Smoking bans

[🏀]

Off-Topic a bit.

I went home to Illinois last weekend, and going to bars is an absolute pleasure with the new smoking ban. Wisconsin would do good to follow suit.

[IAmMarquette]

Off-Topic a bit.

I went home to Illinois last weekend, and going to bars is an absolute pleasure with the new smoking ban. Wisconsin would do good to follow suit.

Amen. I live in Chicago. Can't tell you how much I enjoy the smoking ban.

[Steak]

2/3 of the population are supportive of smoking bans, and that includes smokers and non-smokers alike.

Wisconsin has smoking bans, they're just in Madison and Waukesha. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

You're not talking about kids...you're talking about infants. If you ask me, they don't belong in a bar at all. If one of my friends brought two infants to a pregame party at a bar, I wouldn't be happy. Sorry.

[NavinRJohnson]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

[reinko]

Don't want to ruffle any feathers with the ban on political posts...but the quote "If history has taught us anything, that the free market works" is completely asinine.  The free market does not dominate all, government oversight is implemented in dozens of instances.  Airlines, national defense, social security, telecommunications, energy, interest rates, public health...

And a smoking ban is a public health issue not only for consumers, but for employees.  Clearly the free market can't be allowed to operate because persons from the Tavern League or any other special interest group affect it.

So simplfying it down to "if you don't want smoke, don't go there" doesn't hold much water. 

And to the poster who felt it was needed to get on a soapbox to declare how it was irresponsible to bring infants to a bar, settle...he didn't ask for your advice

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I am not talking about being irresponsible bringing infants to a bar. I'm talking about being annoying.

Here's the solution...one of you go to the game, the other stay home. Or get a babysitter.

[Chili]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

So you are advocating that we should still be able to smoke on airplanes?

[NavinRJohnson]

And a smoking ban is a public health issue not only for consumers, but for employees.  Clearly the free market can't be allowed to operate because persons from the Tavern League or any other special interest group affect it.

So simplfying it down to "if you don't want smoke, don't go there" doesn't hold much water. 

Good grief. I am no Libertarian, but I am confused as to how this is in reality a public health issue for consumers or employees. Is anybody forced to go to a bar, or work in a bar? This is not West Virgina where you have no alternative but to go to work in the mines. You actually have it backwards. The free market is working as there appears to be more than enough people who are willing to go to bars and work in bars despite the presence of cigarettes. Or, are you saying that they aren't aware of the risks associated with cigarette smoke? If this is such a good idea, and has such overwhelming public support, why are more places not choosing to go smoke free voluntarily? Wouldn't it improve their business? There is this overwhelming support - except among those that would be most affected by it. If bars have trouble attracting customers or employees because they allow smoking, do you think they might do something about it?

I would like for people to just admit why they support smoking bans - because they don't like the smoke and don't want to have to deal with it when they go out to their favorite bars and restaurants. Let's cut the crap about public health, etc. You support the ban for your own convenience, and that's cool, but lets call it what it is. From a personal preference standpoint, I would love to see it, but unfortunately this is not one of those things the government needs to be involved in.  The market is more than capable of regulating this sort of thing.

[NavinRJohnson]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

So you are advocating that we should still be able to smoke on airplanes?

Nope, and its not even close to the same thing. There are simply not viable alternatives to air travel. For many reasons, and for our national economy to function, etc. People have to fly on airplanes. There are alternatives to going to bars and restaurants where people are allowed to smoke. I used to work in a bank where people still smoked - for a short time before they went smoke free. That is the company made the decision to go smoke free...on their own...without government involvement. Why? Because they thought it was in the best interest of their business. Almost all companies followed suit, without the government telling them to. Businesses and industries that drive or respond to the demands of the market are the ones that thrive and are successful. Those that don't, usually don't hang around too long. Bars and restaurants feel it is in their best interest to allow patrons to smoke. Wonder why that is.

[Chili]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

So you are advocating that we should still be able to smoke on airplanes?

Nope, and its not even close to the same thing. There are simply not viable alternatives to air travel. For many reasons, and for our national economy to function, etc. People have to fly on airplanes. There are alternatives to going to bars and restaurants where people are allowed to smoke. I used to work in a bank where people still smoked - for a short time before they went smoke free. That is the company made the decision to go smoke free...on their own...without government involvement. Why? Because they thought it was in the best interest of their business. Almost all companies followed suit, without the government telling them to. Businesses and industries that drive or respond to the demands of the market are the ones that thrive and are successful. Those that don't, usually don't hang around too long. Bars and restaurants feel it is in their best interest to allow patrons to smoke. Wonder why that is.

