Those WILD Californians!

[Mephisto]

I just saw (on CNN) where the city of Calabasas in California has passed a law prohibiting smoking OUTDOORS. They are threatening to issue citations for smoking in public (on sidewalks, outside public buildings, etc.). Now, I can understand not exposing someone to your second-hand smoke (I'm not a smoker), but isn't this whole second-hand smoke thing going a bit far?

Speaking of stupid laws, what's with the no smoking in bars? It seems to me that if you spend enough time in a bar to be affected by second-hand smoke, you're likely working on a good case of cirrosis of the liver from whatever it is that you have to go to a bar to drink (I'm not a drinker either).

Are smokers eventually going to be outlawed? Does this mean that smokers will eventually have to go to an illicit "tobacco den" (much like the Chinese opium dens?). All this seems just a bit hypocritial to me as the air (even in California) isn't all that clean to begin with.

 

[toddjh]

I just saw (on CNN) where the city of Calabasas in California has passed a law prohibiting smoking OUTDOORS. They are threatening to issue citations for smoking in public (on sidewalks, outside public buildings, etc.).

I don't have a problem with this. People should never be compelled to inhale other people's carcinogens, and sometimes you have to go through certain public areas. If you want to smoke, do it on your own time and on your own property.

But speaking of which, I do have a problem with the smoking bans in restaurants and bars. People should be able to set their own rules on their own property. If you want to open a place where people can smoke, I'd say it's not the government's business.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I don't have a problem with this. People should never be compelled to inhale other people's carcinogens, and sometimes you have to go through certain public areas. If you want to smoke, do it on your own time and on your own property.

But speaking of which, I do have a problem with the smoking bans in restaurants and bars. People should be able to set their own rules on their own property. If you want to open a place where people can smoke, I'd say it's not the government's business.

Amen brother. How is it that people compare smoking bans to alcohol consumption? Both are proven harmful, especisally in excess, but when I'm enjoying a big mug of beer, I'm not spraying it around to my neighbors nearby.

I've never smoked, but I do enjoy a drink now and then. It is pretty nasty to walk a gaunlet of smokers near an entrance of a "no smoking" building.

Charlie (spark a doobie) Monoxide

 

[rharbers]

I Are smokers eventually going to be outlawed?

Yes. And other brands of carnality as well. It is known as the "Tyranny of the Hyper-Sensitive".

 

[Ryokan]

Speaking of stupid laws, what's with the no smoking in bars? It seems to me that if you spend enough time in a bar to be affected by second-hand smoke, you're likely working on a good case of cirrosis of the liver from whatever it is that you have to go to a bar to drink (I'm not a drinker either).

I have heard that there are people who work in bars as well.

 

[Mephisto]

I have heard that there are people who work in bars as well.

You're absolutely right, my brother was a bartender while in college, but you have to admit that bars (unless we're talking about juice bars) aren't routinely frequented by those worried about their health. As for the employees, there are hazards inherent in most jobs and non-smoking employees or patrons could be required to wear appropriate masks.

It could even help reduce the surplus population (thank you Scrooge) - have you ever tried picking up a girl in a bar while wearing a gas mask?

 

[drkitten]

As for the employees, there are hazards inherent in most jobs

... and employers are required to act to minimize or mitigate those hazards.

 

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, I think the Government needs to get out of this whole business.

We could start by killing off farm subsidies for tobacco.

 

[Mephisto]

... and employers are required to act to minimize or mitigate those hazards.

I realize that, and I realize that this is a poor example, but contractors or laborers working around asbestos or fiber glass wear protective gear. Automobile painters wear masks to protect themselves. I know that asking someone to wear a mask in a social gathering is a bit much, but if the majority of people are smoking (I have no idea what a random sampling of people in a bar would say about the number of smokers vs non-smokers) or don't mind the second-hand smoke, maybe the minority non-smoker should exclude himself.

Which brings the question, if smokers are given a "smokers-only" establishment (presumably for the consumption of tobacco and alcohol) would it be discrimination to hire only smokers to work there?

 

[drkitten]

I realize that, and I realize that this is a poor example, but contractors or laborers working around asbestos or fiber glass wear protective gear. Automobile painters wear masks to protect themselves. I know that asking someone to wear a mask in a social gathering is a bit much,

But working in a bar isn't a "social gathering" -- and the employer is required to take reasonable precautions to protect the workers' (and patrons') health and safety.

The question is whether smoking restrictions are "reasonable," that's it. There's no question of property rights any more than there's a question of property rights when the board of health demands that a bartender use clean glassware and keep food properly refrigerated. To do otherwise is a hazard to public health, and the state has the authority to override property rights in the name of public health.

 

[Renfield]

... and employers are required to act to minimize or mitigate those hazards.

How far you want to take this? Drinking has been known to contribute to violent or reckless behavior. What next, banning drinking in bars because those drunks might be endangering the waitstaff? If you don't want to be around drinking and smoking, don't work there.

You could come up with similar rationals for government banning or controling a great many activities and substances. The notion that your health is being put at risk from the limited exposour you might get from smokers while is absurd. Where do you live that you are coming into contact with smokers that frequently? You're breathing more crap due to cars then smokers, by a wide margin.

This is a small example of fascism, liberal style. There is that faction of the left that wants to tell people how to live just like there is on the right.

 

[Renfield]

I realize that, and I realize that this is a poor example, but contractors or laborers working around asbestos or fiber glass wear protective gear. Automobile painters wear masks to protect themselves. I know that asking someone to wear a mask in a social gathering is a bit much, but if the majority of people are smoking (I have no idea what a random sampling of people in a bar would say about the number of smokers vs non-smokers) or don't mind the second-hand smoke, maybe the minority non-smoker should exclude himself.

