Many smokers feel that a ban on where they smoke is a personal attack on them. This is why many smokers are rude and obnoxious in public. Where a non-smoker (like me) would say "Excuse me" and other appropriate mannerisms, a smoker would yell "get out of my way!" and are usually inconsiderate bores. We are trying to help their health, and they choose to be dead in a few years and try to take some non-smokers with them.

Kari-

There's the consumer angle, the worker angle, and the business owner angle. I tend to be pretty libertarian as well, especially when it comes to small businesses. Right now, a restaurant/bar owner has the option of catering to smoking clientle, non-smoking clientele or both. There's also the impact on businesses that adjusted to Oregon's original indoor smoking ban. The Shari's restaurant chain, for instance, spent a fortune creating its gambling/smoking rooms so it could continue catering to smoking clientele...and rake it in from gambling revenues, I'm sure... What's really ironic is that there is still a secret smoking room in the state capitol, literally right below where these bills were passed (or at least there was in 05). I probably shouldn't have mentioned this, as all the smokers at the capitol may be pissed at me now...

Eric, on the contrary. I'm a smoker, and I am always very conscientious about the effect of my smoke on non smokers. In non smokers' homes, I ask permission to smoke in the yard. I do not even ask to smoke in their cars. I wait. If a non-smoking guest in my home is bothered by the smoke, I go outside. For you to make such a thoughtless generalization indicates that you are either on an anti-smoking soap box, or have your head firmly planted where the sun never shines.

Kari, all your points about smoking in bars are completely valid. As an alternative I would suggest an alternative that gives bar owners a choice about whether they prefer to cater to smokers or non-smokers. Most would probably cater to non smokers, because they are in the majority, giving non smoking employees places to work, while leaving smokers a place to go.

I agree with you Kari. This is about the rights of workers, namely their right to work in a safe environment, one that is not proven to cause cancer and other cardiopulmonary diseases. This bill extends the exisiting ban on smoking in the workplace. Now that ban will cover new category of workers. We'll still have plenty of problems to confront if this passes, but this simple move, which is already working out fine all around the country, is the right thing to do and its time has come.

TomCat: There should be no option for establishments to be smoking or non, because no job-hunter should be faced with the option of giving themselves cancer to get a job. It's an abusive labor practice to put workers in such a severely hazardous environment.

And all you guys' libertarian streaks should call up Congress and tell them to stop shielding the tobacco industry from lawsuits, so that when their products kill their consumers, their consumers' families can sue just like they would in any other such circumstance. Of course, the more sensible solution is to just outlaw products that directly kill half their consumers, but you could do it the libertarian way if you like.

Framing is a good inquiry.

Suppose six buddies partner up to open a restaurant and to perform all the work themselves. Think of them as the very same folks that now have a paradigm view of the world of work-for-another-or-no-work-at-all, except as the owners.

I already assume that the game of access to capital has been all skewed up by the retirement-savings-game to spirit all private savings away from their hands into that of publicly-traded pro-monopolists that sell overpriced "stock." (Private equities ARE publicly traded, but without certain disclosure requirements.)

If people could start their own restaurant -- my classic example to illustrate the abomination of the delegation all investment decisions of little folks into the hands of the "professionals" that have an iron grip and friends in high places -- then there might be a provision in a state ban to exempt the planned partnership-without-hired-workers from the ban.

The ban makes sense only in the context of employer versus worker, if it is not about "consumer" choice and differentiation to serve the consumer.

Think: "You mean I could continue to smoke IF I OWNED THIS FREAKIN' JOINT."

The old fashioned notion of consumer sovereignty would solve the issue of whether the partnership would voluntarily allow themselves to smoke at work or to ban smoking in their establishment.

Every national franchise that pops up is yet another lost entrepreneurial opportunity for a few locals. This is a much bigger issue from my perspective.

--pdxnag

To respond to TomCat...I am sorry if I have offended you, it is just that my experience with being nice to the majority of smokers has not been good nor have experiences interacting with them been well. I don't take kindly to being yelled or cursed at for having manners. You sound like a good person and a rare exception to the norm I have experienced.

For the rest of you - has anyone here seen that TV commercial with the dying waitress who is a non-smoker that dies from second hand smoke? She was just trying to make a good living for her kids. I think this is a good point for a ban if ever I saw one.

pdxnag: Did you know there were real-life mad hatters? Hat makers acquired mad hatter syndrome from toxic mercury vapors produced during manufacture, causing numerous physical and psychological symptoms. Because this toxic air was such a health hazard for the workers, it was banned from the workplace in 1943.

Do you think that a group of people should be able to get together to form a hat-making business, and get an exemption from the mercury ban regardless of the fact that hat manufacture does not require mercury?

