|
Grex > Agora41 > #81: Washtenaw County workplace smoking ban? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 155 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 25 of 155:
| 
Apr 12 12:20 UTC 2002 |
Having worked in bars and restaurants, and having had to give up a
wonderful job, where I loved the people and the work, because the chronic
bronchitis from smoke was more than my body could handle, I say "Go for
it".
Waitron, bartenders and other should be able to get the best paying
position available, and not pick up a chronic illness because of it. I was
physically unable to continue working. Lost job, lost paycheck, medical
bills _caused_ by job. But no legal protection.
|
scott
|
|
response 26 of 155:
|
Apr 12 13:45 UTC 2002 |
Hmm.. for those smokers who say "second hand smoke isn't really that bad, and
you do worse to yourself by eating a big greasy donut", let me ask you this:
If some sort of waste dump was installed (or maybe just discovered) right next
door to your house, would that be OK with you? I mean, smoking causes much
more damage to your health, and you do that by choice.
|
oval
|
|
response 27 of 155:
|
Apr 12 19:12 UTC 2002 |
i agree second hand smoke is bad, and very unpleasant for non smokers. but
i also feel that in a place whose sole purpose is to feed people with alcohol
would be hypocritical to ban smoking. i don't need to smoke in a restaurant,
or at the workplace, or most other places. i don't feel bad about having to
go outside and stand in the freezing cold to have a smoke because smoking
really is kind of dumb. but it is nice to have a few places where i can smoke
indoors. even as a smoker i can't believe people used to smoke on planes.
that's just disgusting. but i was very offended at the atlanta airport that
there was only one 'smoking room' in the airport that was a tiny room with
no ventilation, while there's a nice cozy fancy bar for the people with that
'acceptable' addiction.
but if we're really going to get into the purity of things that go into our
bodies beyond our control, i just feel that second hand smoke is only one of
many issues. i find it laughable that an overweight person eating a bigmac
and a diet coke would lecture me about how my second hand smoke is bad for
them.
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 155:
|
Apr 12 19:48 UTC 2002 |
They are able to choose what they are eating but not what they are breathing.
Likewise, it does not get into my bloodstream if someone else is imbibing
alcohol. I have no objection to someone using nicotine gum.
There are probably a few people around who like to drink alcohol but do not
smoke. Should all smokers be forced to drink alcohol whenever they want to
smoke in public?
|
oval
|
|
response 29 of 155:
|
Apr 12 19:52 UTC 2002 |
no they shouldn't but since bars are practically the only place you can smoke
in public, there ya go.
i think a hash bar with no alcohol would be pleasant. clees?
|
keesan
|
|
response 30 of 155:
|
Apr 12 19:55 UTC 2002 |
How about opening special smoking dens (like opium dens) where smokers could
go to smoke in public with company? You could regulate the number of those,
like liquor licenses. Or in places that do allow smoking make it a totally
separate room, not a partition - smoke ignores the partition. Canadian trains
used to allow smoking at one end of the car - it was awful.
|
oval
|
|
response 31 of 155:
|
Apr 12 20:13 UTC 2002 |
it wouldn't bother me to have nonsmoking bars.
sindi could possible be one of the very few who can argue this without being
a hypocrite.
|
flem
|
|
response 32 of 155:
|
Apr 12 20:39 UTC 2002 |
I don't understand why you people who smoke two packs a day complain when I
shove my entire Big Mac down your throat, followed by two liters of Jolt cola,
while cackling gleefully. If you're really serious about wanting to control
what goes into your body, you should stop smoking. Don't try to deny me
my right to shove random crap into your mouth.
|
jp2
|
|
response 33 of 155:
|
Apr 12 20:47 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 34 of 155:
|
Apr 12 21:07 UTC 2002 |
I thought you claimed to be smart, Jamie.
|
oval
|
|
response 35 of 155:
|
Apr 12 21:32 UTC 2002 |
maybe everytime you stuff your face with geneticall modified greasified crap
and wash it down witha "diet" drink that contains a chemical proven to be VERY
harmful to your health, it doesn't mean you're literally cramming it down MY
throat. but, it *does* mean you're spending your money supporting companies
that are more than happy to fuck up our health, our economy, and our society
- and *I* live on this planet too..
|
flem
|
|
response 36 of 155:
|
Apr 12 21:49 UTC 2002 |
Argh. I'm having to spell out everything today.
I'm not trying to claim that I have the right to stuff grease in your mouth.
I'm saying that some of your recent arguments for having the right to smoke
in public are invalid, because I could use the same arguments to prove that
I have the right to stuff Big Macs in your mouth. I don't think that
either of these things are true.
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 155:
|
Apr 12 21:54 UTC 2002 |
I think flem is trying, like I was, to point out that when other people eat
things that are bad for their health, they are not doing anything to your
health, but when someone smokes, the smoke gets into the lungs of other people
and affects their health as well as that of the smoker. The people eating
junk are not telling smokers not to smoke, just asking them not to smoke where
the smoke gets into other people.
If smoking is known to kill (or lead to an earlier death, anyway) could the
existing suicide laws be interpreted to make smoking illegal?
|
oval
|
|
response 38 of 155:
|
Apr 12 22:01 UTC 2002 |
and i think if either of you had payed attention to #35, you would see that
it does, in fact, affect my life and my health if you eat bigmacs.
|
russ
|
|
response 39 of 155:
|
Apr 12 22:12 UTC 2002 |
Re #19: I've been unable to inhale more than part way for as much
as two weeks after breathing a lot of smoke. The problem is that
low-intensity, long-duration exposure isn't necessarily obvious at
first but the effects are just as bad.
