The truth about 2nd hand smoke..

#28
#28
TennNC said:
I wish that were the case, PJ, and I also wish we didn't need legislation preventing businesses from discriminating against people from different races or religions.
Click to expand...

A little bit different than smoking in a restaurant. The customers can easily force their views on the owner.

I understand it happens but many private businesses fall out of the gov't jurisdiction when it comes to hiring practices anyway.
 
#29
#29
utvolpj said:
A little bit different than smoking in a restaurant. The customers can easily force their views on the owner.

I understand it happens but many private businesses fall out of the gov't jurisdiction when it comes to hiring practices anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd change the top part to "some customers can easily force..." I can only believe that some people are limited in where and how they can eat a balanced meal.

Regarding the second part, I was referring to customers, not employees.
 
#30
#30
allvol123 said:
We don't.
Click to expand...

AV123, you and I have been down the 2nd hand smoke road before, and I'm content not to travel down it again.

But for clarification, I was referring not to hiring practices but to serving customers. Don't know if that changes your mind or not.
 
#31
#31
I just think it is a bit ridiculous that smoking is banned at the bar at restaurants. 90% of my bar patrons are smokers, I mean, weren't smoking areas designed to keep the smokers and the non-smokers separate to avoid anyone being subjected to second hand smoke.
 
#32
#32
TennNC said:
I'd change the top part to "some customers can easily force..." I can only believe that some people are limited in where and how they can eat a balanced meal.
Click to expand...

If a person's only resource for a balanced meal is a restaurant then they have bigger issues than SHS. I just feel it should be up to the market to decide. When a business starts to lose money because they allow smoking then it will change quickly. Plus, it also opens up huge opportunities for new smoke-free places. :)

TennNC said:
Regarding the second part, I was referring to customers, not employees.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, read it too quickly. Somewhat agree but it's also a fine line.
 
#33
#33
allvol123 said:
You shouldn't be. I detest second hand smoke as much as anyone, but don't see the need for the government to step in and dictate this activity.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that second hand smoke contains carcinogens. I see no problem with the government regulating our unnecessary exposure to it.
 
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
If a person's only resource for a balanced meal is a restaurant then they have bigger issues than SHS. I just feel it should be up to the market to decide. When a business starts to lose money because they allow smoking then it will change quickly. Plus, it also opens up huge opportunities for new smoke-free places. :)
Click to expand...

Not to be splitting hairs, but there are lots of professions where you're constantly on the road, and if you want to eat you have to go to a restaurant or heat up a hot pocket at the gas station. So what if every single restaurant were smoky? What effect would that have on a non-smoker?

Now what if every restaurant were smoke-free? What effect would that have on smokers? They'd have to actually walk a few paces outside to smoke a cig.

Again, I feel the market should decide too, but many times we see that it doesn't decide quickly enough. And I believe that a good law is a good law, even if it spurs the market to act quicker.
 
#35
#35
emainvol said:
I just think it is a bit ridiculous that smoking is banned at the bar at restaurants. 90% of my bar patrons are smokers, I mean, weren't smoking areas designed to keep the smokers and the non-smokers separate to avoid anyone being subjected to second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to being true. It just seems that way because bars are always covered in a cloud of smoke from a few people. Thus, everyone wakes up the next day smelling like feces.
 
#36
#36
kptvol said:
The bottom line is that second hand smoke contains carcinogens. I see no problem with the government regulating our unnecessary exposure to it.
Click to expand...

There is no one forcing a person to be exposed to it when that person volunteers to visit an eating establishment. We going to outlaw outside dining that exposes us to skin cancer?
 
#37
#37
emainvol said:
I just think it is a bit ridiculous that smoking is banned at the bar at restaurants. 90% of my bar patrons are smokers, I mean, weren't smoking areas designed to keep the smokers and the non-smokers separate to avoid anyone being subjected to second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Do you own a bar or are you just referring to your local watering hole?

The research I've seen and heard shows that banning smoking inside bars and restaurants actually has no negative effect and many times leads to more business.
 
#38
#38
emainvol said:
I just think it is a bit ridiculous that smoking is banned at the bar at restaurants. 90% of my bar patrons are smokers, I mean, weren't smoking areas designed to keep the smokers and the non-smokers separate to avoid anyone being subjected to second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Smoking areas in a restaurant is about as effective as a peeing area in a swimming pool.

If restaurant & bar owners had invested in proper equipment we wouldn't be at this stage now. All you have to do is keep the top inch next to the ceiling clean and everything else takes care of itself. Smoke goes straight up and you don't get the smelly clothes and burning eyes until the buildup comes down to you. Go watch a bingo parlor one night. Great concentration of smokers and you can actually watch the cloud of smoke desend on them.
 
#39
#39
allvol123 said:
There is no one forcing a person to be exposed to it when that person volunteers to visit an eating establishment. We going to outlaw outside dining that exposes us to skin cancer?
Click to expand...