Couldn't an airline just go smoke free? Let the market decide. I mean you don't have to fly a particular airline if they allowed smoking.

The reason they banned smoking on planes was for public health. Same thing here. And it is not just bars and restaurants but rather public buildings in Wisconsin. I mean at my old job you could still smoke in your office if you wanted too.

Also, why is it so hard to ask someone to step outside if they want to smoke? When I was a smoker it didn't bother me when I traveled out east to have to step out for a moment to light up. Just the cost of doing business.

[mu_hilltopper]

Let's cut the crap about public health, etc.

No point to debate you, if that's your perspective.   That's what SB150 is based on.

As a society, we have thousands of public health laws, ranging from the temperature of lettuce storage to mouse droppings on the floor.  They are all meant to protect the health of the public.  We also have thousands of employee safety laws, how long you can work, no sexual harassment, child labor laws, etc.

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   -- I called politicians shameful when they thwart the will of the people they govern, due to the clear link between those holding it up, and those who receive enormous campaign donations from the Tavern League.

Public smoking is coming to an end.  22 states have bans, and it is only a matter of time, whether it's 5, 10, 20 years from now, all will, due to the exact reasons above, public health, employee safety, and .. drum roll .. the will of the people.

[spiral97]

Public smoking is coming to an end.  22 states have bans, and it is only a matter of time, whether it's 5, 10, 20 years from now, all will, due to the exact reasons above, public health, employee safety, and .. drum roll .. the will of the people.

I am excited by this trend.. BUT I'm not holding my breath for the other 28 states to follow quickly (or should I say I AM holding my breath in those other 28 states?).

[rocky_warrior]

Boulder county has been smoke free for quite a while now, and Colorado has been for about 2 years now.  Apparently the free market likes to drink more than they like to smoke.  Bars are alive and well!

site note: split this off from the kid friendly bar topic.  This does have some political undertones, but it is public health, and we all like to drink (well, most...)

[NavinRJohnson]

Couldn't an airline just go smoke free? Let the market decide. I mean you don't have to fly a particular airline if they allowed smoking.

No. Not the same market. Again, there are not viable alternatives to air travel. If all airlines ran or were free to run the same routes at the same times, etc., then yes, the market could decide. That is just not the case however. Plenty of alternatives where bars and restaurants are concerned however. Also, probably not enough smokers to support an entire airline, so they would probably all choose to go smoke free anyway. Wait a minute...in that scenario, the market would decide. I guess it works after all.

Also, why is it so hard to ask someone to step outside if they want to smoke?

It's not, and every bar owner in the country is free to do so at any time. This is presented in city halls and state houses as a public health issue, but again, lets call this what it is....the 75% or whatever that support these bans support them in the interest of their own convenience and preference. They don't smoke, so why wouldn't they support it? Of all the comments I have seen on this everyone says how much they like it, how much more enjoyable it is to go to a smoke free bar...I haven't heard anyone talking about how much healthier the bar patrons and waitresses are. Anyone who wants to go to a smoke free bar is free to do so at any time.

[NavinRJohnson]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. All of those things pose health risks (supposedly anyway) as well. Where does it end? Should people not be allowed to work outside on sunny days to avoid the risk of skin cancer, or do they choose to use sunscreen? Should McDonald's be shut down because of obesity concerns, or should people choose to eat there only occasionally (or not at all as in my case)? Should bacon be kept out of stores and off of menus to reduce the risk of heart disease, or should people limit their intake? You believe people don't have the capacity to choose to avoid going to or working at a smokey establishment, and I believe they do. If they are aware of these health risks (as everyone obviously is), but make choices that result in health problems, forgive me if I have a hard time being sympathetic. I don't smoke, drink in moderation (most of the time), watch what I eat, and exercise a little, as I suspect you do,and I don't require a single government regulation to cause me to do that. I spend time now and then in bars where people are smoking, and that's a chance I am willing to take. Would I prefer that they weren't there? You bet, but I just don't think this is one where government should be making that call, and there are alternatives if I am that concerned about it.

[🏀]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. All of those things pose health risks (supposedly anyway) as well. Where does it end? Should people not be allowed to work outside on sunny days to avoid the risk of skin cancer, or do they choose to use sunscreen? Should McDonald's be shut down because of obesity concerns, or should people choose to eat there only occasionally (or not at all as in my case)? Should bacon be kept out of stores and off of menus to reduce the risk of heart disease, or should people limit their intake? You believe people don't have the capacity to choose to avoid going to or working at a smokey establishment, and I believe they do. If they are aware of these health risks (as everyone obviously is), but make choices that result in health problems, forgive me if I have a hard time being sympathetic. I don't smoke, drink in moderation (most of the time), watch what I eat, and exercise a little, as I suspect you do,and I don't require a single government regulation to cause me to do that. I spend time now and then in bars where people are smoking, and that's a chance I am willing to take. Would I prefer that they weren't there? You bet, but I just don't think this is one where government should be making that call, and there are alternatives if I am that concerned about it.