Which brings the question, if smokers are given a "smokers-only" establishment (presumably for the consumption of tobacco and alcohol) would it be discrimination to hire only smokers to work there?

Excellent points, imo. If smoke nazis really believe what they preach, let them wear protective gear. Why should the burden be put entirely on people who smoke, especially if they are in a place that has traditionally been around just for that purpose (smoking and drinking)?

 

[Nancarrow]

This is a small example of fascism, liberal style.

Dear Og, this always confuses the hell out of me. Are you American perchance? I just say because I'm British, and in general, for us the idea of 'liberal fascism' is a contradiction in terms. 'Liberal' means 'not authoritarian', and therefore, obviously, 'not fascist'. So when you say 'fascism, liberal style', I understand a phrase much like 'vegetarianism, carnivore style'. And I go .

However I am aware that in the US, the word 'liberal' has become pejorative in some circles - kinda ironic dontcha think, given the Latin origin of the word 'liberal', and the professed principles of the US?

I guess the question I'm slowly assembling in my brain is, what do you understand by the term 'liberal', and would a dictionary support your meaning?

Next up, "private ownership, communist style".

 

[Mephisto]

But working in a bar isn't a "social gathering" -- and the employer is required to take reasonable precautions to protect the workers' (and patrons') health and safety.

How reasonable does it have to be? That's like saying you don't want to get in a gang fight with knives because you might get AIDs.

If non-smoking patrons of a bar are in a bar drinking often enough for second-hand smoke to be a health problem, how much can they be worried about their health? They're in a rule8ing bar! Don't get me wrong, I'm a non-smoker, and I've walked out of places where the smoke gets too thick, but it's up to ME to draw the line and make the necessary changes not the smokers (for the record, it's the same reason I don't go to bars any longer).

Bill Mahr's take on it was pretty funny. He said something about the hypocrisy of government pretending it's doing things for our health. He was referring to the smoking ban in the stands at racing events. This isn't verbatim; "Yeah, it's funny how the government cares about you, it bans smoking at NASCAR events so all the obese slobs in the audience can eat their fat-laden corn dogs and drink their $5.00 beers while watching cars speed past on an oil-slicked track."

. . . when the board of health demands that a bartender use clean glassware and keep food properly refrigerated. To do otherwise is a hazard to public health, and the state has the authority to override property rights in the name of public health.

Perhaps the bartender should emphasize the public hazards of drinking alcohol and refuse to serve anyone.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

If smoke nazis really believe what they preach, let them wear protective gear. Why should the burden be put entirely on people who smoke, especially if they are in a place that has traditionally been around just for that purpose (smoking and drinking)?

For the simple reason that it is the choice of smokers to smoke, and ethanol establishments were not made for smoking. Smoking rooms were made for smoking, bars were made for drinking ethanol. People just decided to smoke there too.

Why should everyone who chooses not to smoke be forced to bear the burden of protecting themselves from those who do?

 

[Bjorn]

Smoking rooms were made for smoking, bars were made for drinking ethanol.

Are there any legal smoking rooms in any pub or bar in California? I could have my fix there, and then go back to the bar to finish my beer ... but I can't find them.

Most people drinking in bars are smokers. Yeah, I know it has been claimed that that's because the non-smokers don't like the athmosphere and stay away, but if non-smokers were a significant share of the people drinking in bars, how come most bars are not smoke-free by choice?

I think the "no smoking outdoors" is a lot more logical than "no smoking in bars and pubs". I can decide not to enter a pub, but I wouldn't like not to wait for my bus as a bus stop, or not bring my kids to the beach, because there are too many smokers there.

 

[mgidm86]

I have heard that there are people who work in bars as well.

I remember when the "no smoking in bars and restaurats" idea was being proposed. There were TV commercials showing waitresses with sad faces literally begging us to vote yes, for their health.

Funny thing is, I work in a nightclub/bar. Everyone smokes except for me and one other manager. All the bartenders, all the bouncers - smokers.

My friend owns a restaurant. Every server/waitperson (no exaggeration) is a smoker. Every single one. Most of the cooks are too, maybe all of them, I'm not sure. Those commercials made me laugh.

Strictly anecdotal, of course. I personally am SO glad there is no smoking in the club I work at. I believe it should be up to the owner to decide. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...This is a small example of fascism, liberal style...

...just like the one enacted by that liberal mayor of NYC, (Republican) Mike Bloomberg!

Back to eating your flies, Renny.

 

[Crazytree]

Are there any legal smoking rooms in any pub or bar in California? I could have my fix there, and then go back to the bar to finish my beer ... but I can't find them.

Most people drinking in bars are smokers. Yeah, I know it has been claimed that that's because the non-smokers don't like the athmosphere and stay away, but if non-smokers were a significant share of the people drinking in bars, how come most bars are not smoke-free by choice?

I think the "no smoking outdoors" is a lot more logical than "no smoking in bars and pubs". I can decide not to enter a pub, but I wouldn't like not to wait for my bus as a bus stop, or not bring my kids to the beach, because there are too many smokers there.

I know a place in Pasadena where you can smoke openly, and among their patrons are city fire and police.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I haven't patronized a bar in California since they made them non smoking. Besides, I can make a better martini than most bartenders.

I don't wish for the days when it was acceptable to smoke indoors and I don't have a problem going outdoors to smoke. I think it has gone too far and now we have a new second class citizen that it is acceptable to discriminate against.

How many times have you stood on a street corner choking on diesel fumes from a bus? Is anyone trying to outlaw busses? I mean anyone beside some far left kook who wants all vehicles to run on turkey cr@p or some other supposedly "clean" fuel.

Another problem I see with this is that a law to ban smoking outdoors is that it is not so much a law created to right a wrong or promote safety as it is a law designed to regulate unacceptable social behavior. Will smoking become a hate crime?