Also, back to your example directly, what if one member of the group is not so keen on destroying their health but either doesn't want to object to their partners' business plan or is overruled by their partners?

I overall agree with you, but without solid statistics, your above statements seem a little sexist. Just something to consider revising or clarifying.

As a woman, I appreciate that both Kari and leinad are trying to be non-sexist here. But as a mother (gainfully employed, thank goodness) I appreciate Kari's telling it like it is. It is TRUE that women often turn to these crappy jobs out of necessity and desperation. I'd work in a bar/run the ferris wheel/hawk things on eBay if I had hungry kids to think about. Kari's first comment is fair, if unfortunate, IMO.

To extend on b!X's point a little, where do we draw the line? The bill exempts cigar shops, but wouldn't the logic that we should "protect" employees apply here as well? James X. clearly thinks it does, as he would just ban tobacco altogether. (BTW, James, would you also ban alcohol, driving, fatty foods, skydiving, mountain climbing, and every other activity that may result in death?)

I think Kari is generally right about this bill, because absent government regulation it's pretty clear that most bars will continue to allow smoking. But I also think that private businesses, such as cigar shops, should be able to specifically cater to smokers both as customers and employees. So maybe this law gets it right. I guess now we just have to protect it from the James's of the world.

The Pioneer Square ban has nothing to do with public health. No anti-smoking parties were pressing for it, nor did any issue a press release hailing it. Its only purpose was to give cops something to cite street kids on.

While I do believe that products that directly kill half their consumers should be outlawed, or at least subject to product liability lawsuits, I don't think banning smoking from open-air spaces makes much sense. There's little if any data to suggest that smoking in open-air spaces causes harm to those nearby. In that instance, the only harm is to the smoker and to all the taxpayers and health insurance policy holders who will have to pay the consequences for the smoker's actions.

And of course, also harmed are the loved ones who will watch the smoker die, but I generally eschew emotional arguments in public policy debates.

Miles: I expected this argument eventually. "But anything can cause harm!" None of the products you cited directly kills half of its consumers, save perhaps for fatty food. But in the case of fatty food, there is a nutritional value to fat that helps the body in moderation.

Even if you think banning a product that directly kills half its consumers is heavy-handed, how do you defend a special exemption for that product from product liability?

Also, Miles, do you think all consumer safety laws are too nanny-state? Should milk laced with arsenic be allowed for sale? What if the milk only contains a small amount of arsenic that merely kills half its consumers over a long period of time?

Kari: My argument is not to ban the activity of smoking, or to partially ban the activity based on the location of the activity. I think a product that is accurately described as a cancer stick simply should not be on the market. It is ridiculous that it is. The only thing keeping it on the market is the enormous contributions from tobacco industries to politicians. Whether it should be taken off the market by the government for its fantastically egregious consumer safety violations, or whether it should be taken off the market by its manufacturers for the insane amount of product liability that these companies are currently shielded from, I guess I don't care too much, though I think the former is the more sensible option.

To be fair, lestadelc, Miles didn't use that phrase himself; mine were ironic quotes, not speech quotes.

Eric, For a response to a post title "not about smokers vs. nonsmokers" you seem to have missed Kari's thoughtful points entirely and engaged in some personal venting on the issue. Some of the other folks commenting here seem to be doing the same and engaging in baiting and one-upsmanship. But you got my goat and i had to respond because i am tired of hearing about rude smokers.

Also, I doubt you are actually as polite as you believe you are - from your post you clearly have some internal passive aggressive, or just plain agressive issues that probably come across to the people you speak to. I am also a considerate smoker who follows the same etiquette described above, as are a vast majority of the smokers I know.

I suppose when you add alcohol into the mix such as at bars, some people become surly as you indicate. I have noticed this behavior change whether they are smoking or not.

Personally I think that the general rule (law) should prohibit indoor smoking (even as a smoker, places that have it are generally nasty) and that should include eateries and bars. However I also think that businesses that really want to cater to smokers should be allowed to purchase exemptions from the government at fairly high fees and those monies can go to education and to offset the public money needed to deal with the health issues.

Bans on outdoor smoking in non confined areas are ridiculous in my mind for the reasons others have stated above.

"The Pioneer Square ban has nothing to do with public health. No anti-smoking parties were pressing for it, nor did any issue a press release hailing it. Its only purpose was to give cops something to cite street kids on." James X

Banning smoking from Pioneer Square is one of the best things that has happened for that public space in years. Concerning the health issue, the secondary smoke that people are subjected to in such places isn't the same as being in a small confined room with smokers, but prior to the smoking ban at Pioneer Square, there was definitely an exposure on the part of non-smokers to toxic cigarette smoke that was often difficult to avoid.

