Smokers need not apply

[Fnord]

Bummer. Private smoking clubs seem like a good idea. I mean, opium dens had their place in society at one time, and maybe still do!

 

[Stray Cat]

I was not sure if by smoking club you meant the same thing as US state laws do, or if you meant a retail establishment that you can smoke at.

I was broadly talking about any establishment where a group of like minded smokers decided to open a place (what ever that place is) where other smokers could go and enjoy smoking, whether it be a bar, club, theater or what ever. Apparently excluding non smokers is never an option.

 

[Fnord]

... Apparently excluding non smokers is never an option.

Sure! It's like when gay bars don't exclude straights -- it is never an option.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I was broadly talking about any establishment where a group of like minded smokers decided to open a place (what ever that place is) where other smokers could go and enjoy smoking, whether it be a bar, club, theater or what ever. Apparently excluding non smokers is never an option.

In the US it is. Only in 5 states is this not in any form an option. In all of the others at the very least you can open a tobacco shop and make it friendly to sit in smoking. It just cannot be a business primarily based around another product in a number of the states. Of the other 23 states I am not sure which are at will.

 

[23_Tauri]

Bummer. Private smoking clubs seem like a good idea. I mean, opium dens had their place in society at one time, and maybe still do!

Yup, it would keep us out from under your noses, so to speak. But that's why the blanket ban is discriminatory: it goes further than just protecting those who don't want to be around smokers by actively forbidding smokers to have any space where they can gather together socially.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sure! It's like when gay bars don't exclude straights -- it is never an option.

Do you even read what you're writing?

 

[Fnord]

Maybe form your own church, where the burning of tobacco is required for worship.

That way, when someone slams you for practising your religion, you can cite Britain's laws against religious slander, and maybe collect a few thousand pounds for damages.

 

[Fnord]

Do you even read what you're writing?

Do you ever get out into the real world?

 

[Stray Cat]

In the US it is. Only in 5 states is this not in any form an option. In all of the others at the very least you can open a tobacco shop and make it friendly to sit in smoking. It just cannot be a business primarily based around another product in a number of the states. Of the other 23 states I am not sure which are at will.

And my point about the legal exclusion of non smokers?

Many excuses are used for the introduction of these various bans, one of the most common being that SHS is a health danger to non smokers. So the simplest way around this is to allow smokers to run their own venues that catered only for smokers. As you rightly point out, there are so many restrictions on this (from totally illegal to totally pointless) that are so not aimed at SHS being an issue.

 

[Stray Cat]

Maybe form your own church, where the burning of tobacco is required for worship.

That way, when someone slams you for practising your religion, you can cite Britain's laws against religious slander, and maybe collect a few thousand pounds for damages.

Yeah cause that worked for the rastafarians didn't it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Do you ever get out into the real world?

Yes I do. So how does your post make anymore sense in this real world?
What does it have to do with legally excluding a section of the population?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

And my point about the legal exclusion of non smokers?

In the at will states where a public smoking place was permitted, such an exclusion would be legal. Looking up the actual data, apparently only Montana is not an at-will employment state and 11 states have clauses that might require "just-cause" but that doesn't apply to prehiring contracts just terminations. I am not seeing a legal barrier in Oregon for instance. We have a few very large smoke shops in the state. I presume most workers there smoke, but I suppose its possible some of these stores have a policy against non-smokers to prevent someone who wants to work there but does not smoke.

Many excuses are used for the introduction of these various bans, one of the most common being that SHS is a health danger to non smokers. So the simplest way around this is to allow smokers to run their own venues that catered only for smokers. As you rightly point out, there are so many restrictions on this (from totally illegal to totally pointless) that are so not aimed at SHS being an issue.

I agree that the restrictions are too strict. In Oregon specifically, I think the limitation on cigar bars not allowing cigarrettes is silly. The distinction between a cigar bar and smoke shop being the serving of alcohol. In cities I think it is sustainable to have both smoking and non-smoking venues for certain things. It becomes more complicated in smaller areas. When I was a child I could only hang out in well ventillated parts of the arcades in town to avoid triggering my coughing fits. None of two arcades were non-smoking. Going non-smoking would have been a loss of about 10%-20% of their business to the other arcade. It was interesting when the state ban was put in place how many bars supported it.

Given time I hope we can figure out a better configuration of the laws to accomodate smokers. I think allowing non-profit private clubs should be acceptable, the ban on private clubs being based on bars just reconfiguring themselves as private clubs with instant membership to avoid loss of business to one another.

 

[Fnord]

Yeah cause that worked for the rastafarians didn't it.

That's because marijuana contains a powerful and dangerous drug, while tobacco ... uh ... err ... hmm ...

Lemme get back to you on that.

 

[Fnord]

So how does your post make anymore sense in this real world?

Read below.

What does it have to do with legally excluding a section of the population?

It doesn't. One can not legally exclude a segment of the population from a public place becuase of age, disability, genetic issues, race, color, marital status, political affiliation, military service, religion, sex, or national origin, but one can make the local environment of that place 'uncomfortable' for that same segment.

Like when smokers are required to smoke only out-of-doors (in all kinds of weather), and only 20 or more feet from any entrance to a public building, and nowhere near any playground, and not in an apartment building, and not inside any company-owned vehicles, and ...

