And thus the paternalism argument. The smoking ban is not some attempt to get hospitality workers to quit smoking. Just because a bartender or waitperson smokes (or does not) is no argument for making the workplace an exposure risk for any of the workers. And I don't generally see my waiters and bartenders smoking on the job, so even if they can't smoke during their shift (except out in the alley), what are they losing from a smoking ban? In fact, it probably helps control the jones, not seeing a room full of smoking patrons. I think hospitality workers "put it on hold" in a number of areas while they are working; smoking is just one of them.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:And I don't generally see my waiters and bartenders smoking on the job, so even if they can't smoke during their shift (except out in the alley), what are they losing from a smoking ban?

Waiters, never; bartenders, I see them (or used to see them) smoking regularly.

Generally, though, I think most people are glad to have the ban in place; I was simply inquiring into the philosophy behind the law, which I had previously considered more for the sake of the public than for the sake of the workers, but clearly both benefit.

David Hammond wrote:Waiters, never; bartenders, I see them (or used to see them) smoking regularly.

David, you obviously patronize cooler bars than I. Well, I guess they'll all be Disney-friendly now.

Jim "Nelson Algren, I Ain't" InLoganSquare

David Hammond wrote:Generally, though, I think most people are glad to have the ban in place; I was simply inquiring into the philosophy behind the law, which I had previously considered more for the sake of the public than for the sake of the workers, but clearly both benefit.

The main argument, as I've always heard for this law, has been more a worker's rights issue than a public safety issue (as I allude to in my last post). I think that's the only way a smoking ban really makes any sense for the government interfering in a business's operation.

The law jumps to the conclusion that second-hand smoke is really a health hazard. I'm not one of those in complete denial about it; I'm sure that second-hand smoke can't be good for you. There are all kinds of studies that show that it has some deleterious effect on health. The question is how much. And whether that "how much" makes it worth punishing smokers. (Of whom I am not one, it's worth repeating.)

I don't know if a study has been done that ranks second-hand smoke as a danger compared to other pollutants that we are exposed to every day, but I'd be interested in the answer. The cynic in me says that we would learn that we are in graver danger from car exhaust, industrial effluvia, etc., and that until we knock these greater offenders off the list, we are being unfair and hypocritical to start with smoking. (Essentially, we are attacking smoking because it's easy--who suffers from a ban other than smokers, and they're weak and shouldn't be indulging in such a filthy habit, right?--and the other stuff is hard, but that's not a very good reason.) I totally want to protect those, such as Joel, who have instantaneous physical reactions to cigarette smoke, which is why I would favor a law that created truly smoke-free areas. As for the employees who work in bars and restaurants, who deserve protection like any employee in any business, my guess is that many, even many of the non-smokers among them, never minded second-hand smoke that much or wouldn't have chosen to work in those jobs. It's not that they don't deserve protection from dangers; it's that they didn't judge second-hand smoke to be much of a danger. And (when that danger is put in a rank order with the other pollutants and carcinogens all around us--let's start with meat cooked over high heat, for example!), I'm not sure they were wrong.

riddlemay wrote:I don't know if a study has been done that ranks second-hand smoke as a danger compared to other pollutants that we are exposed to every day, but I'd be interested in the answer.

EPA has gathered a number of studies on secondhand smoke here. Not sure if any of these draw the comparison you describe (seems like somebody ought to have done that, and if they did, it ought to be in one of these reports! )

ANY type of ban like this is so UN-AMERICAN it makes me sick. I feel the restaurant owner should make that decision. The customer will then decide wether or not to frequent the place. I am a non smoker, however I feel no one has the right to tell others to smoke or not in a private establishment. I am ex-military and went to war for this country, swore an oath to defend the constitution, and here I sit watching that document get trampled on. If you hate smoke and that restraunt allows smoking, don't go there. It is that simple. There are plenty of other places to go.

As a bartender on-and-off for the last 16 years, I am ECSTATIC about the new law, and so are almost all the other bartenders, barbacks, and servers that I work with, including the smokers. We work at a bar that has always been notoriously smoky, but we haven't seen any down-tick in business--as a matter of fact, we're doing slightly better this January than last, although that may be just a coincidence.

Personally, I love drinking, and I love going to bars, and I'm now I love it even more. I can "stop by" for a quick drink (as if that were possible!) at the Matchbox on the way to somewhere else and not reek for the rest of the night. Or, more realistically, I can close down the Matchbox and not have a festering, malodorous pile of clothes to toss in the laundry the next day.

davecamaro1994 wrote:ANY type of ban like this is so UN-AMERICAN it makes me sick. I feel the restaurant owner should make that decision. The customer will then decide wether or not to frequent the place. I am a non smoker, however I feel no one has the right to tell others to smoke or not in a private establishment. I am ex-military and went to war for this country, swore an oath to defend the constitution, and here I sit watching that document get trampled on. If you hate smoke and that restraunt allows smoking, don't go there. It is that simple. There are plenty of other places to go.

Once again, the issue is one of worker's health, not customer choice. But I fear we may be drifting a little beyond the OP here ...

