Should companies decide which chemicals they release into the stream/ocean? Even if the city is okay with it?
I completely support public smoking bans. No way it should be up to each establishment to decide, that's ridiculous. I do agree with the OP that it's hypocritical for the casino not to have to follow the same rules though.
Could you explain why it is 'ridiculous'?
In this thread it has been made very clear that the majority are in favour of the ban. Licensees have a vested interest in serving the majority so you can be assured that non-smoking bars would continue to operate. All that happens when you give a choice is that a licensee has the option to cater to the minority crowd, and to source smoking staff accordingly. Everyone is catered for.
Tell me, what is 'ridiculous' about catering for everybody?
I'm with this guy ^Licensees should have been given the choice, rather than a blanket ban.
Should companies decide which chemicals they release into the stream/ocean? Even if the city is okay with it?
Maybe because second hand smoke is terrible for everyone? Why should they try to cater to people wanting that smoke to continue to exist inside bars and restaurants? Public health is more important than trying to please a bunch of smokers. Want to smoke that badly? Fine, but do that outside where it wont hurt anyone but yourself.
or...BBC said:The emissions from car exhausts are responsible for more deaths than road accidents, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) research.
BBC said:Breathing in heavy traffic fumes can trigger a heart attack, say UK experts.
Heart attack risk is raised for about six hours post-exposure and goes down again after that, researchers found.
They say in the British Medical Journal that pollution probably hastens rather than directly cause attacks.
But repeated exposure is still bad for health, they say, substantially shortening life expectancy, and so the advice to people remains the same - avoid as far as is possible.
Could you explain why it is 'ridiculous'?
In this thread it has been made very clear that the majority are in favour of the ban. Licensees have a vested interest in serving the majority so you can be assured that non-smoking bars would continue to operate. All that happens when you give a choice is that a licensee has the option to cater to the minority crowd, and to source smoking staff accordingly. Everyone is catered for.
Tell me, what is 'ridiculous' about catering for everybody?
As much as certain people try to play it off as a first amendment/freedom of choice issue, it's really a public health issue.
Restaurants and entertainment venues already have to conform to numerous government-mandated standards to protect the health of their customers and employees - from adhering to building codes to being subject to regular food inspections. Prohibiting smoking is just part of this system.
How do you feel about car drivers?
'Car Fumes Kill More Than Crashes'
or...
'Car Fumes Raise Heart Attack Risk For 6 Hours'
Because as far as I can see, your points are all applicable to motorists too. Ever see a 4 seater car with one person in it? You ought to be chucking just as much shit at that guy. You can't be protected from every little thing in the world (although you could avoid it by not going to smoking-licensed bars).
Cigarette smoke is awful for your and everyone's health, and everyone knows it. It's not a first amendment thing. If you want to poison yourself, fine, but do it in fucking private.But a British GP, a former chairman of the GPs in Asthma group, said that while car pollution worsened existing asthma, there was little evidence that it actually caused the condition.
Dr Dermot Ryan, a Loughborough GP, said that the focus should fall instead on cigarette smoking as the primary villain.
"I'm not too sure car pollution is the number one enemy. 400 people a day are dying in this country due to cigarette smoking," he said.
With that said, I find smoking bans forced onto businesses by the government to be the ultimate in hypocrisy.
You allow people to go into bars, restaurants, and clubs, and consume a product - alcohol, that can fuck up and end innocent people's lives hours after consuming it, but you can't allow smoking. The act of people smoking cigarettes typically doesn't start bar fights, cause property damage, or cause someone to hit someone head on in a vehicle.
Damn, Smokey, you should choose your articles better.
From the same fucking article:
That's all I want, yeah. A totally separate bar for smokers. I just want somewhere I can have a pint and a cig in peace.@SmokeyDave
If there are special bars with only smokers in it, then it´s ok with me, but i don´t want a special part of a restaurant or a bar to have a smoking area.
How do you feel about car drivers?
'Car Fumes Kill More Than Crashes'
or...
'Car Fumes Raise Heart Attack Risk For 6 Hours'
Because as far as I can see, your points are all applicable to motorists too. Ever see a 4 seater car with one person in it? You ought to be chucking just as much shit at that guy. You can't be protected from every little thing in the world (although you could avoid it by not going to smoking-licensed bars).
How do you feel about car drivers?
'Car Fumes Kill More Than Crashes'
or...
