What a concept -- personal choice of where to work and where to frequent...or better yet the owner of the establishment choosing to have it be smoking or not getting steamrolled in the name of a "We know better than you" uber-nanny.

 

For f***'s sake, sometimes fun costs you.  I don't smoke but I'm not anti-smokers.

 

This actually should have been done by OSHA years ago. Why will they protect people like mill workers from bad air, but they won't protect groups like waiters/resses, bartenders, and servers? These people are working in an enviornment that has cancer causing agents in the air, and OSHA didn't do anything. I could care less about the consumers, as they can make their dollar vote, but when it comes down to workers, the US government has set the precedent that people should not have to choose between a paycheck and living, and there is no reason that should not continue here.

loophole

You know what though? Those things really work. I was at a cigar bar in indianapolis a couple of weekends back, and I was smoking a cigar, as was most in the bar, and there wasnt a single haze of smoke in the place. Great invention IMO.

What a concept...smokers actually have to go outside to smoke!  What is this world coming to.

 

Then can you explain the ban on smoking in a baseball stadium where people are already outside?

 

I understand the Sox don't allow people to smoke in the seats but does this mean everyone will literally have to go to the parking lot to smoke?

This actually should have been done by OSHA years ago.  Why will they protect people like mill workers from bad air, but they won't protect groups like waiters/resses, bartenders, and servers?  These people are working in an enviornment that has cancer causing agents in the air, and OSHA didn't do anything.  I could care less about the consumers, as they can make their dollar vote, but when it comes down to workers, the US government has set the precedent that people should not have to choose between a paycheck and living, and there is no reason that should not continue here.

 

As a bartender, thank you. Smoke Free Chicago

But it sets a slippery slope of "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't have that alcohol because somebody else thinks it is bad." or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't listen to that music because somebody thinks it is offensive" or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't eat that because somebody was offended at the way it was made."

 

You get to make the choice to put yourself in the situation where you know there will be smoking going on.  If you don't like that establishment's choice -- then voice your opinion with your dollars and don't go there.

 

Meh, I disagree. It's extremely difficult to go out anywhere anymore without somebody smoking. It's one thing to allow people to listen to what they want for music and eat what they want and drink what they want, because it doesn't affect those of us that choose otherwise. However when you can't even take your family out to get a meal without having to inhale toxin infected smoke, it's a problem.

 

I have no problem with somebody smoking, but go do it somewhere where people don't have to suffer the consequences of it that the smoker chooses to ignore.

It's one thing to allow people to listen to what they want for music and eat what they want and drink what they want, because it doesn't affect those of us that choose otherwise.

 

not neccesarily

 

Some would argue that people who eat fatty food and become obese drive up health care costs, which affects us all. People who get drunk causing accidents, start fights and damage propert. Evil devil music makes kids go crazy and shoot up a school, commit suicide, ect.

not neccesarily

 

Some would argue that people who eat fatty food and become obese drive up health care costs, which affects us all.  People who get drunk causing accidents, start fights and damage propert.  Evil devil music makes kids go crazy and shoot up a school, commit suicide, ect.

 

Do we have overwhelming proof of all this, like we do that second hand smoke directly affects a persons health in a negative way, even though they don't smoke.

Edited December 8, 200520 yr by whitesoxfan101

I'd say that there is overwhelming evidence that fatty foods makes you fat. And that there is overwhelming evidence that drunk driving is not safe.

Do we have overwhelming proof of all this, like we do that second hand smoke directly affects a persons health in a negative way, even though they don't smoke.

 

Yes, we do. Obesity is a HUGE problem. It leads to so many health problems and kills way more people than smoking. These health problems cost a lot of money which is passed on to everyone else.

 

Drunks obviously are the source of most DUI accidents. Drunks also do damage property and cause fights. Ask any Chicago cop about when most fights occur, on the weekend when people are drunk.

Yes, we do.  Obesity is a HUGE problem.  It leads to so many health problems and kills way more people than smoking.  These health problems cost a lot of money which is passed on to everyone else.

 

Drunks obviously are the source of most DUI accidents.  Drunks also do damage property and cause fights.  Ask any Chicago cop about when most fights occur, on the weekend when people are drunk.

 

It's an interesting point and I can see that side of the argument. Just easier to see the direct effect of 2nd hand smoke in my case, than those effects since I don't drink and weigh 170 pounds. I just think the right to healthy air and making a smoker go outside holds more water than letting people just smoke wherever they choose and ruin the breating air for everybody else. And I REALLY don't buy the "don't go there" argument, since it's pretty hard to find a place to go out to eat at that is smoke free.

I REALLY don't buy the "don't go there" argument, since it's pretty hard to find a place to go out to eat at that is smoke free.

 

I really don't like being around smokers when I eat and I can't remember the last time I have had a problem going out and eating in a smoke free enviroment.

