if they would ban chocolate . . . I wouldn't have to take responsibility for my own actions.

Regards,

D-Ray

[rickr15]

Hardest habit I ever quit.
But I think more and more people are doing it. I believe 10 years ago the percentage of adults who smoke was closer to 35%.

[Boreas]

Anyone remember those lettuce cigarettes? Supposed to be safe I think. I tried one once. Tasted like shit.

Oh, wait! They're back!

http://www.bravosmokes.com/

John

[finnbow]

Anyone remember those lettuce cigarettes? Supposed to be safe I think. I tried one once. Tasted like shit.

Oh, wait! They're back!

http://www.bravosmokes.com/

John

Yeh, but they keep going out when I put salad dressing on 'em.:D

[rickr15]

Anyone remember those lettuce cigarettes? Supposed to be safe I think. I tried one once. Tasted like shit.

Oh, wait! They're back!

http://www.bravosmokes.com/

John

No but I remember the clove ones back in the 80's. Never did much for me.

[piece-itpete]

Yeh, but they keep going out when I put salad dressing on 'em.:D

Lmao!!

Pete

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
Needs a little tweaking. The lambda sensor (actually probably an array of them) would need to be located in the general environment. Mounting it in the filter outlet would monitor the air being extracted, not the air being breathed.

It's not a perfect solution, but monitoring the filter outlet would check whether the filter's doing it's job and putting clean air back in the bar. Thinking about it though, the system would be reactive, not preventative. To be preventative I guess you'd need a large inlet over a small smoking area, moving large volumes of air slowly enough so the fan noise doesn't get too odtrusive. I feel like I'm shooting myself down here but when catalytic converters, lambda sensors etc. were first proposed for cars, a lot of people said they just wouldn't be practical either.

Also, this is merely a monitoring system. What happens to chronic violators? Must they ban smoking or close? Eventually this would result in a de facto smoking ban unless there was some way to filter out or neutralize the smoke being introduced into the environment.

That's what I'm after, filtering out say 90% of the smoke produced. I'm not saying it would be easy for a bar owner to do this. As things stand in the U.K., bar owners are expected to police their premises; it's them who get the heavy fines if they allow their customers to smoke anywhere undercover.

I don't smoke; haven't done for 30 years but the creeping "you can't do that any more" bothers me. Will there come a time when despite most cars having cigarette lighters, nobodies allowed to smoke in them? Unless of course it's a convertible

I've just had a pop-up (doesn't happen much these days:mad:) telling me this message was too short to post.

Combwork

[Grumpy]

In Maryland (or maybe just Montgomery County, MD), the smoking ban in bars and restaurants was justified as an occupational safety and health issue (i.e., not exposing employees to the hazards of second hand smoke). On its face, it had nothing to do with the patrons. That said, as a non-smoker, I'm good with it.


And that was exactly how they passed the laws here. Said it was to protect the employee. We all know that's BS.

Being second class ain't so bad. :rolleyes:

[Boreas]

And that was exactly how they passed the laws here. Said it was to protect the employee. We all know that's BS.

I don't know it's BS. Maybe you could explain it to me.

John

[BlueStreak]

I couldn't care less what excuse was used to make it pass. I like not having to gag on someone elses shitstink cigarette smoke while I eat a meal I payed good money for.

Regards,
Dave

[finnbow]

And that was exactly how they passed the laws here. Said it was to protect the employee. We all know that's BS.

Being second class ain't so bad. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I think the smoking ban here is a regulation promulgated under the auspices of an existing statute (a state occupational safety and health law). That provided a convenient, legal and expedient way to get it done (for better or worse). I like it, but I'm a first class citizen (i.e, a non-smoker).:D

[hillbilly]

I couldn't care less what excuse was used to make it pass. I like not having to gag on someone elses shitstink cigarette smoke while I eat a meal I payed good money for.