 

[Stray Cat]

In cities I think it is sustainable to have both smoking and non-smoking venues for certain things. It becomes more complicated in smaller areas.

I agree entirely. And I wouldn't want anyone thinking that I'm only campaigning for smokers rights (over those of non smokers). I fully believe non smokers have rights that smoking should not interfere with.
It's just that the ridiculousness of the law as it stands now and how it's shaping up to become over the next decade has no consideration for circumstance.

When I was a child I could only hang out in well ventillated parts of the arcades in town to avoid triggering my coughing fits. None of two arcades were non-smoking. Going non-smoking would have been a loss of about 10%-20% of their business to the other arcade.

But according to anti-smoking campaigners, would have meant an increase in business to the non smoking venue because all those people who were put off by smokey atmosphere would have gone there... If you believe what they tell you.

It was interesting when the state ban was put in place how many bars supported it.

I wonder if they supported it or simply complied with it.
Figures since the bans (both in the UK and the US) don't get opinions from former bar owners who closed after the bans were introduced. So you are left with the one's who've ridden the storm and probably have a slightly more positive outlook having picked up customers from the bars that didn't survive the downturn in business. I can only talk from my experience in the UK that many landlords of public houses here think the smoking ban is the main cause (along with others such as excise duty rises and cheap alcohol being available at supermarkets) for their downturn in business.
http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/storage/Smoking Gun final1.pdf

My only experience in the US was that I lived in Vegas for three months, where kitchen staff were up in arms because the bars that sold food were closing the kitchens so that they could keep the smokers.

Given time I hope we can figure out a better configuration of the laws to accomodate smokers. I think allowing non-profit private clubs should be acceptable, the ban on private clubs being based on bars just reconfiguring themselves as private clubs with instant membership to avoid loss of business to one another.

I'd like to think that common sense would prevail too, but in the climate of real apparent hatred (read some of it in the smoking threads here) towards smokers means that unless we actually fight for it, it isn't going to happen.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's because marijuana contains a powerful and dangerous drug, while tobacco ... uh ... err ... hmm ...

Lemme get back to you on that.

Could you at least make one post that makes sense?

Your point was that practicing religious freedom was somehow protected under British law. It didn't originally have anything to do with the perceived dangers of smoking.

My point is still valid; that to claim religious significance in order to circumvent the law is a nonsense as seen by the attempt by Rastafarians to claim they were smoking 'da 'erb' for religious reasons.

 

[gumboot]

Shall I tell you why Enstrom had to accept money from the tobacco companies in order to complete his study of 35,561 non-smoking Californian women, a prospective study that had been running for decades? The project had been funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), a Californian anti-smoking group. With most of the data collected by 1997 it became apparent that it was showing that there was no evidence for a link between secondhand smoke and disease. Facing the prospect of a study that was to absolve SHS, the TRDRP withdrew its funding. No one from within the medical community was prepared to fund a study that was going to show no correlation between SHS exposure and disease, which is why Enstrom reluctantly accepted money from the Center for Indoor Air Reserach so that he could finish his long term work.

I like how you ignore all of the other points and jump on the weakest criticism, even ignoring the pertinent aspect of that criticism, which is the US District Court finding. The US District Court didn't see it as a poor researching having to go to the Tobacco industry because they had no choice.

But I'm sure the "anti-smoking establishment" got to the US District Court as well, so they can't be relied on either.

As the mouthpiece for anti-smoking groups, the American Cancer Society was horrified when the BMJ published the study, which showed a statistically insignificant negative association between SHS exposure and cancer.

Or alternatively they were horrified because:

The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.

Now, we can argue the toss about this study and that study, what level of significance, but when we look at all the data collected over the years, there is no consensus in terms of what the evidence shows.

There is a consensus. It's just that the consensus isn't true, remember? Because of that "anti-smoking establishment". There is irrefutable consensus amongst the scientific community and world governments about second hand smoke. Your claim is they're wrong. If you want to change your claim to an argument that there's no consensus you're welcome to, but bear in mind that's exceedingly easy to refute.

 

[Fnord]

Could you at least make one post that makes sense?

You made a point, and I'm considering it, so could you please stop whining?

 

[Stray Cat]

It doesn't.

Then perhaps try addressing my point instead of the one you wished I had made.

One can not legally exclude a segment of the population from a public place becuase of age, disability, genetic issues, race, color, marital status, political affiliation, military service, religion, sex, or national origin, but one can make the local environment of that place 'uncomfortable' for that same segment.

Then why do we have a muti-page thread discussing the legal employment exclusion of someone because they smoke?

Like when smokers are required to smoke only out-of-doors (in all kinds of weather), and only 20 or more feet from any entrance to a public building, and nowhere near any playground, and not in an apartment building, and not inside any company-owned vehicles, and ...

Which is a right any individual non smoker or employer should be able to impose on their own property for what ever reasons they choose. Sadly smokers don't have the same rights to exclude non smokers or to provide an environment that makes it uncomfortable for non smokers.

 

[Stray Cat]

You made a point, and I'm considering it, so could you please stop whining?

Perhaps considering it before answering is a better tactic?

Just a thought.