Re #20: Bullshit. My worst problem was after having to traverse
a mezannine again and again over the course of a weekend (where
smoking SHOULD have been prohibited, but was not). The smoke was
not obvious, and it didn't occur to me until afterward what was
causing my lung problems; your theory assumes the effect before
the cause.
|
flem
|
|
response 40 of 155:
|
Apr 12 22:38 UTC 2002 |
"Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone", eh? That's fine
for starting a cult, but when you're trying to run a society where people want
different things, you have to draw lines somewhere on a big field of varying
shades of gray.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 41 of 155:
|
Apr 13 00:44 UTC 2002 |
What I'd like to see would be for all of us non-smokers to put our money
where our mouths are and simply stop patronizing bars and restaurants that
cater to smoking crowds. I think that the market really *would* provide
alternatives if we were serious about asserting our preferences..
|
keesan
|
|
response 42 of 155:
|
Apr 13 01:18 UTC 2002 |
I have hereby stopped patronizing every smoky restaurant in the world (not
that I ever went to any in the first place). My business is worth at least
$10/month for the two of us. What percentage of Ann Arbor restaurants DO
allow smoking? I cannot think of even one.
Greasy food is not bad under all circumstances and it would actually be
healthy for many of the people of the world to get more calories. I don't
know of any healthful effects of cigarette smoke other than it keeps the
mosquitoes away (they know better).
|
russ
|
|
response 43 of 155:
|
Apr 13 02:25 UTC 2002 |
Re #27: So tell me, Carrie, how many bartenders or waitrons ever
pour alcohol down the throats of people who don't order it? How
many patrons?
Aside from the occasional drink spiked by someone trying to loosen
up a date, is there ANYONE who goes to a bar who consumes alcohol
that they didn't knowingly and deliberately pick up and drink? So
why are you trying to draw an analogy to second-hand smoke? (I'm
wondering if you're stupid, or if you think we are. Maybe if you
got the carboxyhemoglobin out of your blood stream, your thinking
would improve.)
Re #29: If you couldn't smoke in bars your argument would disappear.
Ditto if you had to take your tobacco to a special smoking section
before lighting up.
Re #32: I *LOVE* that analogy.
Re #38: And again with the most ridiculous analogies on earth. The
ills you describe are so indirect and nebulous as to be unbelievable.
What could be MORE direct than unwanted smoke going into one's lungs?
|
mdw
|
|
response 44 of 155:
|
Apr 13 05:52 UTC 2002 |
ABC serves food (so is a restaurant) yet is smokey. Full moon also does
so. There's also the London Steak House on main street - I've never
been inside, but they have a very large and visible cigar selection
visible from the street. There is outdoors seating for the the steak
house in summer; I find I have to hurry past if I want to breath.
California banned smoking in its bars. They seem to be doing ok, and I
understand it's made a significant improvement to the health of people
employeed in Californian bars.
|
polygon
|
|
response 45 of 155:
|
Apr 13 09:32 UTC 2002 |
Re: diet drinks containing "a chemical proven to be VERY harmful to your
health": this comment gigantically overstates the case against aspertame,
unless addressed to a phenylketonuric.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 46 of 155:
|
Apr 13 13:44 UTC 2002 |
re44: cites?
|
scott
|
|
response 47 of 155:
|
Apr 13 14:10 UTC 2002 |
Sure here's a cite:
http://www.arborfood.com/reviews/chop-house.shtml
I'll cut & paste the relevant part:
" It's an attractive, masculine-looking retreat lined with humidors and wine
racks, its slate floors softened by Oriental rugs. "
So, now that I've totally refuted happyboy, any other people want to mess with
me? C'mon, I'll fustigate ya!
|
jep
|
|
response 48 of 155:
|
Apr 13 16:11 UTC 2002 |
I've never understood why there *aren't* non-smoking bars, and why
there haven't always been non-smoking restaurants, when so many people
are so vehemently against being around second hand smoke. I would
think I'd want to consider such people if I owned a restaurant or bar.
I don't object to tobacco smoke. I smoke a pipe just now; I quit for a
year but didn't mind tobacco smoke while I wasn't smoking myself. It's
not an issue for me. If it were, I'd rather not go to bars or
restaurants than to go to ones filled with smoke. In fact, I don't go
to bars, so I guess I'm just not part of the right mindset at all here.
I think the suggestions that businesses declare themselves to be
either "smoking" or "non-smoking" sound like a fine idea. Call
them "smoking optional" or "no smoking allowed", and require them to
have prominent signs so customers know what they're getting into. I
would think, in Ann Arbor, where people are outspoken and care a lot
about such things, most of the businesses would be "no smoking
allowed". Except that I don't understand why they are not that way now.
I think banning smoking in public in Washtenaw County sounds pretty
totalitarian. There would be *no* places where people could gather and
also smoke? I think that's extreme.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 49 of 155:
|
Apr 13 18:24 UTC 2002 |
Living in California, and being a non-smoker, I appreciate being able to go
out for dinner without coming home with my clothes reeeking of cigarette
smoke. But we don't need the government's heavy hand to accomplish this.
Some restaurants were already designating themselves non-smoking before the
law was passed, as a marketing ploy to cater to non-smokers, and the law wiped
out that competitive advantage.
What we have now is a few remaining "smokers' bars" engaged in civil
disobedience like the speakeasies of old, with water-filled Altoids tins
being used to stash the butts if the codeword for a cop showing up is heard.
|