They are allowed to send as many as they want, whether or not they are sued later is a completely different story. The point I made was that they have nobody stepping in beforehand saying, 'Drunk driving is more dangerous than second hand smoke, so its banned.' It is up to the owner/server to decide who has had too much to drink.
Employees have just as much freedom to decide where they work as a patron does where they eat.
Originally Posted by M Richardson
First of all, having, a long time ago, been in the restaurant business, a restaurantuer is NOT allowed to "send as many drunks out into the streets as they please". Send an impaired driver out, assume the liability. Does that mean that bars cut everybody off? No. But if the driver is impaired, and you serve them, and they get into an accident, be ready to get sued for everything you ever thought you would own. Happens all of the time in California.
Secondly, yes, the customers have the option of entering or not. However, the employees don't. Sidestream and second-hand smoke are major health threats for everyone exposed. When you work as a waiter or bartender in a smoking establishment, you are smoking all night long, even if you don't light up.
About a million years ago, when you could smoke freely in offices, I worked in a pretty contained space with four other people, including our boss, who smoked 1-2 packs a day. Our coats and clothes reeked when we left at night. I remember that there was an ashtray in the department that was on a stand about two feet tall. It was filled with sand. We hated the smoke and had air filter systems near our desks, but the smoke still permeated everything. One day some little plastic palm trees from a nativity set appeared in the sand of the ashtray. Still a few cigarettes were put out in our desert scenery. Piece by piece, the full nativity set started to appear in the ashtray stand and it was our pride and joy. It was a visual joke and maybe sacreligious, but it intimidated our boss in a way we couldn't otherwise get by with.
Fast-forward to today. After a whole weekend of rain, when I got to my desk today, a few of the ceiling tiles were missing and a few were stained from a fresh leak. Obviously someone had been working there while we were manning the pumps at home. The area by my desk smelled faintly of stale cigarettes, which never happens - I'm thinking that some tradesman who wasn't thrilled with getting an emergency call lit up in the office.
We really have made a lot of progress in this area, and it was interesting to see how everyone got all up in arms about the smell of a cigarette from awhile ago when we used to have to inhale 1-2 packs worth every day. That was just the way it was, but I'm thankful it's changed.
__________________ "A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think its dumb that they ban them in anyone's place of business. Someone owns the place and the government comes in, decides it's unsafe, and tells you that it can't be done anymore.
Rhetorical question time, which has killed more people: drunk drivers or cigarette smokers? Yet, they let them send as many drunks out into the streets as they please.
I was thrilled to see it happen for my personal benefit, but I think they should be allowed to choose to allow it and put a sign on the door.
I disagree. IMO, people have the right to a safe environment when they go to work or enter a public establishment (privately owned, but open to the public). Warning someone that there is smoke inside and letting them make a choice is no different than posting a sign: "Loose ceiling tiles - enter at your own risk." It's a building code violation for a reason. I shouldn't have to make a choice of whether to risk my health or go to a different restaurant.
A smoking ban has been in place statewide in Maryland since February. The most populous counties have had some sort of ban in place for several years anyway.
There was a caveat in the statewide ban that allowed businesses that saw a certain percentage drop in revenues to appeal the ban. All the cries of lost business with a smoking ban were once again disproved. If everyone is on a level field there shouldn't be much impact.
I disagree with those that say servers and patrons have a choice. I suggest that smoking, while an addiction, is a choice. That choice shouldn't be forced on those who elect not to smoke. The healthcare issues and costs attributed to smoking are well documented. We all pay for these.
Like Bonnie I recall the days when non-smokers had no choice. It was at its worst when I was in the Air Force. I had to sit in offices with people smoking cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. There were some instances when it got so bad that I actually went outside and threw up. I had no choice, I HAD to report to my job. Just as servers may really have no choice, they need a job.
Bonnie, remember the wonderful days when smoking was allowed in any seat on an airline? The from a certain seat back, which of course meant I always had the seat just in front of the smoking section.
__________________
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!”
Bar's in Minnesota have taken huge losses in income since the smoking ban went into effect.
The loss of business has been so high in the several years since the smoking ban has taken place that out of desperation some bars have taken to having "smokers performance nights".
During these "performances" all bar patrons become actors in a bar smokers reenactment play. Because smoking is allowed in performances a few bars have experimented in this way to get around the smoking ban. On the nights a bar holds these "plays" the bar is packed to overflow.
The smoking ban includes VFWs and other private clubs. I find it ironic that veterans who fought for other American's freedoms are not free to smoke in their own private club.
The health nazi's have gone as far as to ban smoking in some outdoor public parks. The idea being that the mere act of seeing a smoker is a bad influence on children.
Why I think these smoking bans are outrageous:
1) HVAC technology can create a positive airflow room that would not allow smoke to leave that room and with filtration systems and air exchange the other parts of a bar or restaurant would remain smoke free. Several bars in Minnesota asked to use this new technology at their own expense and were denied.
