Thanks Facist Pigs!

[simonmaal]

Really? So you wouldn't have a problem seeing signs which said "no blacks" again?
It doesn't necessarily follow that smoking must be banned in public enclosed spaces, but it was established decades ago that the freedom to enter and patronise places of business which cater to the public is a civil liberty. You may have a better argument that allowing smoking in such a places does not breach that civil liberty.

So, by that logic, do we allow 8 year olds into public bars in the name of civil liberty?

 

[pgwenthold]

Really? So you wouldn't have a problem seeing signs which said "no blacks" again?
It doesn't necessarily follow that smoking must be banned in public enclosed spaces, but it was established decades ago that the freedom to enter and patronise places of business which cater to the public is a civil liberty. You may have a better argument that allowing smoking in such a places does not breach that civil liberty.

Do you object to have a non-smoking section in a restaurant?

The government doesn't. Separate but equal is perfectly allowed.

Do you object to having a whites only section in a restaurant?

The government does. Separate but equal is not allowed.

Which is the difference between civil rights and not civil rights.

 

[brodski]

So, by that logic, do we allow 8 year olds into public bars in the name of civil liberty?

No, not that I have a problem with children in some bars at some times. Society already accepts that children's rights are restricted until they reach the age of majority. In the US you have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that children should be allowed Kalashnikovs, you have the right to vote, but 8 year olds don't get to participate in the democratic process, the government not interfering in consensual sex is considered a civil liberty, but you still have age of consent laws.

 

[brodski]

Do you object to have a non-smoking section in a restaurant?

The government doesn't. Separate but equal is perfectly allowed.

Do you object to having a whites only section in a restaurant?

The government does. Separate but equal is not allowed.

Which is the difference between civil rights and not civil rights.

You just made my point for me, entering a public place of business is a civil right, allowing smoking in that place of business does not violate that civil right.

 

[Francesca R]

allowing smoking in that place of business does not violate that civil right.

It violates the right to public health. Or at least, increasing numbers of legislatures are making the decision that it does.

 

[pgwenthold]

You just made my point for me, entering a public place of business is a civil right, allowing smoking in that place of business does not violate that civil right.

I think we are confused here (at least I am)

I say that bar owners cannot be required to prohibit smoking because customers believe they have the right to eat or drink in a smokefree environment. If customers want a smoke free environment, they are welcome to go to bars that chose to not allow smoking.

 

[pgwenthold]

It violates the right to public health.

Isn't a bar a private place of business?

I can say that a bar that allows smoking does not violate MY health in any way, shape or form. Because I don't go there.

They only violate the health of people who chose to go there. In the same way, Big Macs only violate the health of people who eat them.

 

[brodski]

It violates the right to public health. Or at least, increasing numbers of legislatures are making the decision that it does.

Which is a different point entirely to the one I was discussing. I also don't buy the argument that patrons of bars which allow smoking are being exposed to unacceptably uncontrolled risks to their health. I believe that bar workers may be, depending on the circumstances, but that there are often more appropriate ways to control these risks than a smoking ban, depending on the nature of the business. Although mostly I'm here to laugh at the hysterical libertarians.

 

[brodski]

I think we are confused here (at least I am)

I say that bar owners cannot be required to prohibit smoking because customers believe they have the right to eat or drink in a smokefree environment. If customers want a smoke free environment, they are welcome to go to bars that chose to not allow smoking.

I agree with this position, however I think that worker health and safety complicates matters.
My main issue was with your claim that there is no civil liberty expectation to be able to enter a public place of business. I think you are wrong about that. I also don't think that allowing smoking in a bar is enough to say that civil liberty has been curtailed, any more than having loud music or offensive decoration in the bar violates that civil liberty. Very very few people who don't work in bars are going to spend enough time in them to have their health seriously impacted by the smoky environment, the public health issue is a read herring, the occupational health issue isn't.

 

[Francesca R]

Isn't a bar a private place of business?

Well only if it's closed to the public. it's "private" in the sense of being privately owned. But that's completely irrelevant here.

I can say that a bar that allows smoking does not violate MY health in any way, shape or form. Because I don't go there.

Good for you.

They only violate the health of people who chose to go there.

And laws banning smoking enforce against this so that people can still choose to go there without their health being violated.

In the same way, Big Macs only violate the health of people who eat them.

It's not "in the same way" because if you enter a McDonalds and don't eat a Big Mac then you're fine. If you enter a smoky bar and do not spark one up yourself, you still suffer the adverse health effects of others' smoke.

You can say "too bad" or "there's no adverse health effect" as much as you wish but increasingly the law—and the views of the public—are not with you

Which is a different point entirely to the one I was discussing.

Fine

 

[sackett]

Ditto NZ. A drop at first, but soon increased beyond wildest projections.

Even better, the only sector of the pub industry which got at all hurt were pokie bars. Good job!

Get over it.

Waaaahoo for Ao Te Aroa! Last time I was there, pubs still allowed cancer-fog, and naturally I stayed the hell out of them. I badly wanted to tip a wet one and talk with the colorful island natives in their ancestral habitat, and now I can.

But: Wot in the L is a pokie bar? Should I ask?

 

[pipelineaudio]

The market solution that is consistent with social welfare is for you to pay the costs of the effect of your smoking on society and for the market to redistribute those costs as side payments to those who suffer from the effects. Similar to carbon emissions trading. I can't see that ever taking off though..

