Civil Disobedience

[Article 15]

And they still aren't. They are free to enter any place that non-smokers are

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

There was a time in this country when business owners were concerned that if blacks were allowed to eat with white customers they would lose business. They had the mindset of "Its my establishment, I can choose who I wish to serve". The idea was seperate but equal. Let the blacks eat in their own restaurants

Sometimes you have to do whats right

Are non smokers being told that they wont be served at smoking establishments?

 

[Anguille]

Maybe the solution should be for restaurants and bars to get licensed to have indoor smoking just as establishments seek liquor licenses, so only a certain number would be allowed within each jurisdiction. That way workers have a choice, patrons have a choice, restaurant/bar business owners have a choice. If you don't like being around drunk people then don't go to bars and if you don't like being around smokers then don't go to smoking establishments. (And if you don't like breathing in coal particles you have every right to not work in a coal mine.)

Unless you are going to


force employees in all types of working establishments to choose between working in a smoking or a non smoking establishment, then


you can't single out bar and restaurant employees and say you are just going to deny them workplace safety protection in certain workplaces.

Why? Lots of jobs have hazards that go along with them.

And many of those hazards are reduced and or eliminated because of government protections. Exposure to second hand smoke has been determined to be a major heath hazard. There is no redeeming aspect of it to counter the argument that it should be banned.

To say that because some employees in other professions are not being adequately protected from other hazards is hardy an excuse for removing the protections against workplace hazards already in place.

Bar and restaurant workers were the last to get this kind of protection because they are considered by some people, certainly some in this thread. to be second class citizens not deserving of all the same rights as white collar workers.

Smokers aren't second class citizens either.

No they aren't. And nobody is proposing they be excluded from protection from workplace hazards.

 

[Valerie]

Unless you are going to


force employees in all types of working establishments to choose between working in a smoking or a non smoking establishment, then


you can't single out bar and restaurant employees and say you are just going to deny them workplace safety protection in certain workplaces.

Why? Lots of jobs have hazards that go along with them.

And many of those hazards are reduced and or eliminated because of government protections. Exposure to second hand smoke has been determined to be a major heath hazard. There is no redeeming aspect of it to counter the argument that it should be banned.

To say that because some employees in other professions are not being adequately protected from other hazards is hardy an excuse for removing the protections against workplace hazards already in place.

Bar and restaurant workers were the last to get this kind of protection because they are considered by some people, certainly some in this thread. to be second class citizens not deserving of all the same rights as white collar workers.

Smokers aren't second class citizens either.

No they aren't. And nobody is proposing they be excluded from protection from workplace hazards.

I think the redeeming aspect is that it's not against the law to smoke.

My argument is for business owners to have a smoking bar if they want to.

As I said......providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants, what's the problem?

 

[Anguille]

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

If anyone is able to come up with a way to operate a business where smokers can smoke without exposing other employees or patrons to their cigarette smoke, then I would see nothing wrong with it.
All the best to them if they can do that.
I doubt though it would be financially feasible to do something like that.

 

[Father Time]

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

If anyone is able to come up with a way to operate a business where smokers can smoke without exposing other employees or patrons to their cigarette smoke, then I would see nothing wrong with it.
All the best to them if they can do that.
I doubt though it would be financially feasible to do something like that.

They separate them from everyone else, most restaurants do that.

 

[Anguille]

I think the redeeming aspect is that it's not against the law to smoke.

My argument is for business owners to have a smoking bar if they want to.

As I said......providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants, what's the problem?

Actually it is against the law to smoke in non smoking areas.
Would you also argue for the right of schools, hospitals, supermarkets, airline companies, bus companies or any other business enterprise to allow smoking? Or just bars and restaurants and if yes, why?
How would the requirement of "providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants" or other types of businesses be met? How would you insure that no one was being disadvantaged because they did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the nearest place of business to them that they needed to go to to work or purchase whatever?

 

[Valerie]

I think the redeeming aspect is that it's not against the law to smoke.

My argument is for business owners to have a smoking bar if they want to.

As I said......providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants, what's the problem?

Actually it is against the law to smoke in non smoking areas.
Would you also argue for the right of schools, hospitals, supermarkets, airline companies, bus companies or any other business enterprise to allow smoking? Or just bars and restaurants and if yes, why?
How would the requirement of "providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants" or other types of businesses be met? How would you insure that no one was being disadvantaged because they did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the nearest place of business to them that they needed to go to to work or purchase whatever?

The obvious difference is the nature of the bar business and the need to cater to their drinking customers who typically smoke while they drink.

BTW -- Pointing out that smoking in bars is currently against the law is not an argument in favor of the law itself.