2) Smoking bans in outdoor areas like parks do not guard against health effects of secondhand smoke.
3) Some of these smoking bans are extending to home use. A smoker in some places is not allowed to smoke in their own apartment if the building owner decided they want to have a smoke free building. Some places ban a smoker from smoking in their own car in a open air parking lot. Again this is not protecting others from second hand smoke.
4) Protecting workers is a bogus claim because workers have the freedom to choose where they work. If during the hiring process a worker is given the information that a establishment is a business that will expose them to tobacco smoke that worker has the choice whether or not to work there. Just as any worker has the freedom to quit a job that where they do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke.
5) Non smokers can actively not patron businesses that allow smoking. No one who does not smoke would have to enter a bar that allowed smoking.
I agree that smoking and other tobacco use is highly addictive and very dangerous/deadly to a person's health.
However, the government has decided to keep tobacco a legal product and collects taxes on it.
The effect of many of these smoking bans I have outlined above is to infringe upon the rights of people to engage in a legally accepted behavior. The smoking bans are also infringing on the rights of property and business owners.
__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.
Just as miners know the risk and hazards of mining, servers at places that allow smoking should know the risks associated with it. No matter the job you assume the risks that go along with it. Doctors and their secretaries could be exposed to the flu, should they ban people that have the flu from going to the doctor? If the person does not like that work environment they should not apply for a job there. I don't like working on roofs in 90+ temperatures during the summer, so I'm not a roofer.
The thing that is stupid about the smoking law(at least around here) is that all the smokers huddle just outside the door, so you get a great taste of smoke as you go into and come out of the bar or restaurant. Its not much of a problem during the summer, but during the winter its worse as people aren't hanging out outside when its snowing out.
But here's the thing, Champ. I have serious asthma. It's under control now, but most of my life, I was hospitalized often. I wanted to be a waitress or bartender in college, and make the good money associated with it, but I couldn't because of the smoking. That sure sounds like discrimination to me,
About a million years ago, when you could smoke freely in offices, I worked in a pretty contained space with four other people, including our boss, who smoked 1-2 packs a day. Our coats and clothes reeked when we left at night. I remember that there was an ashtray in the department that was on a stand about two feet tall. It was filled with sand. We hated the smoke and had air filter systems near our desks, but the smoke still permeated everything. One day some little plastic palm trees from a nativity set appeared in the sand of the ashtray. Still a few cigarettes were put out in our desert scenery. Piece by piece, the full nativity set started to appear in the ashtray stand and it was our pride and joy. It was a visual joke and maybe sacreligious, but it intimidated our boss in a way we couldn't otherwise get by with.
Fast-forward to today. After a whole weekend of rain, when I got to my desk today, a few of the ceiling tiles were missing and a few were stained from a fresh leak. Obviously someone had been working there while we were manning the pumps at home. The area by my desk smelled faintly of stale cigarettes, which never happens - I'm thinking that some tradesman who wasn't thrilled with getting an emergency call lit up in the office.
We really have made a lot of progress in this area, and it was interesting to see how everyone got all up in arms about the smell of a cigarette from awhile ago when we used to have to inhale 1-2 packs worth every day. That was just the way it was, but I'm thankful it's changed.
As disgusting as it was Bonnie you always had the freedom to quit that job.
You decided to stay.
__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.
I disagree. IMO, people have the right to a safe environment when they go to work or enter a public establishment (privately owned, but open to the public). Warning someone that there is smoke inside and letting them make a choice is no different than posting a sign: "Loose ceiling tiles - enter at your own risk." It's a building code violation for a reason. I shouldn't have to make a choice of whether to risk my health or go to a different restaurant.
I couldn't disagree more.
When you are warned you have the option of patronizing that business or not.
I have had several jobs where I worked around and with dangerous chemicals.
To work there I was given the information on material data safety sheets explaining each chemical that was used or handled at that facility. I had the option to work there or not.
Having the ability to make an informed choice is all the difference in the world.
__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.
But here's the thing, Champ. I have serious asthma. It's under control now, but most of my life, I was hospitalized often. I wanted to be a waitress or bartender in college, and make the good money associated with it, but I couldn't because of the smoking. That sure sounds like discrimination to me,
Nonsense. You knew of the risk and didn't work there. You could have waitered at a smoke free diner. You had a choice to work, and the freedom to choose where to work.
If you chose not to work at a dynamite factory because it is dangerous should dynamite factories be banned because they are dangerous?
__________________
If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.
When you are warned you have the option of patronizing that business or not.
I have had several jobs where I worked around and with dangerous chemicals.
To work there I was given the information on material data safety sheets explaining each chemical that was used or handled at that facility. I had the option to work there or not.
Having the ability to make an informed choice is all the difference in the world.
Then I guess we just disagree on which right is more important: a smoker's right to smoke wherever he wants, or my right to go to whatever business I want without endangering my health.
Related Tags:
Related Videos:
Re: Smoking ban in PA at last 
Linear Mode