We've indeed gone a little too far away from a food-related discussion.

Yes, please bring this back on track or else we'll have to lock it.

Thanks,

Aaron

All other issues aside, here's why I like the ban:

Cigarette smoke ruins food.

=R=

Ronnie....you are supposed to smoke AFTER the meal not with it.

I do agree though that cigar and cigarette smoking should be confined to sections or bar areas. Cigar especially should be in a lounge area. Nothing worse than the smell of a cheap cigar

I think our fine government should propose a three drink maximum in bars to eliminate ALL drunk drivers and a calorie limit in restaurants to eliminate ALL fat people.

the fact of the matter is - all the people that are against the sale of fois gras and are FOR the ban of cigarettes are hypocrites - no two ways about it.

As a business owner that pays taxes and a mortgage on land, they should be able to decide whether or not they have smoking in their establishment.

This law is taking more rights from business owners and stripping them away.

I don't smoke, i am allergic to smoke. i am allergic to cigarette smoke. I am disgusted that people will support this ban and further let our government tell business owners and the public what they can and cannot do.

The simple fact is: A free society will work itself out. If a business owner is getting a lot of complaints about smoke, then it would be in their best interest to ban it from their establishment.

If the same business owner finds that it is not a problem with their clientele - it should be up to them to make the decision.

So many activists pass this off as something that is good for you and me and its all a bunch of bull shit - because no one cares about your health. NO ONE cares about your health.

New York is having a backlash right now - they are trying to get this BS law reversed.

You know, with the fois gras ban, trans fats, cigarettes ban in privately owned businesses and land, the gov't is telling our citizens what we can do, serve and eat more and more - and people are eating it up with their eyes shut.

I know when someone's trying to feed me a crap sandwich and i'm not dumb enough to eat it.

and also - addressing employee health - is that not also something that should be in the hands of the business owner? EVERY job has hazards. I worked as a medic for a long time - what kind of hazards do you think i had to deal with? HIV, Hepatitis A,B,C, Flu, etc. If i didn't want to deal with those hazards, i would NOT have become a medic.

FEAR is the basis for every movement, remember that.

djenks wrote:the fact of the matter is - all the people that are against the sale of fois gras and are FOR the ban of cigarettes are hypocrites - no two ways about it.

That's absolutely not true. One is an animal welfare issue, the other is a public health issue.

gleam wrote:

djenks wrote:the fact of the matter is - all the people that are against the sale of fois gras and are FOR the ban of cigarettes are hypocrites - no two ways about it.

That's absolutely not true. One is an animal welfare issue, the other is a public health issue.

Agreed... that's just false. I'm not in favor of either, but there's absolutely nothing inconsistent about supporting one and opposing the other. Just because they have some elements in common doesn't mean they aren't two very different issues. They're hardly analogous.

gleam wrote:

djenks wrote:the fact of the matter is - all the people that are against the sale of fois gras and are FOR the ban of cigarettes are hypocrites - no two ways about it.

That's absolutely not true. One is an animal welfare issue, the other is a public health issue.

I would say that one is an alleged animal welfare issue.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Let's all try to remember that the purpose of the smoking ban is not to protect patrons, who have a choice not to go to the offending establishment, but rather to protect the WORKERS in those establishments. Factory workers, maintenance workers, all workers in non-hospitality industries have been protected by OSHA regulations, including air quality regulations, for many years. Why don't bartenders and waitstaff deserve the same healthful workplace as a union laborer? Those of you, like me, who work in offices: If someone started walking in at regular intervals and blowing cigarette smoke into your workplace, randomly and without your approval, how would you react? And, please, let's not have the "you chose to work in a bar, you knew the risks" argument; bartenders and waitstaff are not getting "hazard pay"; they are among the most underpaid workers in any industry, and, moreover, the basic operating principle behind the OSHAct and other, similar laws is that most workers DO NOT have a realistic choice in where they are working or the health standards maintained there, and in any case, who should have to make such a choice?

JiLS I absolutely agree with this and believe that all workers should have the rights to work in a safe environment.
I just find it funny that at the dive bar that I haunt the bartender has to go outside every 30-60 minutes to grab a smoke (and she's the only employee there) - prompting a periodic shout-out to the bar "Does anybody need anything before I go grab a smoke?".

I really think this discussion/thread has gone beyond the useful point.

leek wrote:I really think this discussion/thread has gone beyond the useful point.

that point was reached long ago.

leek wrote:I really think this discussion/thread has gone beyond the useful point.

leek,

The question is really, Does this thread tread on politics? and I think the answer is, Yeah, kinda, but it's just this side of the line.

My feeling is that as long as the discussion is civil and within LTH posting guideline boundaries, people can talk about it for as long as they want.

David

Dmnkly wrote:

gleam wrote:

djenks wrote:the fact of the matter is - all the people that are against the sale of fois gras and are FOR the ban of cigarettes are hypocrites - no two ways about it.

That's absolutely not true. One is an animal welfare issue, the other is a public health issue.