So, no solution then?

Arent the bars already paying taxes?

Do you have ANY IDEA how hard it is to get a liquor liscence and all the palms you have to grease for one? Maybe if they could just add the social cost into there whatever you decide that is? It would be a pittance compared to what you need to pay to the other organized criminals you need to deal with

I dont know what kind of dumbass would want to own a bar here now that I think about it it is a REALLY hard deal to do...I know bar owners who have mortgaged their homes to keep the bands in a little while longer to try and pay the various mafias to keep their liquor liscences

Its a labor of love, but with this new hate added to all the other problems, I dont see many of the live band bars staying up.

Were thinking about doing more outdoor/desert party things, with an event liqour license...weve done it before, you cant keep anyone employed that way, but the bands actually love to do these shows

 

[CFLarsen]

What kind of out of context argument is that?? One has nothing to do with the other.

Au contaire, mon ami: If we leave something that is demonstrably harmful to other people up to the "market forces", then we have to give faith healers and psychic surgeons the protection of the law as well.

You can't have it both ways: Either you let the people decide what is good for them or not. Or you don't.

A Republic, which is what we're supposed to live in. In a Republic the Individual is protected from mob rule. Those in the minority still have the same rights.

Whatever makes you think that a democracy is about the majority suppressing the minority? People living in democracies don't have rights?

please

You're welcome.

so what clause? Whether someone is good or bad depends on how much money they make? Nice

My name is "Claus".

Well sorry that in your little pinner of a country you never heard of my little pinner towns. However just to help your musical education a bit: During the 90's whatever "alternative" wasn't coming from bands like Pearl-Garden-Pilots in Seattle, was coming from the "other scene" which was Tempe, including Gin Blossoms, Linkin Park, and the like

Had you a broader understanding of the world around you, you would know that whatever happens in the US is transmitted to Europe at a tremendous (but sometimes uncanny) speed. I have vaguely heard of Linking Park, but never of the others.

Just as in Seattle noone was from there but many made their mark there.

"Grunge" was nothing but a blip. Get over yourself.

The town has no music scene or any significant contribution bandwise since that smoking ban.

No more "grunge"? Good!

Our system is supposed to protect the minority from the majority somewhat

There is nothing that means a majority suppresses a minority in a democracy. However, that wasn't what I asked. I asked: Which form of rule is better than democracy?

STOP RIGHT THERE.

IF this building allows smoking, at the owner's discretion, and you don't like it, don't go in and take your business elsewhere. That's what it means to live in a free country.

And, yes, that applies to being employed, too.

Employees have no rights? Everything is up to the employer?

 

[Esperdome]

If bar owners want to allow smoking in their bars, no problem. Just post all the same warnings as our cigarette manufacturers do at your front door.

And the employees should be required to sign a release form stating they know they are working in a dangerous environment and should be allowed to wear a respirator provided by the owner or relinquish their rights to sue said owner if they get lung cancer or emphysema.

What will that do to your business?

I had a junior high science and arts teacher who was a non-smoker. Her husband was a heavy smoker. She died of lung cancer at about 45 years old. I wonder how her husband dealt with the fact he almost certainly killed his wife off at an early age because of his smoking.

 

[UserGoogol]

Isn't a bar a private place of business?

A bar is a public place of business. The whole point of running a bar (or restaurant or whatever) is that people can just wander in off the street. I don't see how you can call a place like that "private."

 

[Tailgater]

This is why we keep getting crappier and crappier skateparks built publicly and cant keep the private ones open

Some lame kids' mom says "that ramps too big for my son"

So instead of riding the plethora of little ramps at the skatepark, the scums have the big ones torn down. Noone pays to get in any more because the ramp they like is no longer there, skatepark shuts down

Are we going to have to declare bars risky activities?

Or would you like to shut down the hiking trails, lakes and anywhere else you might get hurt?

Just wait a couple of decades till you can only drink alcohol at home or 2 drink maximums, because I have a right not to see your drunk ass in public. Then you'll be running a juice bar.

 

[Tailgater]

Isn't a bar a private place of business?

I can say that a bar that allows smoking does not violate MY health in any way, shape or form. Because I don't go there.

They only violate the health of people who chose to go there. In the same way, Big Macs only violate the health of people who eat them.

Bold mine. They have already started to work over the food industry. I'm waiting till the day when fast food industries are forced to hand over money to healthcare.

 

[Tailgater]

It's not "in the same way" because if you enter a McDonalds and don't eat a Big Mac then you're fine. If you enter a smoky bar and do not spark one up yourself, you still suffer the adverse health effects of others' smoke.

If you go to McDonalds, and are not eating, you are asked to leave.

 

[drkitten]

I say that bar owners cannot be required to prohibit smoking because customers believe they have the right to eat or drink in a smokefree environment.

Er, no. Property owners do not have the "right" to demand that other people be exposed to health hazards.

You no more have the "right" to allow smoking on your premises than you have the "right" to not follow safe food handling standards.

 

[drkitten]

And the employees should be required to sign a release form stating they know they are working in a dangerous environment and should be allowed to wear a respirator provided by the owner or relinquish their rights to sue said owner if they get lung cancer or emphysema.

Doesn't work, legally. You can't get around your requirement to provide a safe workplace by demanding that people wave their rights to such a workplace.