Skin cancer is a hell of a lot different than lung cancer. Anyway, sunlight in reasonable amounts is good for you.
 
#40
#40
There's nothing that makes me laugh (or pity) more than walking past the clear-glass smoking room in an airport.
 
#41
#41
kptvol said:
Skin cancer is a hell of a lot different than lung cancer. Anyway, sunlight in reasonable amounts is good for you.
Click to expand...

So does the sun contribute at all to skin cancer? If it does, then shouldn't we legislate businesses responsibility to keeping the consumer safe? As we are doing with this smoking issue?

Also, should we regulate drinking as well? Drinking can encourage promiscuity which in turn propels the spread of STDs. So again, big brother need to step in?
 
#42
#42
allvol123 said:
So does the sun contribute at all to skin cancer? If it does, then shouldn't we legislate businesses responsibility to keeping the consumer safe? As we are doing with this smoking issue?

Also, should we regulate drinking as well? Drinking can encourage promiscuity which in turn propels the spread of STDs. So again, big brother need to step in?
Click to expand...

If restaurants were putting high-powered UV lights inside their restaurants b/c a small % of people thought it was their right to get a tan while slamming a burger, then the govt probably should step in. Good analogy though.

Also, actually, we do regulate drinking. In fact, bars regulate drinking. And it's probably an idea that saves lives.
 
#43
#43
TennNC said:
Also, actually, we do regulate drinking. In fact, bars regulate drinking. And it's probably an idea that saves lives.
Click to expand...

They regulate driking in terms of age. I have never seen one that regulates the amount you drink once you have proven you are old enough to drink.

Also, should the government regulate how many cheeseburgers per year an individual can consume? I bet these do more damage to a person's heart than second hand smoke does in terms of causing lung cancer.
 
#44
#44
allvol123 said:
They regulate driking in terms of age. I have never seen one that regulates the amount you drink once you have proven you are old enough to drink.
Click to expand...

They are supposed to do just that. They usually don't. However, if you get hammered at your local Applebee's and then drive your Suburban into a schoolbus, that bartender is in trouble.
 
#45
#45
allvol123 said:
So does the sun contribute at all to skin cancer? If it does, then shouldn't we legislate businesses responsibility to keeping the consumer safe? As we are doing with this smoking issue?

Also, should we regulate drinking as well? Drinking can encourage promiscuity which in turn propels the spread of STDs. So again, big brother need to step in?
Click to expand...

No.
 
#47
#47
allvol123 said:
They regulate driking in terms of age. I have never seen one that regulates the amount you drink once you have proven you are old enough to drink.

Also, should the government regulate how many cheeseburgers per year an individual can consume? I bet these do more damage to a person's heart than second hand smoke does in terms of causing lung cancer.
Click to expand...

(How did I get dragged back into this one?)

Many states have public drunkenness laws, but anyhow, that's off topic.

The government does not regulate how many cigarettes you can smoke. It limits where you can smoke, because your smoking harms others. (But it does have the decency to conduct studies to inform us that smoking can lead to cancer.)

The government also doesn't regulate how many times you shoot a gun, just where you can, like, for instance, at other human beings. It's all aimed at giving people freedom to live and let live.
 
#48
#48
TennNC said:
(How did I get dragged back into this one?)

Many states have public drunkenness laws, but anyhow, that's off topic.

The government does not regulate how many cigarettes you can smoke. It limits where you can smoke, because your smoking harms others. (But it does have the decency to conduct studies to inform us that smoking can lead to cancer.)

The government also doesn't regulate how many times you shoot a gun, just where you can, like, for instance, at other human beings. It's all aimed at giving people freedom to live and let live.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think you may be wasting your time trying to get him to understand your points.
 
#49
#49
jaybird_1981 said:
Unfortunately I think you may be wasting your time trying to get him to understand your points.
Click to expand...

I know. I tend to see eye-to-eye with a lot of sports-related posts from Allvol123, but on this one we've reached the point where never the twain shall meet.
 
#50
#50
TennNC said:
(How did I get dragged back into this one?)

Many states have public drunkenness laws, but anyhow, that's off topic.

The government does not regulate how many cigarettes you can smoke. It limits where you can smoke, because your smoking harms others. (But it does have the decency to conduct studies to inform us that smoking can lead to cancer.)

The government also doesn't regulate how many times you shoot a gun, just where you can, like, for instance, at other human beings. It's all aimed at giving people freedom to live and let live.
Click to expand...

Fair points on the harming yourself as opposed to harming others. So if a child is repeatedly given the choice of eating fast food by their parents this is OK with the government? The child really has no say so in whether they have lazy or "too busy" parents. In other words, parents that don't provide enough quality meals. So the government will not protect the children from this harm, but feel it necessary to step in and mandate adults, who by the way have options, have safe non-smoking places to eat?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top