Bartenders/bouncers/waitresses could choose to work a different profession, but they will never recieve the wages as they can in bar. No person should have to choose a lower paying job because their lives are at risk.

Concerning your statement per McDonald's, Bacon, etc... to consume those products is one's choice. Smoking is one's choice. However, working/eating in an environment where one's choice but your own well-being in danger is in definite need of government regulation.

[NavinRJohnson]

Bartenders/bouncers/waitresses could choose to work a different profession, but they will never recieve the wages as they can in bar. No person should have to choose a lower paying job because their lives are at risk.

Preposterous! They know the perceived risks, yet continue because they like the money. Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything. You think those arctic crab fishermen are out there for the fresh air? I have a job that does not require me to travel. I could get a similar position with a lot more travel and increase my income big time. I choose not to do that. If bars and restaurants start losing good people and it has a negative impact on their business because they allow smoking, how long do you think they're going to continue to allow smoking? I just don't understand this mentality that people do not have the power to make their own choices.

Concerning your statement per McDonald's, Bacon, etc... to consume those products is one's choice. Smoking is one's choice. However, working/eating in an environment where one's choice but your own well-being in danger is in definite need of government regulation.

If you choose to work/eat in a place that endangers your well being, and you know it, perhaps you should be making a different choice. Do you really need the government to do that for you?

[Chili]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

And I am all for banning the sun. Didn't Mr. Burns try that one in a Simpson's episode?

[NavinRJohnson]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

I agree, and you have the choice as to whether you are going to be exposed to it or not.

[🏀]

Bartenders/bouncers/waitresses could choose to work a different profession, but they will never recieve the wages as they can in bar. No person should have to choose a lower paying job because their lives are at risk.

Preposterous! They know the perceived risks, yet continue because they like the money. Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything. You think those arctic crab fishermen are out there for the fresh air? I have a job that does not require me to travel. I could get a similar position with a lot more travel and increase my income big time. I choose not to do that. If bars and restaurants start losing good people and it has a negative impact on their business because they allow smoking, how long do you think they're going to continue to allow smoking? I just don't understand this mentality that people do not have the power to make their own choices.

Concerning your statement per McDonald's, Bacon, etc... to consume those products is one's choice. Smoking is one's choice. However, working/eating in an environment where one's choice but your own well-being in danger is in definite need of government regulation.

If you choose to work/eat in a place that endangers your well being, and you know it, perhaps you should be making a different choice. Do you really need the government to do that for you?

To compare teh deadliest job, to a waitress is a bit far-fetched. No crab pots are endangering the everyday American. The fact is, smoking has endangered every American.

No non-smoking person should have to go out of their way to avoid someone who chooses to kill themselves with tobacco smoke. If they feel the need to be a weaker person by being addicted to putting a stick into their mouths, that is their own choice. Feel free to join the rest of minority and take it someplace else.

It's arguments like this that make me feel for all the little kids growing up in smoke-filled families.

[Chili]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

I agree, and you have the choice as to whether you are going to be exposed to it or not.

No I don't. Unless I stay home all the time. At my last job (which was for an international company) people could smoke in their offices.

[NavinRJohnson]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

I agree, and you have the choice as to whether you are going to be exposed to it or not.

No I don't. Unless I stay home all the time. At my last job (which was for an international company) people could smoke in their offices.

Your last job? So you don't work there anymore? Is smoking allowed at your present job? In the building you work in? Exactly where do you absolutely have to go that people are allowed to smoke?

[NavinRJohnson]

To compare teh deadliest job, to a waitress is a bit far-fetched. No crab pots are endangering the everyday American. The fact is, smoking has endangered every American.

Highly debatable, but fine...Truck drivers, loggers, steel workers, pilots, roofers, etc. All pretty dangerous jobs, but they all pay pretty well too. Could a roofer go hang drywall instead. No question, but he wouldn't make as much money. Could a steel worker go do masonry work instead? Absolutely, he'd just have to take a pay cut. Just as there are plenty of sales reps out there pulling down a ton of money, but spending their lives on plane and in hotels, who could switch to a sales job that keeps them local, but in most cases, they'd have to give up plenty financially. Could a typical waitress or bartender go work some other type of retail?  Of course they could - any time they want, just not for the same money.