|
Grex > Agora41 > #81: Washtenaw County workplace smoking ban? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 155 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 75 of 155:
| 
Apr 15 02:48 UTC 2002 |
*shrug* they do it in many public schools.
*shrug*
|
keesan
|
|
response 76 of 155:
|
Apr 15 02:57 UTC 2002 |
Re 74 - I can go to a restaurant and watch the person next to me eating a nut
product and even if I am allergic it does not affect me, unlike smoke.
I don't care if they use snuff (just don't sneeze in my direction).
|
mary
|
|
response 77 of 155:
|
Apr 15 03:03 UTC 2002 |
Some people can't even be in a restaurant where food containing
nuts has been cooked. They are that sensitive.
|
mdw
|
|
response 78 of 155:
|
Apr 15 04:24 UTC 2002 |
If you banned stuff because some people are allergic, you'd have nothing
left to serve in restaurants. Nicotine is something else altogether -
it's poisonous to everyone; some of the consumers just manage to die of
other causes first. Rather than comparing nicotine to alcohol, why not
compare it to marijuana? Comparable means of ingestion, less addictive,
and less poisonous.
|
mary
|
|
response 79 of 155:
|
Apr 15 09:45 UTC 2002 |
I tend to like the way it works now. If you don't want to be eat in
smoky restaurants then choose a restaurant that isn't smoky. Maybe even
let your favorite restaurant know you'd support their imposing a no
smoking policy. I'm able to determine what I want and would rather the
choice be mine and not made law.
If you are talking about extreme reactions to smoke, like you can't
breathe and are sick for days after inhaling second hand smoke, well,
then the peanut comparison works and for the same reasons nuts should
be banned by law too.
|
mary
|
|
response 80 of 155:
|
Apr 15 09:45 UTC 2002 |
"To be eat..." Love it.
Coffee. Need coffee.
|
keesan
|
|
response 81 of 155:
|
Apr 15 12:30 UTC 2002 |
I thought it was the proteins in nuts that caused allergies. Do these get
into the air when nuts are cooked?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 82 of 155:
|
Apr 15 16:28 UTC 2002 |
could be.
|
void
|
|
response 83 of 155:
|
Apr 15 23:01 UTC 2002 |
I'm sick and tired of getting hayfever every year. I demand that the
government completely eradicate ragweed.
Y'all who don't smoke can go where smokers aren't. Stay the fuck out of
my lungs.
|
russ
|
|
response 84 of 155:
|
Apr 16 00:54 UTC 2002 |
Re #72: The latest figure I've seen for the health cost of smoking
is over $7 per pack of cigarettes. Maybe that 2 packs/day should
cost $5110 per year over and above the tobacco.
|
oval
|
|
response 85 of 155:
|
Apr 16 01:11 UTC 2002 |
who the hell smokes two packs a day! jeez.
|
russ
|
|
response 86 of 155:
|
Apr 16 04:03 UTC 2002 |
Re #83: Apparently you Don't Get It. It's the refusal of smokers
to stay out of *my* lungs which has forced me to my current position
on the issue. And I am far from exceptional, according to the CDC;
I'm just a bit more toward the sensitive end.
|
keesan
|
|
response 87 of 155:
|
Apr 16 12:27 UTC 2002 |
Re 83 - we nonsmokers would like to have lots of places to go where smokers
aren't. That is the point of banning smoking in public places. Nobody is
objecting to smokers polluting their own residences, as long as they also
cover their own increased health care costs and fire insurance costs.
|
keesan
|
|
response 88 of 155:
|
Apr 16 12:29 UTC 2002 |
Last night at city hall a woman was sitting by the door smoking. I pointed
out the No Smoking sign a few feet away. She said everyone smokes there.
So I walked over to the police car sitting in front of city hall and loudly
asked them to go talk to her. She stopped before they got there. The problem
is not only to ban smoking but to enforce the ban. This is not to imply that
all or even most smokers routinely go around ignoring bans.
|
edina
|
|
response 89 of 155:
|
Apr 16 13:11 UTC 2002 |
Re 86 don't you sand and varnish your own woodwork and stuff? Isn't that
hard on your lungs?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 90 of 155:
|
Apr 16 14:05 UTC 2002 |
"Miss Crabtree, you forgot to give us homework!"
---Sindi Keesan, Age 9
|
slynne
|
|
response 91 of 155:
|
Apr 16 15:20 UTC 2002 |
I just still think it is funny that russ who would ordinarly argue that
the free market is #1 doesnt think that is the case when the bar he
wants to go to allows smoking.