Smoke travels with air currents. Whether you're 5', 10', 20', 50' and sometimes more, from smokers in a 200 sq ft area such as Pioneer Square, large areas of this public space were effectively, if perhaps unintentionaly, staked out by smokers and their drifting smoke.

Non-smokers mostly get tired of having to tell smokers of the obvious affect of their pastime on others trying to use the public space, so they just try to move away. This doesn't seem fair to me. I would never have imagined before it was announced, that smoking could be prohibitied from the square, but what a relief now that it's gone.

Funny about the street kids. Where did they move to, now that they're prohibited from smoking at the square? All the way from the park benches at the square, which they've dominated for years, across the street to the sidewalk by Nordstrom's or Marguilis Jewelers. This kind of harrassment has got to be just be killing them. How will they ever hold up under such a strain?

"The Pioneer Square ban has nothing to do with public health. No anti-smoking parties were pressing for it, nor did any issue a press release hailing it. Its only purpose was to give cops something to cite street kids on." James X

Banning smoking from Pioneer Square is one of the best things that has happened for that public space in years. Concerning the health issue, the secondary smoke that people are subjected to in such places isn't the same as being in a small confined room with smokers, but prior to the smoking ban at Pioneer Square, there was definitely an exposure on the part of non-smokers to toxic cigarette smoke that was often difficult to avoid.

Smoke travels with air currents. Whether you're 5', 10', 20', 50' and sometimes more, from smokers in a 200 sq ft area such as Pioneer Square, large areas of this public space were effectively, if perhaps unintentionaly, staked out by smokers and their drifting smoke.

Non-smokers mostly get tired of having to tell smokers of the obvious affect of their pastime on others trying to use the public space, so they just try to move away. This doesn't seem fair to me. I would never have imagined before it was announced, that smoking could be prohibitied from the square, but what a relief now that it's gone.

Funny about the street kids. Where did they move to, now that they're prohibited from smoking at the square? All the way from the park benches at the square, which they've dominated for years, across the street to the sidewalk by Nordstrom's or Marguilis Jewelers. This kind of harrassment has got to be just killing them. How will they ever hold up under such a strain?

i'm fairly convinced that my sister's job in a bar while she was pregnant was responsible for my nephew's arrival two months early, with really bad health problems. i can hear the republican scolds now: well she should have quit! what's a woman doing with a job anyway!

she had to eat, dudes, and you sure wouldn't want her on food stamps, now would you?

This whole thing is a bit silly, in my opinion. If it's about worker and/or public health, then we should first be spending our time, energy, and money getting some universal health care in place.

ps. I think the 'X' in 'James X' stands for 'eX smoker', based on his comments.

Seriously...this is all well and good, but at some point folks are gonna have to face up to the overwhelming societal costs caused by smoking.

Thats why Oregon needs to strike while the iron is hot and ban the whole thing. No tobacco at all in the state of Oregon.

Anything less is just plain kowtowing to the tobacco lobby.

"Seriously...this is all well and good, but at some point folks are gonna have to face up to the overwhelming societal costs caused by smoking.

Thats why Oregon needs to strike while the iron is hot and ban the whole thing. No tobacco at all in the state of Oregon.

Anything less is just plain kowtowing to the tobacco lobby."

I can see it now, medical tobacco cards, special dispensaries placed 500 yards from school yards. Jails filling up with tobacco offenders. Gangs of Portlanders mobbing the bridges to take smoke breaks in Washington...

You know what, I don't drink alcohol. The social costs of alcohol are pretty high too. Let's ban alcohol in Oregon while we're at it. The last person to leave the state, please turn the lights off...

I used to think that the worker health issue about smoking was overstated, since most bartenders and other bar employees smoke. In what other business can they smoke on the job? (Way back in a bygone era, I worked in a small town newspaper office and could smoke all day long and drink in the afternoon.)

Recently, however, I have been dropping by a place called Roadside Attraction on SE 12th. It's no smoking indoors. All of the staff members smoke, but they say they appreciate working in the smoke-free environment because they feel a lot healthier and cleaner when they go home.

There is a strong business argument for banning smoking in bars. While more bars are now non-smoking, the majority continue to allow smoking. They won't change voluntarily because they are afraid of losing a substantial percentage of their regular customers to another bar. But if smoking were prohibited inside all bars, this would not be a problem. And, of course, these bars would pick up new business from people like me who would prefer to have a drink in a non-smoking environment.

"You know what, I don't drink alcohol. The social costs of alcohol are pretty high too. Let's ban alcohol in Oregon while we're at it. The last person to leave the state, please turn the lights off..."

I actually do smoke.