'Car Fumes Raise Heart Attack Risk For 6 Hours'
Because as far as I can see, your points are all applicable to motorists too. Ever see a 4 seater car with one person in it? You ought to be chucking just as much shit at that guy. You can't be protected from every little thing in the world (although you could avoid it by not going to smoking-licensed bars).
Prof Pearson from the BHF agrees: "Unhealthy diets and smoking etc are much bigger heart attack risk factors, but car fumes are the cream on the cake that can tip you over."
I think it's great. I don't want to come home smelling like an ashtray.
Is this real life? Lol
I'm not entirely sure my point was understood, for what it's worth.lol. An article from 1999 and since then cars have been made more efficient and laws have been put in place to cut down on pollution.
And the second article doesn't prove your point at all
Well, let's see:I read it before posting. I don't see how that excerpt affects what I said. If you're going to scream about negligible damage from external forces, at least remain consistent.
Why's that? Because stinking of BO is so much better or did you want to wear the same clothes the next day?
That's all I want, yeah. A totally separate bar for smokers. I just want somewhere I can have a pint and a cig in peace.
Smokey, i know you're a smoker so you try to defend your addiction the best you can, but you just can't compare cigarettes to cars.
Personally, I don't think this would work in practice as well as it sounds in theory. The thing is that, though there is a clear preference for smoking being banned for non-smokers, I honestly didn't know many people who adamantly refused to go to smoke-filled bars. I'm sure for some it was a deal-breaker, but I think most non-smokers just sucked it up and dealt with it. However, for a lot of smokers, smoking and drinking go hand-in-hand. Not allowing smoking is a deal-breaker, assuming the option to go to a smoking establishment exists. As such, the "let businesses decide" argument never really held a lot of water with me. I think overwhelmingly, given the choice, businesses would continue to allow smoking in some capacity since "Bar A allows smoking while Bar B doesn't" I think puts Bar B at a competitive disadvantage.In this thread it has been made very clear that the majority are in favour of the ban. Licensees have a vested interest in serving the majority so you can be assured that non-smoking bars would continue to operate. All that happens when you give a choice is that a licensee has the option to cater to the minority crowd, and to source smoking staff accordingly. Everyone is catered for.
Well, let's see:
(1) People have already shown that they will accept the risks of car travel in exchange for its conveniences (including car crashes and pollutants)
(2) Cigarette smoke has no conveniences at all. I guess maybe weight loss in some people, but who would recommend cigarettes as a weight loss drug?
(3) The study to which you linked is old and arguably doesn't even prove the point you were trying to make.
(4) Calling second-hand cigarette smoke damage 'negligible' is hilarious.
Smokey, i know you're a smoker so you try to defend your addiction the best you can, but you just can't compare cigarettes to cars.
I'm going to totally evade the question about how I feel or what's right or wrong, and just make an observation.
Many cities have passed smoking bans. In all of those cities, there has been an angry opposition to smoking bans. It's hard to say if opposition sentiment is a loud minority or a majority, but whatever the case, the cities pass the smoking bans anyway.
In the immediate wake of the smoking ban there is some small local news coverage about individual bars and restaurants having more or less traffic. The coverage might conclude that there has been a negative impact on restaurants/bars or it might not. The issue of smoker's rights is not covered at this stage, having already been totally ignored.
Within 6-9 months, no one cares anymore. It is accepted as a fact of reality. Smokers in some bars might smoke indoors while holding open the back door or otherwise "cheat", but by and large smoky bars and restaurants have ceased to exist, non-smokers don't care, smokers don't care, they go outside to smoke if they want to.
Within a few years, the idea that anyone could smoke in a restaurant or bar seems quaint and distant, like a memory not quite remembered right. Remember when all the bars used to be hazy and hard to see in it? Yeah, kinda, I guess? It's hard to really remember.
No city ever repeals a smoking ban after the fact.
So with that in mind, without actually making an argument for or against the merits of the ban itself, without actually talking about economic or business rights or smokers rights or any other argument on either side, without talking about the smell or second hand smoke... without actually addressing the issue--
--given that we already know that no one will care a year or two from now in your city, and no one will care a year or two from now in any city that passes it, is there even a discussion to be had here? It's so ephemeral. It's simply not going to be a thing a little while from now. It's not going to be an ongoing knock-down drag-out that goes back and forth for years or decades, the way most controversial policies do.