Regards,
Dave


I hate it when I have a reaction to someones perfume on the school gym bleachers and have to go outside in order to prevent breaking out in a rash and going down to my knee's choking from a swollen airway. Does anyone give a shit that it's a danger to my health? Nope, but I'm not expecting they'll ban perfume just so I'll never have to walk away from another one of my kids indoor school basketball games, or get sick in the middle of a meal in a public place. I pay to see my kids play ball, and when we do go eat out in a place of business, thats my money too. If I take in very much direct sunlight, it has the same effect exept I'll piss blood through my urine and get shakey weak if I ignore it and go out in the sunlight for about week, but I'd only be able to blame God for that one. It even cost me money to keep my DL once after the cops found me on the roadside unable to drive back home for the third time within the same year. They warned me of dangering others by willfully driving an automobile in sunlight with my illness and I ended up in court. The judge was nice though, he read through the paperwork two of my doctors gave me to present to him, and he agree'd that it wouldn't be fair to restrict my daylight driving. Agreeing with the solution that two doctors agree'd upon, he allowed me to use a dark window tint and he filed it with the state so I can drive safely.

[Boreas]

I hate it when I have a reaction to someones perfume on the school gym bleachers and have to go outside in order to prevent breaking out in a rash and going down to my knee's choking from a swollen airway.

Cigarette smoke is toxic to every living creature on the planet. You can't reasonably expect the law to treat your paricular individual allergic reaction to certain fragrances in the same way. To some people peanuts are quite literally lethal, even in small amounts. Should we outlaw peanuts?

John

[hillbilly]

Cigarette smoke is toxic to every living creature on the planet. You can't reasonably expect the law to treat your paricular individual allergic reaction to certain fragrances in the same way. To some people peanuts are quite literally lethal, even in small amounts. Should we outlaw peanuts?

John


Nope, and I didn't say that they should. I generaly try to get to games early and seat family and friends around me before the place gets packed. I found that it offends no one, and keeping a planned seating distance before the other parents get there seems to help. Of course, theres always the one or two that'll crack a slurr as they walk by saying .. '' hey look, the wolfpack is here ''. I just do my best and ignore them.

[Grumpy]

I don't know it's BS. Maybe you could explain it to me.

John


I will be glad too. If I hated smokes I would never even think of taking a job working for at a smoking establishment.

We have had plenty of no smoking joints for years. Not once would I, or will I patronize, much less work at one.

If your going to ban it then ban it. Will never happen. There's billions, if not more, in taxes on the line.


I'll go back to my corner for a smoke, while keeping our schools in tax dollars now, thank you.

[Charles]

I will be glad too. If I hated smokes I would never even think of taking a job working for at a smoking establishment.

We have had plenty of no smoking joints for years. Not once would I, or will I patronize, much less work at one.

If your going to ban it then ban it. Will never happen. There's billions, if not more, in taxes on the line.


I'll go back to my corner for a smoke, while keeping our schools in tax dollars now, thank you.

That's the spirit!!!

There's more than a plenty of joints that don't allow smoking. If one doesn't like smoking, I would suggest that they eat or drink there.

Even when I quit smoking for five years, I didn't have a hardon for those who did. Didn't want to be a "No sumbitch like a REFORMED sumbitch" sort.

Cut the smokers some slack. Isn't it enough to unfairly way overtax them without treating them like shit on top of it?

Chas

BTW Grump, I won't go in a non smoking joint either. Didn't even do it while I wasn't smoking. Just hate uplifters, I guess.

[d-ray657]

Just want to make sure I understand this. Smoking has been shown to have dangerous effects not only on smokers, but also to those exposed to second-hand smoke. Those who smoke would like to carry on their habit in public places. Soas to not interfere with a the unfettered practice of a dangerous habit, those who don't want to be exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke should limit their job opportunities to only those places who take the economic risk of competing with establishments that do cater to smokers. Some should limit their ability to earn a living so that others can avoid limits on their habit.

I know that you didn't put it that way, but isn't that the natural consequence of the position you take?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Just want to make sure I understand this. Smoking has been shown to have dangerous effects not only on smokers, but also to those exposed to second-hand smoke. Those who smoke would like to carry on their habit in public places. Soas to not interfere with a the unfettered practice of a dangerous habit, those who don't want to be exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke should limit their job opportunities to only those places who take the economic risk of competing with establishments that do cater to smokers. Some should limit their ability to earn a living so that others can avoid limits on their habit.

I know that you didn't put it that way, but isn't that the natural consequence of the position you take?

Regards,

D-Ray

That pretty much sums it up.

But there are plenty of good jobs out there. One can always join the Ironworkers and work high steel, be a lineman, big city cop, or join the Marines.

Life's not fair, and we all have our own choices to make.