I don't have any problem with banning smoking. It isn't a civil right, unfortunately. Its a chemical addiction.

What I do have a problem with is the creep we see on this issue. Its not that radical an idea to ban a destructive behaviour. We see it all the time. Lawn darts. GHB. Seat belt-free driving. If its THAT much of a problem--more serious than, say, lawn darts, it should meet the same fate. If its really NOT more serious than steel bits coming to earth ala Newton, then we really ought not worry about it so much.

sigh.

Logic is a cruel Mistress. Fortunately for the inner satirist in all of us, most folks don't have a problem keeping their pants zipped.

Oh, I can hear it now...the cries of the tobacco lobby in Salem. Not the death merchants themselves, but their proxies, "Its a legal drug!" So was GHB. Before it wasn't. Lawn darts were quite legal, before they weren't. Cocaine was sold all over the place, until it wasn't.

No, folks...we are addicted to the cash that cigs provide. Nothing more nothing less. Take that away, and you will hear the cries of Ginny Burdick (that spineless weasel on this as well as other issues.) How will they fund their latest pet pork project?

Spineless weasels, I tell ya.

Oh, and before you think I am nuts...I did a simple test:

I asked my 9 year old the following questions: "if a product kills 10 kids a year, should it be banned?" she said yes. "If a product kills 400000 people a year, should it be banned?" she said yes, it should definitely be banned.

This is simple logic, and it works across the board.

Me? I am gonna wait for lawn darts to return. They are apparently not as dangerous as we think, and they aren't taxed, so they will be cheap. Great way to work of those withdrawal symptoms.

I need a cigarette.

I don't know if JJ is advocating criminalizing smoking, which I don't. I do think that tobacco companies should be accountable for their product, which Congress gives them a special exemption from. They don't even have to list ingredients on their label. It's just a box of mystery poison. Included are arsenic, cadmium, ammonia, and lead, but they don't have to tell you that.

By the way, although I've never smoked anything, I would be fine with legalizing marijuana similarly to alcohol, where, you know, you can't just inject poison into it, or secretly increase the toxicity, or perpetrate any other such consumer fraud. At least marijuana doesn't bankrupt society's health systems with rampant chronic and terminal disease.

I guess I should clarify: I don't want to ban smoking, I want to ban highly lethal consumer products. That is, don't outlaw the consumer, outlaw the product. When I say, "hold tobacco companies accountable for their product," I believe the sane option would be to take products that kill more people than The Black Death off the market, though holding manufacturers accountable legally would probably be just as effective.

"I actually do smoke.

I don't have any problem with banning smoking. It isn't a civil right, unfortunately. Its a chemical addiction."

Well, I smoke too. And I have absolutely no problem with banning the practice of smoking in bars or other workplaces. Hell, I don't even smoke inside my house, I go out on the deck. But banning the sale of tobacco? Tobacco use is an addiction, and history demonstrates pretty vividly that criminalizing addiction doesn't work. Regulate the hell out of it, sure, but unless you're a part owner of a black market tobacco cartel or interested in becoming the tobacco czar of a new governmental superagency in charge of the war on tobacco, there isn't much of an upside to a total ban on sales.

I wish Americans were as passionate about the choice to smaoke as the choice to have an abortion. Both are, after all, legal (with restrictions)...

Kari: I'm totally in favor of this bill.

Ron: I don't want to criminalize addiction. I don't even like how we handle hard drug use. I just think homicidal consumer products are bad and should not be sold. The nicotine itself isn't any worse than caffeine, so it's not the addictive drug I have a problem with. It's that tobacco companies add an addictive drug to their killing devices to ensure you never stop using them that I have a problem with.

"The nicotine itself isn't any worse than caffeine,..." James X

James, where did you hear that? I don't have a lot of facts right on hand, but I seem to recall hearing that nicotine in the form of chewing tobacco can give people cancer. Nicotine is an herbal that can be used for medicinal purposes, but you can also make a nice little poison out of it, or so I've heard that this is something people in prison occasionaly do to get rid of somebody. I've never heard of people getting cancer from caffeine or killing a cellmate with it.

The big cigarette companies continue to add chemicals and spike the nicotine content of their products with the states' blessings. The states had the opportunity during the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement to tell the tobacco companies they could not sell the cigarettes as currently manufactured and could have insisted on only pure tobacco with no chemicals or additives. Anyone remember the long list of additives and chemical stew the states were crying over? Not one state told one cigarette company to stop doing what they were doing, so the beat goes on.

Maybe the states were to afraid people could/would quit smokingwithout the extra hooks in the cigarettes and they would lose tax revenue. The states sure don't do anything to help smokers quit, they have a vested interest in smokers continuing to smoke so they can continue to punish them with ever increasing taxes.

