If there's a dichotomy here, it's of your making. You were the one who claimed that "are there to protect employees, not patrons." I don't contest that smoking bans do protect employees, but I do question the notion that that is the driving factor behind the bans, rather than an incidental effect.
1) Not all employees are fully aware of the dangers of PES exposure, although most are.
Given that the purported dangers of ETS have been bruited across the First World for over a decade, I find it hard to believe that such a creature still exists as a bar employee who is unaware of said dangers. (I say "purported" because the science supporting that notion was pretty shoddy up to the time this thread was started, even though I acknowledge that more solid evidence may have emerged in the interim.)
2) Surveys have been done, and have overwhelmingly shown that employees do, in fact, support smoking bans; and that workers will choose employment at businesses that are smoke-free over those that allow indoor smoking. In many regions employees have requested workplace smoking bans, but that larger employers were not always amenable to such requests.
I allowed for the possibility that such surveys had been conducted; my contention was that they did not, and do not, play a significant role in the anti-smoking lobby's case for smoking bans. Certainly, there's no reason they should have in Washington state. As I've noted repeatedly, even prior to the passage of Initiative 901, 85% of restaurants and bars were already non-smoking, and that number was only set to increase. You've mentioned that this club of yours was established to circumvent "some of the more ridiculous strictures of the local liquor laws." As it happens, I hold a Class 12 permit, which means I am legally licensed to tend bar in the Evergreen State. From the Mandatory Alcohol Servers' Training (MAST) I had to undergo to acquire that license, I am aware of those "more ridiculous strictures" you mention. I was also informed by my MAST instructor that, as a result of said strictures, people willing to tend bar in Washington state are in short supply, and anyone with a Class 12 or 13 permit who is halfway competent can more or less have his or her pick of jobs. Given that 85% of establishments requiring licensed alcohol servers were already non-smoking prior to 901, it's no stretch to assume that any licensed alcohol server who wanted to work in a non-smoking environment within reasonable commuting distance should have had no problem doing so. Ergo, anyone who was working in a smoking establishment was almost certainly doing so voluntarily. So what the hell did we need Initiative 901 for?
Recent studies also show that not only do smoking bans not harm businesses, but that they may actually provide a boost in both patronage and employment.
[...]
Fairly representative examples from a much larger body of evidence available.
You know how, in actual science, there's no such thing as "the exception which proves the rule" because, in fact, exceptions
disprove the rule? I have two words for you: Pierce County. Following the introduction of the smoking ban by the Pierce County board of Health in January 2004, smoking bar patrons took their custom to King County and the Indian reservations instead. And yes, it hurt the industry; alcohol servers in Pierce found themselves with way less in tips, if they didn't get laid off altogether.
I've stated earlier in this thread that the "a smoking ban will hurt the industry" argument has its limitations, in that most bar-patronizing smokers will continue to patronize non-smoking bars when there are no smoking bars available, but such statistics always relate to blanket bans. I've never seen statistics indicating that non-smoking establishments did better when bar-going smokers had alternative venues. And before you ask "what about a limited area like New York City?" I would point out that there's snobbery involved, which skews the results. Residents of NYC pay exorbitant rents (and other cost of living expenses) for the privilege of living in the Greatest City in the World; it follows that they'll be damned before they seek nightlife
outside the city. Once you start seeking your nightlife in New Jersey or Long Island instead of in NYC, you might as well become a commuter!
I said that "no campaign has been mounted on a scale even remotely comparable to that waged against ETS." Obviously, hearing damage (as an example) does not come close to the purported effects of ETS, but my point was, and remains, that there is oddly enough no campaign on, say, 40% of the scale of the anti-smoking campaign to eliminate loud noises in bars.
Loud noise cannot cause cancer or other degenerative disorders. At worst, prolonged exposure can cause tinnitus and contribute to deafness.
As it happens, I know two people, one of whom a good friend, who committed suicide because tinnitus affected their quality of life beyond the point that they thought said life was worth living. By contrast, I know one person whose death is directly attributable to smoking (and we're not talking ETS; this guy smoked two packs a day for thirty years), and he didn't have to commit suicide.
Noise can be blocked by the simple expedient of wearing hearing protection, which is extraordinarily simple and easy to do.
Speaking as a former soldier, I'm happy to inform you that noxious fumes can be blocked by the simple expedient of wearing a respirator.
I've even noticed a number of employees at local nightclub and concert venues wearing hearing protection.
Well, fortunately, the means exist for said individuals to protect themselves. The question remains why said employees should have to bear the responsibility of protecting themselves from
your preferences in crap music played too damn loud, but
should be protected from the health problems I might conceivably impose.
No, wait, I know! It's because you're all about workers' rights just as long as it doesn't inconvenience
you!
Banning loud noise isn't necessary for employee protection, since protective gear is available which completely eliminates the problem without providing a noticible inconvenience or reducing their ability to perform their jobs. There is no such equivalent for PES exposure.
False equivalence. Protection from ETS does exist, in the form of respirators. The distinction between bar staff having to work in self-purchased respirators and self-purchased hearing protection is one of degree, not of principle. Why should the staff be expected to buy ear plugs when the music could simply be turned down a few decibels?
Two logical fallacies in as many claims; pretty typical for the pro-smoking arguments.
No more typical than for anti-smokers. This coming from the guy who claims that:
Most smokers are adamant that they should be allowed to smoke when and where they want, and will typically smoke in their homes despite having full knowledge of the hazards to themselves and their families.
Do you have evidence to back up those claims? See, I'm a smoker, and I do try to be considerate towards non-smokers. I'm fine with not smoking in stores, offices, etc. My wife suffers from asthma, and we have an infant, so I don't smoke in my own house. Most of my friends are non-smokers, and those that are smokers live with either non-smokers or small children or are conscious of property values and also don't smoke in their own homes. We all step outside to smoke, in western Washington, i.e. precipitation country. I don't know a single smoker in Washington state who smokes in his or her own house; smoking in a local bar was the only option for indoors smoking open to myself and most of my acquaintances, and since the passage of 901, we don't even have that.
It is common to see people who are into exercise, healthy eating and who are smokers. It's also very rare to find a non-smoking area in a bar or restaurant.