Chas

[Grumpy]

Just want to make sure I understand this. Smoking has been shown to have dangerous effects not only on smokers, but also to those exposed to second-hand smoke. Those who smoke would like to carry on their habit in public places. Soas to not interfere with a the unfettered practice of a dangerous habit, those who don't want to be exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke should limit their job opportunities to only those places who take the economic risk of competing with establishments that do cater to smokers. Some should limit their ability to earn a living so that others can avoid limits on their habit.

I know that you didn't put it that way, but isn't that the natural consequence of the position you take?

Regards,

D-Ray

Not at all. My stance was posted above. Seems more like yours here

[piece-itpete]

... those who don't want to be exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke should limit their job opportunities to only those places who take the economic risk of competing with establishments that do cater to smokers. Some should limit their ability to earn a living so that others can avoid limits on their habit.

...

Driving is dangerous too.

Pete

[Boreas]

Driving is dangerous too.

Pete

Oh, brother!

Cigarettes are lethal when used as directed. There is no safe use of tobacco products. None. Not for the user and not for those in the vicinity of the user.

John

[Charles]

Oh, brother!

Cigarettes are lethal when used as directed. There is no safe use of tobacco products. None. Not for the user and not for those in the vicinity of the user.

John

I agree, cigarettes ARE legal.

Chas

[Zeke]

There is no safe use of tobacco products. None. Not for the user and not for those in the vicinity of the user.

As an American Indian, I can tell you this statement is 100% bullshit. (But we'll not get into alternative medicine.)

That said, if we're so concerned about "air pollution," there are a lot more effective things we could do than curtail someone's ability to smoke a Honduran cigar, outside. :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

There is certainly no such thing as safe driving either, although some get lucky and go a whole lifetime without an accident.

Some smokers die of other causes too.

I'm with Zeke though, as someone who voted FOR the ban I'm talking about OUTSIDE.

Pete

[merrylander]

If you are prone to lung cancer, smoking will certainly aggravate it. My Dad smoke first Turret, then Export A (Canadian cigs) all his life - plain ends - never got lung cancer, died in his 81st year from a blood clot after prostate surgery.

I smoked various Canadian cigs, notably Buckinghams that were as strong as they come, never more than a pack a day - doc says I am bad for business. Here I smoked Marlboro regular. Quit four years back mainly because of the price.

[Boreas]

As an American Indian, I can tell you this statement is 100% bullshit. (But we'll not get into alternative medicine.)

I'd be interested to know why you say that.

John

[Zeke]

I'd be interested to know why you say that.

John

A simple Google of "tobacco as medicine," is a realistic start. :)

[merrylander]

A simple Google of "tobacco as medicine," is a realistic start. :)

It is what they do to it in the cigarette industry, I had a description from a NC resiident who had worked in the industry briefly. From what he told me any resemblence between tobacco and that shit in the cigs is purely accidental.

[Boreas]

A simple Google of "tobacco as medicine," is a realistic start. :)

No, I'd be interested in knowing why you say that.

John

[Zeke]

No, I'd be interested in knowing why you say that.

John

Validity?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but saying, "there is no safe use of tobacco products," is just not factual.

I'm completely comfortable calling bullshit on that.

[Boreas]

Validity?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but saying, "there is no safe use of tobacco products," is just not factual.

I think most allopaths would disagree with you. Homeopathy's another thing but, of course, that's pretty controversial as a whole.

John

[finnbow]

OK, Zeke. How about "There are no peer-reviewed, published studies and subsequent FDA approvals for the therapeutic use of cigarettes, cigars and other forms of smoked tobacco?"

Does that float your boat?

[BlueStreak]

I couldn't care less what excuse was used to make it pass. I like not having to gag on someone elses shitstink cigarette smoke while I eat a meal I payed good money for.

Regards,
Dave

This really is how I feel. And I'm a Dude who has an occasional cigar. But, when I do, I sit outside.

Dave

[Grumpy]

It is what they do to it in the cigarette industry, I had a description from a NC resiident who had worked in the industry briefly. From what he told me any resemblence between tobacco and that shit in the cigs is purely accidental.


Gotta agree with Rob here. And with the switch to "fire safe" smokes, the hazards have increased ten fold. Nothing like them, watching out for us.

[piece-itpete]

It's the old scary saw - 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'

Pete

[Boreas]

It's the old scary saw - 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'

Pete

Not so old. Reagan said it in the '80s (when he was the government). Also, not so scary unless it's someone like Brownie saying it. ;)

John