Politicians and cigrette company executives both stink!

ws: You're right, it looks like I was duped by tobacco industry FUD.

Dear Representative,

The bars of Oregon and their patrons deeply don't want a smoking ban! The life risks from environmental tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants would have to be both very large and established beyond a reasonable doubt to justify such a threat to business and criminalization of adult citizens using a legal product on private property. The following evidence strongly argues that tobacco smoke in any Oregon bar is merely a foreseeable nuisance and irritant that can be almost entirely eliminated through ventilation and filtration:

The longest-running and highest-quality secondhand smoke study ever done, completed too late (2003) to be included in Surgeon General Carmona's report, found no link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or heart disease. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

A study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that restaurant ventilation/filtration systems can make the air of a nonsmoking section of a smoking restaurant as clean as the air of smoke-free restaurant. http://www.data-yard.net/2/21/rtp.pdf

Another Oak Ridge National Laboratory study of tavern workers in 16 major cities found that the tobacco smoke exposure of bar and restaurant workers to be minimal. No bartender was found to breathe more than the equivalent of a single cigarette per 40 hour work week. The average bartender breathed .1 of a cigarette per 40 hour week. http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00

A huge recent study of heart attack rates in California and New York has proven that smoking bans do not lead to a reduction in heart attack rates: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-study-casts-doubt-on-claim-that.html

In an estimate of health benefits of the New York City smoking ban, American Counsel on Science and Health President, Elizabeth M. Whelan Sc. D., M.P.H., admits that "There is no evidence that any New Yorker - patron or employee - has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Whelan further states that "The link between secondhand smoke and premature death, however, is a real stretch." http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp

Surgeon General Carmona's report and press statements have come under severe criticism from respected public health authorities even within the antismoking movement. The Surgeon General's contention that there in no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke is especially disputed. The Surgeon General's report needs much more analysis and scrutiny before it can become the proper basis for law. It is important to remember that the EPA Report which declared secondhand smoke to be a human carcinogen was subject to years of scrutiny by scientists and epidemiologists before being vacated as a fraud by a federal judge four years after its release. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communicati ons.html http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

After analyzing the EPA Report linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer, the Congressional Research Service concluded that: "The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS." http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

The refusal of OSHA, the government agency charged with the protection of worker health, to ban workplace smoking, calls into question the danger of tobacco smoke exposure in a bar or restaurant. OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result. OSHA explains that under normal workplace circumstances, secondhand smoke "exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)" http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

If the maximum tobacco smoke exposure for any bartender is 1 cigarette per 40 hour work week, the ordinary exposure only a tenth of that, and the exposure of any patron only a tiny fraction of that tenth, is a public health intervention as severe as a smoking ban justified? If OSHA does not deem environmental tobacco smoke a workplace health risk worth regulating, and the death of any Oregon citizen due to bar or restaurant smoke is questionable, why restrict the freedoms of Oregon citizens and the private property rights of Oregon business owners with a smoking ban? A recent study showed that even with a "level playing field", smoking bans reduced the business of bars by 20 percent. There is no compelling public health reason to add Oregon bars to the long list of bars across the country that have been injured or killed by such bans: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11825 http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html http://www.pubcoalition.com/economic%20impact%20head 20page.html

Please allow Oregon citizens over 21 to make and live by their own free lifestyle and employment choices. Please vote down any smoking ban on Oregon bars.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Dear Representative,

I want to warn you that smoking bans are being found to have an unforeseen effect! Researchers with the University College London have extensively studied American bar and restaurant smoking bans. These researchers are now cautioning lawmakers that such bans cause non-smokers, especially young children, to involuntarily breathe more secondhand smoke! Apparently when smokers can’t smoke around other adults in well-ventilated bars and restaurants, they smoke in their poorly ventilated homes around children and elderly relatives instead. These researchers concluded:

“We find that bans in recreational public places can perversely increase tobacco exposure of non-smokers by displacing smokers to private places where they contaminate non-smokers, in particular young children.”

What good is a smoking ban if it causes Oregon children to breathe more secondhand smoke? Please judge legislation not by its good intentions but by its effects in the real world. Please review this evidence before voting on a Oregon smoking ban.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=341192007 http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3523 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1670005,00.html http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/CP/Our_Society_Today/News_Articles_2006/smoking_ban.aspx?ComponentId=14248&SourcePageId=13438 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban

                            Sincerely,

                            Bill Hannegan

I worked for TOFCO for a few years through M+R on building the case for the current proposed smoking ban in all Oregon workplaces. My job was primarily to recruit bar owners and staff to bring their real life story to the often abstract debate. What we found is that most owners and managers support a ban on smoking even if they themselves would not go smokefree on their own. The belief that they would lose business was much stronger than the reality that they would not. Most owners and managers I spoke with said they preferred this issue be legislated so they could shift the blame from themselves to the state and most importantly so that all businesses would be operating on an even playing field. We heard that point over and over again.