It's an interesting point and I can see that side of the argument.  Just easier to see the direct effect of 2nd hand smoke in my case, than those effects since I don't drink and weigh 170 pounds.  I just think the right to healthy air and making a smoker go outside holds more water than letting people just smoke wherever they choose and ruin the breating air for everybody else.  And I REALLY don't buy the "don't go there" argument, since it's pretty hard to find a place to go out to eat at that is smoke free.

McDonalds.

Burger King.

Wendy's.

The Chat and Nibble - Asbury Park

Panera Bread

Kaya's Kitchen - Belmar

Camille's Sidewalk Cafe

Atlanta Bread Company

But it sets a slippery slope of "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't have that alcohol because somebody else thinks it is bad." or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't listen to that music because somebody thinks it is offensive" or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't eat that because somebody was offended at the way it was made."

 

You get to make the choice to put yourself in the situation where you know there will be smoking going on.  If you don't like that establishment's choice -- then voice your opinion with your dollars and don't go there.

 

The difference is my having a drink doesn't force someone else to drink!

 

Smokers second-hand smoke affects the breathing of everyone in the room!

 

 

Meh, I disagree.  It's extremely difficult to go out anywhere anymore without somebody smoking.  It's one thing to allow people to listen to what they want for music and eat what they want and drink what they want, because it doesn't affect those of us that choose otherwise.  However when you can't even take your family out to get a meal without having to inhale toxin infected smoke, it's a problem.

 

I have no problem with somebody smoking, but go do it somewhere where people don't have to suffer the consequences of it that the smoker chooses to ignore.

 

Amen to that!

The difference is my having a drink doesn't force someone else to drink! 

 

 

 

 

Yea, but your drinking forces me to deal with your drunk behavior. No difference at all.

Yea, but your drinking forces me to deal with your drunk behavior. No difference at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not everyone who consumes alcohol does so to excess.

EVERYONE who smokes, pollutes the surrounding airspace.

Edited December 8, 200520 yr by Mercy!

But it sets a slippery slope of "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't have that alcohol because somebody else thinks it is bad." or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't listen to that music because somebody thinks it is offensive" or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't eat that because somebody was offended at the way it was made."

 

You get to make the choice to put yourself in the situation where you know there will be smoking going on.  If you don't like that establishment's choice -- then voice your opinion with your dollars and don't go there.

 

 

 

... I need a cig.

I really don't like being around smokers when I eat and I can't remember the last time I  have had a problem going out and eating in a smoke free enviroment.

 

Every place that I eat at is smoke-free. It's f***ing cold. I won't mind this in the summer, bu ts***

You're just teasing, right?  Please tell us you understand the difference.

 

Not everyone who consumes alcohol does so to excess.

EVERYONE who smokes, pollutes the surrounding airspace.

 

And you have a right to not patronize the establishment that allows that airspace to exist.

And you have a right to not patronize the establishment that allows that airspace to exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if I work there.

 

But that wasn't the argument that I was responding to.

Yes, but then you have the right to organize and demand a smoke free workplace from your supervisor.

Yes, but then you have the right to organize and demand a smoke free workplace from your supervisor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I rarely use the word “elitist,” but I really consider all those folks who tell the millions of employees who have to suffer the health and just plain quality-of-life consequences due to environmental tobacco smoke that they should either quit or organize to be an elitist position. (what a badly-constructed sentence, but you get my drift, I hope). Very few of the people who advocate the quit or organize position, I suspect, have to spend every hour of their work days under similar conditions. They are already protected. This is a public health issue, plain and simple.

I rarely use the word “elitist,” but I really consider all those folks who tell the millions of employees who have to suffer the health and just plain quality-of-life consequences due to environmental tobacco smoke that they should either quit or organize to be an elitist position. (what a badly-constructed sentence, but you get my drift, I hope).  Very few of the people who advocate the quit or organize position, I suspect, have to spend every hour of their work days under similar conditions.  They are already protected.  This is a public health issue, plain and simple.

Do you really think they passed the law for the workers, or the patrons?

Do you really think they passed the law for the workers, or the patrons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they did the math and realized that 75-80% of their constituents do not smoke. I don't care what their motivation was, since they did the right thing for the society which they were elected to serve.

I rarely use the word “elitist,” but I really consider all those folks who tell the millions of employees who have to suffer the health and just plain quality-of-life consequences due to environmental tobacco smoke that they should either quit or organize to be an elitist position. (what a badly-constructed sentence, but you get my drift, I hope).  Very few of the people who advocate the quit or organize position, I suspect, have to spend every hour of their work days under similar conditions.  They are already protected.  This is a public health issue, plain and simple.

 

Yeah, I grew up in a second hand smoke cloud. My parents smoked like chimneys. It's how I spent the first 20 years of my life. I've worked in smoking offices. I haven't had a problem with it.

 

I also worked in offices where there were policies that were immoral, unethical or that I violently disagreed with. I found new work, or I just quit. I generally am not on the side of business. BUT, private property is private property and I don't understand why it should be illegal to use legal products in private property with the consent of the owner. That I don't get.