Re enforcing bans. - Sometimes a community will enact a law without
having the resources to enforce the ban. This is why it is important to
weigh the costs of enforcement and the costs of the actual ordinance vs
the benefits of the ordinance. As far as a smoking ban in Washtenaw
County I see the following:
Benefits:
Public Health
Cleaner streets (presumably less ciggy butts in the streets)
Costs:
Enforcement
Lost revenue in local restaurants and bars
The thing is, I dont really know how much of a public health benefit
one would see from a smoking ban nor do I know what the enforcement
costs or lost revenue costs would be.
|
keesan
|
|
response 92 of 155:
|
Apr 16 15:26 UTC 2002 |
Considering that 80% of Americans do NOT smoke, Ann Arbor restaurants might
become a mecca for nonsmokers from other places.
|
slynne
|
|
response 93 of 155:
|
Apr 16 16:15 UTC 2002 |
I dont see that is being very likely. Because while 80% of Americans
dont smoke, not all of those people are so bothered by second hand
smoke that it is a primary concern in their choice of a restaurant.
Ann Arbor already has a lot of restaurants that do not have smoking
sections. I think if those restaurants were significantly more
successful than their counterparts that have smoking sections more
restaurants would ban smoking. On the other hand, I cant remember the
last time I had dinner in Ann Arbor and noticed any second hand smoke
so maybe there are already a lot of restaurants that dont allow smoke
and Sindi is correct that there really is some huge demand for smoke
free restaurants. I dont smoke in restaurants and second hand smoke
doesnt really bother me so I dont always notice if a restaurant is
smoke free or not.
This ordinance is on the county level. It is possible that the
cost/benefit analysis would be different for a proposal at the city
level. It wouldnt surprise me if the economic costs of such a ban would
be minimal in Ann Arbor and therefore a city wide ban on smoking might
be the best thing. I am pretty sure a county wide ban wouldnt be so
good for Ypsilanti for reasons I have already mentioned.
|
void
|
|
response 94 of 155:
|
Apr 16 20:17 UTC 2002 |
Re all the nonsmokers who responded to resp:83: There are plenty of
nonsmoking establishments in Ann Arbor. Patronize them. Any smokers
with whom you deign to spend any of your precious time most likely will
not object to hanging out in a non-smoking restaurant (hell, my favorite
downtown restaurant is now completely nonsmoking, IIRC). There are also
restaurants in Ann Arbor where smoking is permitted. Don't go to them.
I know it's a revolutionary concept for some of you, but if you think
about it hard enough you'll realize that it makes sense.
|
keesan
|
|
response 95 of 155:
|
Apr 16 20:20 UTC 2002 |
Iwould be more interested in banning smoking on public sidewalks since I can
avoid restaurants. But Ann Arbor has come a long way already from the times
when professors smoked during classes, and people smoked in banks and post
offices and stores. I remember having to point out to one professor that the
course he was teaching was required for a degree and I would not be able to
take it if he continued smoking in class. He stopped. I did not take another
very interesting class because the professor smoked. Harvard University was
letting people smoke in the grad library reference room not too long ago.
|
keesan
|
|
response 96 of 155:
|
Apr 16 20:22 UTC 2002 |
I don't spend time with smokers if I can help it because they stink like
ashtrays in most cases, and if they have smoked recently the smoke is coming
back out of their bloodstream and lungs into the air I have to breathe.
The last one who stopped by for a favor (he had done us favors) went out in
the yard to smoke and I asked him not to come back in again. Perfume is a
similar problem - is there some polite way to tell people that you don't want
them in your house because of the smell?
|
slynne
|
|
response 97 of 155:
|
Apr 16 20:58 UTC 2002 |
You can just not invite them over and not give them a reason.
|
senna
|
|
response 98 of 155:
|
Apr 16 21:29 UTC 2002 |
I'm a nonsmoker who occasionally spends time with smokers in smoking
establishments, such as sports bars, that keesan is unlikely to patronize even
if smoking is banned. Why, keesan, do you insist on bothering other people
who do you no harm? Is it really that big a deal to you that some people
smoke in bars that you'd never want to visit?
Yes, of course, because it's immoral. The campaigns against fags always seem
to be full of irrationality.
|
oval
|
|
response 99 of 155:
|
Apr 16 22:58 UTC 2002 |
sindi, you could politely tell them that you are anal beyond the normal realm
of analty and that if they think you are nearly as important as you do then
they will quit smoking 3 days before they come over have a bath and generally
be odorless at all costs.
i fart in your general direction.
|