 

[California Girl]

I despair of liberals who think that it is ok to force others to live according to their rules. I'm not a smoker but I don't see any reason why business owners should not have the right to decide whether to run a smoking or non smoking establishment. What is the problem with that? Why do the non smokers rights outweigh those of smokers? People can be free to not go into establishments that allow smoking... what is so wrong with that?

 

[California Girl]

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

If anyone is able to come up with a way to operate a business where smokers can smoke without exposing other employees or patrons to their cigarette smoke, then I would see nothing wrong with it.
All the best to them if they can do that.
I doubt though it would be financially feasible to do something like that.

Any employee is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they are or are not prepared to work in a smoking environment. Why can't the employee choice for themselves?

 

[Valerie]

I despair of liberals who think that it is ok to force others to live according to their rules. I'm not a smoker but I don't see any reason why business owners should not have the right to decide whether to run a smoking or non smoking establishment. What is the problem with that? Why do the non smokers rights outweigh those of smokers? People can be free to not go into establishments that allow smoking... what is so wrong with that?

I can understand the point of protecting bar/food service workers, but I just don't understand why not just allow SOME smoking establishments as everyone will be free to choose whatever environment they want to work in or patronize.

 

[Anguille]

I think the redeeming aspect is that it's not against the law to smoke.

My argument is for business owners to have a smoking bar if they want to.

As I said......providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants, what's the problem?

Actually it is against the law to smoke in non smoking areas.
Would you also argue for the right of schools, hospitals, supermarkets, airline companies, bus companies or any other business enterprise to allow smoking? Or just bars and restaurants and if yes, why?
How would the requirement of "providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants" or other types of businesses be met? How would you insure that no one was being disadvantaged because they did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the nearest place of business to them that they needed to go to to work or purchase whatever?

The obvious difference is the nature of the bar business and the need to cater to their drinking customers who typically smoke while they drink.

BTW -- Pointing out that smoking in bars is currently against the law is not an argument in favor of the law itself.

I was not arguing in favor of the law. You said smoking is not illegal and I pointed out that yes it is is in many public areas.

So you think that because some bar customers like to smoke at bars that that trumps bar employees right to a safe work environment. I think you just proved my point that many people, including yourself, think that bar employees are second class citizens and not deserving of the same workplace protections of white collar workers.

 

[Anguille]

I despair of liberals who think that it is ok to force others to live according to their rules. I'm not a smoker but I don't see any reason why business owners should not have the right to decide whether to run a smoking or non smoking establishment. What is the problem with that? Why do the non smokers rights outweigh those of smokers? People can be free to not go into establishments that allow smoking... what is so wrong with that?

I can understand the point of protecting bar/food service workers, but I just don't understand why not just allow SOME smoking establishments as everyone will be free to choose whatever environment they want to work in or patronize.

Why should only bar and restaurant employees be limited in the number of places they can work in if they are not willing to put up with cigarette smoke?

 

[Valerie]

Actually it is against the law to smoke in non smoking areas.
Would you also argue for the right of schools, hospitals, supermarkets, airline companies, bus companies or any other business enterprise to allow smoking? Or just bars and restaurants and if yes, why?
How would the requirement of "providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants" or other types of businesses be met? How would you insure that no one was being disadvantaged because they did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke in the nearest place of business to them that they needed to go to to work or purchase whatever?

The obvious difference is the nature of the bar business and the need to cater to their drinking customers who typically smoke while they drink.

BTW -- Pointing out that smoking in bars is currently against the law is not an argument in favor of the law itself.

I was not arguing in favor of the law. You said smoking is not illegal and I pointed out that yes it is is in many public areas.

So you think that because some bar customers like to smoke at bars that that trumps bar employees right to a safe work environment. I think you just proved my point that many people, including yourself, think that bar employees are second class citizens and not deserving of the same workplace protections of white collar workers.

I'd rather not repeat myself...can't you see what I said is not at all what you're saying I supposedly think?

 

[Anguille]

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

If anyone is able to come up with a way to operate a business where smokers can smoke without exposing other employees or patrons to their cigarette smoke, then I would see nothing wrong with it.
All the best to them if they can do that.
I doubt though it would be financially feasible to do something like that.

Any employee is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they are or are not prepared to work in a smoking environment. Why can't the employee choice for themselves?

Cigarette smoke has been determined to be a serious heath hazard not permitted in the workplace. If a business owner wishes to enjoy the privilege of doing business in this country they must conform to the laws concerning workplace safety and safety in public places. Bar and restaurant owners are not exempt from these laws.