Agreed... that's just false. I'm not in favor of either, but there's absolutely nothing inconsistent about supporting one and opposing the other. Just because they have some elements in common doesn't mean they aren't two very different issues. They're hardly analogous.

Nope. They are the same. They are business owner's rights - and any ban of either is (should be) viewed as an infringement on their rights.

If you own a business, you should be able to buy, import, prepare and serve fois gras. How is this ANY different than having the right to have (or not have) a smoking policy in your establishment?

People seem to think that because one is about the welfare of an animal and the other is about the welfare of customers and workers that it must be different - but when it comes down to it - you're stripping a business owner's rights away in either case, plain and simple.

Secondly - this discussion has been civil and many people have brought points to the table. It's a political thread because the original issue is about legislation. If people are afraid or offended to participate in a political thread, don't read it. But don't be so quick to jump on the "let's lock it" bandwagon, it's a little ridiculous.

Kman wrote:I just find it funny that at the dive bar that I haunt the bartender has to go outside every 30-60 minutes to grab a smoke (and she's the only employee there) - prompting a periodic shout-out to the bar "Does anybody need anything before I go grab a smoke?".

this would make me realize more that it should be up to the establishment and NOT a law. It's pathetic that the owner and that employee don't have a say in their own policies at their own establishment.

Who, in this case - this specific case - is benefiting? Looks like no one - the business owner, as his bartender is out of commission every 30-60, the bartender, as his production is obviously going down, and the customer, who has to deal with an out of commission bar every 30 minutes. For what?

Re: the difference between a smoking ban and the foie gras ban.

If I eat foie gras in a restaurant, the health of those sitting next to me and of those serving me is not impacted at all. The same cannot be said about smoking.

Also, the government has imposed plenty of regulations/restrictions on business (workplace safety laws, wage regulations, etc), yet somehow businesses continue to thrive. I think a smoking ban just falls into the category of trying to promote a healthier workplace, which really can't be a bad thing.

djenks wrote:For what?

Customers not having to breath cigarette smoke.

djenks wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:

gleam wrote:

djenks wrote:the fact of the matter is - all the people that are against the sale of fois gras and are FOR the ban of cigarettes are hypocrites - no two ways about it.

That's absolutely not true. One is an animal welfare issue, the other is a public health issue.

Agreed... that's just false. I'm not in favor of either, but there's absolutely nothing inconsistent about supporting one and opposing the other. Just because they have some elements in common doesn't mean they aren't two very different issues. They're hardly analogous.

Nope. They are the same. They are business owner's rights - and any ban of either is (should be) viewed as an infringement on their rights.

If you own a business, you should be able to buy, import, prepare and serve fois gras. How is this ANY different than having the right to have (or not have) a smoking policy in your establishment?

People seem to think that because one is about the welfare of an animal and the other is about the welfare of customers and workers that it must be different - but when it comes down to it - you're stripping a business owner's rights away in either case, plain and simple.

Secondly - this discussion has been civil and many people have brought points to the table. It's a political thread because the original issue is about legislation. If people are afraid or offended to participate in a political thread, don't read it. But don't be so quick to jump on the "let's lock it" bandwagon, it's a little ridiculous.

In the sense that both a foie gras ban and a smoking ban restrict what a business can do, then yes, they are the same. But just because they both limit businesses does not mean that opposition to one and support for the other is hypocritical.

It is widely recognized that government has the authority to restrict certain personal actions for the protection or benefit of society as a whole. Clearly there is disagreement about where this line should be drawn, but it does not follow that reaching different conclusions about different limitations is hypocritical.

In this instance, it is perfectly reasonable that a person could decided that protecting geese from force feeding is not a sufficient enough reason to limit a business owners rights, but that protecting employee's health is a sufficient reason to limit business owners rights.

jesteinf wrote:

djenks wrote:For what?

Customers not having to breath cigarette smoke.

that was my point - if thats the only purpose that it served in this case - which it was - shouldn't that be up to the business owner?

ksbeck wrote:In the sense that both a foie gras ban and a smoking ban restrict what a business can do, then yes, they are the same.

So, we are talking about rights. "What a business can do" can be simply stated as: "business rights"

There have been many laws passed on public fear without any real hard evidence. Take a look at the people who have passed laws banning Pit Bulls. What a joke - statistically, you have a MUCH higher chance of getting bit when you approach a poodle, lab, or golden retriever, but no one cares because of what the media tells them.

There really isn't that hard of evidence concerning second hand smoke. We know it's not good for us - but all the studies are inconclusive and the American Heart Association will admit to it.

So, you've got inconclusive studies and public fear that are influencing legislation that is further stripping rights away from business owners. This doesn't seem wrong to anyone but me?

djenks wrote:

jesteinf wrote:

djenks wrote:For what?

Customers not having to breath cigarette smoke.

that was my point - if thats the only purpose that it served in this case - which it was - shouldn't that be up to the business owner?

Not if it's been determined that cigarette smoke is a health hazard for those in the bar. The owner is also compelled to keep everything clean in line with regulations from the Department of Health. Even if he and everyone in the bar doesn't care if the place is "dirty", it's still a public health issue and therefore fair game for government intervention.