This is absolutely a workers rights issue, and the best way to solve it is through legislation. The market has proven that it won't work this one out on its own.

A universal ban on smoking in bars and other adults only recreational place is bad public health policy since it does not reduce the secondhand smoke exposure of nonsmokers and raises the smoke exposure of young children.

A bar smoking ban will cause a substantial reduction in bar employment even with a level playing field. I find it hard to believe small bar owners would want such a restriction.

Hi all. It looks like I got in here kinda late. I was reading the article, and some of the comments and I just wanted to comment on a few things. I disagree with most of you but I have always felt that you can learn from those who you disagree with as long as you keep your mind open.

So yes, I want to post a few replies. And for some, I might offer a link instead, to keep the post from being any longer than necissary. (Unless noted otherwise, the link will go to MY POST on another site, so just treat it as my words when offering rebuttal...)

And if anybody has any rebuttal, please do so. I don't mind scrutiny in the least. I kinda like it. Because if I do happen to be wrong (which has happened before) I would rather know it than not know it. I have been communicating some of this stuff with "people in charge", and if I happened to be wrong about something, I'd rather find out from you guys than from the Governor of (fill in the state). So yes, if I am wrong, PLZ DO SHOW ME!

And needless to say, if I am incorrect I will promptly admit it, thank the one(s) who showed me such, and then change. Nor would I resent it. The only thing I don't like is when CHILDREN flame and make insults. * That's worthless on any serious discussion. (It only looks bad on the one who did such.) But you all seem pretty mature. So I think that should be a problem here...

Anyway like I said, this is my side of the story, coming from somebody Pro-Choice (NOT Pro- Smoking, BTW, Pro-choice.) Anything you dispute, please do quote it and offer any rebuttal.

• "OneWhoKnows" is me on that site. "geneb5" is the user whom I was replying to. (Who has another screen-name I discovered by doing a search... but that's a different story...) The link goes strait to the post to which I was referring, me replying to quotes from "geneb5".

<hr>

I'm going to start with the article, then move on to some of the users' comments...

"From the point of view of a smoking consumer, it's easy to argue, "It's my right to smoke wherever I want!""

If somebody really does think that, I would have a problem with that. But I don't think that 99.9% really want to do it "whenever and wherever they want". All they want is places where they can. And the REASON I have no problem with it is BECAUSE anybody who doesn't want to be around it doesn't have to go to that place. (Otherwise I would probably lean more towards the Anti-Smokers on that.)

Another thing, if it were Government Buildings or anything like that, I would have a problem with that. If it can be proven that any Anti-Smoker MUST be there (and can't choose another place to eat, work, etc.) then I've got to side with the Anti-Smokers on that. Banks are another good example. If somebody gets a check and has no bank account, the only way for them to cash that check without a fee, is to go to THAT BANK. Therefore I find it appropriate to prohibit and/or restrict smoking indoors at such a place.

Because as much as I believe in Smoker's Rights, I also believe in Anti-Smoker's Rights just as much. It's all about being real and doing what's right for EVERYBODY. Everybody on BOTH SIDES of ANY ISSUE (and everywhere inbetween), indifferent of how I personally feel about the issue or any aspect thereof.

And one more thing: <font size="4"> SIGNAGE! </font> It pleases EVERYBODY! I would like you all to take a look at this and tell me what you think. Would you all find that acceptable??? If not, please explain in detail why not, please.

"A full-time bar employee will spend some 35-40 hours a week in the bar....."

It becomes a question of Ventilation. Also this: If I don't want to work around chemicals I won't apply at Dow and if I don't want to work around ETS I won't apply at a place which allows smoking. (I also like the way another poster put it above, about radiation and cops and all that...) But yeah, that's where it's at.

"But for high-school dropouts, especially middle-aged women with minimal skills, there are very few jobs out there that pay a living wage....."

But there are more places that don't allow smoking than ones that do. Are there not? I'm almost positive anybody could find one that doesn't. Nonetheless, THEY and ONLY THEY, make the choice to accept that job (or even apply there in the first place).

"Right now, we're asking them to trade their health for a living wage."

ETS is harmless to humans, including children and fetuses. Anybody who says otherwise, please address my 2 questions about the 1993 EPA Study where ALL such statements are derived, to this day. Anybody who has not seen that comment, please inform me and I will post it and/or link to it. (And that is STRICTLY about ETS. Smoking is harmful but ETS is harmless.)