The rights of patrons and employees to not be exposed to secondhand smoke trumps any assumed right of smokers to expose them to it simply because the harm done to the person exposed to secondhand smoke far exceeds any discomfort the nicotine junky experiences because he has to find someother place to get his fix.

 

[Valerie]

I despair of liberals who think that it is ok to force others to live according to their rules. I'm not a smoker but I don't see any reason why business owners should not have the right to decide whether to run a smoking or non smoking establishment. What is the problem with that? Why do the non smokers rights outweigh those of smokers? People can be free to not go into establishments that allow smoking... what is so wrong with that?

I can understand the point of protecting bar/food service workers, but I just don't understand why not just allow SOME smoking establishments as everyone will be free to choose whatever environment they want to work in or patronize.

Why should only bar and restaurant employees be limited in the number of places they can work in if they are not willing to put up with cigarette smoke?

Many work environments have inherent risks to them...As long as no one is forced, I see no problem with the freedom to choose.

 

[Anguille]

The obvious difference is the nature of the bar business and the need to cater to their drinking customers who typically smoke while they drink.

BTW -- Pointing out that smoking in bars is currently against the law is not an argument in favor of the law itself.

I was not arguing in favor of the law. You said smoking is not illegal and I pointed out that yes it is is in many public areas.

So you think that because some bar customers like to smoke at bars that that trumps bar employees right to a safe work environment. I think you just proved my point that many people, including yourself, think that bar employees are second class citizens and not deserving of the same workplace protections of white collar workers.

I'd rather not repeat myself...can't you see what I said is not at all what you're saying I supposedly think?

Then why do you think they are not deserving of the same protection office workers have from exposure to cigarette smoke?

 

[Valerie]

If anyone is able to come up with a way to operate a business where smokers can smoke without exposing other employees or patrons to their cigarette smoke, then I would see nothing wrong with it.
All the best to them if they can do that.
I doubt though it would be financially feasible to do something like that.

Any employee is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they are or are not prepared to work in a smoking environment. Why can't the employee choice for themselves?

Cigarette smoke has been determined to be a serious heath hazard not permitted in the workplace. If a business owner wishes to enjoy the privilege of doing business in this country they must conform to the laws concerning workplace safety and safety in public places. Bar and restaurant owners are not exempt from these laws.

The rights of patrons and employees to not be exposed to secondhand smoke trumps any assumed right of smokers to expose them to it simply because the harm done to the person exposed to secondhand smoke far exceeds any discomfort the nicotine junky experiences because he has to find someother place to get his fix.

I can understand all other public places and I can also understand condo associations, etc.

Bar businesses are obviously inherently different.

What is the harm with each jurisdiction permitting a smokey bar or two?

 

[Anguille]

I can understand the point of protecting bar/food service workers, but I just don't understand why not just allow SOME smoking establishments as everyone will be free to choose whatever environment they want to work in or patronize.

Why should only bar and restaurant employees be limited in the number of places they can work in if they are not willing to put up with cigarette smoke?

Many work environments have inherent risks to them...As long as no one is forced, I see no problem with the freedom to choose.

So you are not in favor of reducing workplace hazards? You think people should just accept whatever conditions the owner offers and just go look for work somewhere else if they aren't wiling to take the risks?

Do you feel the same about consumer protections?

 

[Valerie]

I was not arguing in favor of the law. You said smoking is not illegal and I pointed out that yes it is is in many public areas.

So you think that because some bar customers like to smoke at bars that that trumps bar employees right to a safe work environment. I think you just proved my point that many people, including yourself, think that bar employees are second class citizens and not deserving of the same workplace protections of white collar workers.

I'd rather not repeat myself...can't you see what I said is not at all what you're saying I supposedly think?

Then why do you think they are not deserving of the same protection office workers have from exposure to cigarette smoke?

Because a smoking office worker is not in the business of catering to smoking customers.


And no one is pushing to smoke at the grocery store or the hospital.

 

[Anguille]

Any employee is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they are or are not prepared to work in a smoking environment. Why can't the employee choice for themselves?

Cigarette smoke has been determined to be a serious heath hazard not permitted in the workplace. If a business owner wishes to enjoy the privilege of doing business in this country they must conform to the laws concerning workplace safety and safety in public places. Bar and restaurant owners are not exempt from these laws.

The rights of patrons and employees to not be exposed to secondhand smoke trumps any assumed right of smokers to expose them to it simply because the harm done to the person exposed to secondhand smoke far exceeds any discomfort the nicotine junky experiences because he has to find someother place to get his fix.

I can understand all other public places and I can also understand condo associations, etc.

If you can understand that then you can understand why bar and restaurant workers want to be treated equally.