However if somebody has certain VERY RARE conditions (and I don't mean like Asthma, I mean serious conditions), then it DOES affect THEM. It also affect some people Psychologically. And there are also people who just don't like it. (And they DO HAVE THAT RIGHT to just not like it!!!) Nonetheless, in any of those cases, THEY would be the one with the responsibility of staying out of the places that allow it. Including, without limitation, not Applying for Employment at such a place.

Is that not fair to everybody?

Now some of the users' comments that weren't covered in the article...

"Where a non-smoker (like me) would say "Excuse me" ... a smoker would yell "get out of my way!" ... We are trying to help their health, and they choose to be dead in a few years and try to take some non-smokers with them." -Eric J.

Please explain further. (I'm not sure I follow...) Are you saying that you go up to people who are smoking (in a place where it is allowed) and start "preaching" to them? If so, I'm gonna have to find for them in that case. I'm sorry it's just not your place to do that. (Nor mine, nor the Government's, nor anybody else's.) That would be a clear case of Harrassment.

Like I said, if I'm off-base please inform me but that was what it looked like you meant by that. If you meant people smoking on a sidewalk or something where you are, I'm gonna be replying to something in just a moment, about that...

"Most would probably cater to non smokers, because they are in the majority....." - TomCat

Yes but most of the Non-Smokers are not Anti-Smokers. Anti-Smokers are in the EXTREME MINORITY, they've just got lots of money from the likes of RWJF (a.k.a. Johnson & Johnson) and the ACS... (That's a long story for another time...)

Although you do still have a point about that, because due to the fact that it wouldn't affect them directly, they would be less likely to have a problem with it and not go there on that basis.

"Yeah, but that's already the law. Bar owners CAN choose to go non-smoking, but many don't - because they fear losing customers to smoking bars..." - Kari Chisholm

Exactly. Some places cater to Smokers while some cater to Anti-Smokers. (Which, BTW is the Technically Correct way to put that. Because a Non-Smoker, for the most part, does not care either way... Of course I know I'm splitting hairs with that...)

Then everybody has the right to choose. Is that not fair for EVERYBODY?

Another thing: Employee Notification? What's your take on that? Each said Employee must sign a document stating that they are aware that smoking is allowed and therefore the possibility of ETS Exposure...

And then yes, they must make a CHOICE.

If that REALLY is not the best, fairest, and most justified way to do it, please do explain why not.

"some Libertarian/Laissez-faire jack-off will just rant about "waitresses can choose to get another job". The same non-think that during the gilded age rationalized child-labor, no work safety regulations, etc. After all, people complaining about sweatshop work conditions can just "find another job"." - lestatdelc

Safety Regulations, Child Labor, and those things are different, as I will explain later. (Another time...)

QUESTION: WHY can the waitresses NOT choose to get another job? (Or alternately, why is that not appropriate?)

"...it's our society that's sexist - not me... The reality is that 20-30 years ago (and to some extent today), many physical-labor jobs weren't available to undereducated women..." - Kari Chisholm

Very, very true! Well, it's not as common today as it was then but yes, unfortunately you've still got Hate Groups causing problems!!! * I have lately been trying to EDUCATE more people that this sort of thing REALLY DOES STILL GO ON! Anybody who is not White, Christian, American and Male, they want to CONTROL. Because they are insecure about themselfs.

And God-forbid, if that person happens to be Homosexual, Athiest, Jewish, or anything else they find "unacceptable". Like I said, they aren't exactly the most tolerant people. ;)

(This is all a little off the topic, but since it was mentioned, I decided to mention it. This is another topic I like to discuss...)

• See THIS and THIS for more information about what the KKK (the Hate Group to which I was referring) has been upto lately. INCLUDING POLLING CORRUPTION! (They've stuffed Ballot Boxes in at least 3 states, that I know of so far! The second link contains info about that...) Which is much of the reason that many things like that still go on...

(Oh, and both of those go strait to my posts, but I should still point out I am "2informU" on Topix and "AwesomeDude" on GreenvilleOnline.)

"This is about the rights of workers, namely their right to work in a safe environment, one that is not proven to cause cancer and other cardiopulmonary diseases." - Warren Fish

QUESTION: If that's really true why doesn't OSHA regulate ETS?

"There should be no option for establishments to be smoking or non, because no job- hunter should be faced with the option of giving themselves cancer to get a job." - James X.

(Without addressing whether ETS is really harmful or not, only that some people don't like it and there are SOME who ARE affected by it...)

Are there not more places that do than don't? I thought there were...

"And all you guys' libertarian streaks should call up Congress and tell them to stop shielding the tobacco industry from lawsuits, so that when their products kill their consumers, their consumers' families can sue just like they would in any other such circumstance." - James X.

Tobacco is not the reason those illness happen. The reason is that certain entities have not done what they are supposed to and have the Cures and Vaccines for them found, when they have had more than enough time (and money) to have that done by now. Read this for a more detailed explaination of what I mean.

And BTW, I'm still trying to round up victims to see if I can take action against the ACS, AHA, ALA, etc. (More about that can also be read at that link.Also see this for more about that.) Because yes, THEY are supposed to have it done. And if they can't, there are people who could take what they've got and get it done for everybody. (Such as myself, strictly for example.) So there's really no excuse for them not doing so, long since...

And don't get me wrong, I don't like the Tobacco Industry either. And I could name you endless reasons why not..... But still, IN THIS CASE, they are NOT GUILTY. (I could name plenty of things they ARE GUILTY of, but not this time.)

Yes, I'm very impartial and very good at looking at everything objectively and asking who is right or wrong in this case, then a seperate question for the next case... And never ever letting "personal feelings" get in the way of it. (That would be Favoritism! And I detest that.)

"Do you think that a group of people should be able to get together to form a hat- making business, and get an exemption from the mercury ban regardless of the fact that hat manufacture does not require mercury?" - James X.

Very good question! The answer is basically the same as the Foodservice Inspection question I see on many boards: IF the Owners, Employees, and Customers all KNOW that it is going on, and they CHOOSE to participate, THEN yes let them. At that point it becomes a matter of CHOICE.

The Government is NEVER EVER supposed to protect anybody from themself. (That's just not how this country was set up!) It is to protect people from the UNKNOWN.

Once again I'm going to mention my Signage idea. What do you think about that? Is that not fair to EVERYBODY?

"what if one member of the group is not so keen on destroying their health but either doesn't want to object to their partners' business plan or is overruled by their partners?" - James X.

They have a decision to make. (Without addressing ETS being harmless, please see above my comment about the 1993 EPA Study.)

"I've said from the beginning of the latest run at a smoking ban that workplace health and safety was the only legitimate point from the standpoint of considering public policy." - b!X

First of all, that would imply that ETS is harmful. If you say ETS is harmful, please address my comment about the 1993 EPA Study. (I think I'm right but if I am wrong about this I do desire to learn, preferrably now rather than later...)

Then, even if we were to assume that it is, that still leaves the question of if you KNOW it is, and you CHOOSE to eat there, work there, etc., then who's fault is that?

I don't believe there are very many cases where there are no other options. HOWEVER, if that should ever be the case, read this post (by me) which tells you EXACTLY how to go about it. It's kinda long, because it's very detailed. And it is a little disorganized. (I was just kinda freehanding it, of course, in response to another poster...) Anyway, many people DON'T KNOW there are (and then we find them tons and they are happy) but there usually plenty.

If there is a market that is not being filled, SOMEBODY will cash in on it. (I had planned to once until I discovered they were incorrect and there were PLENTY... I think there's something about that on one of those threads...) Yes, that's Business 101. Build it, they will come! :)

"...where do we draw the line?" - Miles

Very simple. When one person's actions affect another in a way that they did not consent to, whether explicitly or implicitely (i.e. entering or working at a place that allows smoking) then they are over the line.

As for sidewalks and stuff, for the most part those types of bans are wrong also because it is outdoors and very unlikely to be any serious problem for any Anti-Smoker, as long as both parties are at least 10 ~ 25 feet from each other. (Whoever came along latest should move, although I feel that it is usually, in most cases, appropriate (ok) to ask the smoker to move, UNLESS they were smoking when you got there.)

"...taxpayers and health insurance policy holders who will have to pay the consequences for the smoker's actions." - John X.

Another good point to raise! Basically there are 2 entities responsible for such Healthcare Costs.

1.) Medical Research (including, without limitation, the ACS, AHA, ALA, RWJF, etc., etc., etc., also many Governmental Agencies) They are SUPPOSED TO be making it BOTH EASIER AND CHEAPER (not to mention QUICKER) to fix ANY MEDICAL CONDITION, not to mention have VACCINES for it FOUND, long since!

2.) The Federal Government is supposed to be doing things like dissolving Monopolies (i.e. most Healthcare Companies, and the subsidaries of such and the companies they do business with... etc.) Not to mention things like controlling Inflation and things like that.

And there is simply no excuse for any of it not getting done. If ANY of the afformentioned cannot (or WILL not) do what they should, there are people who can. (Such as myself, strictly for example.) So there's no excuse for THEM not getting the job done.

Nonetheless, THAT is who to put the blame on.

"...how do you defend a special exemption for that product from product liability?" - James X.

I kinda agree, to a point...

The only thing is, like I said before, the Tobacco Industry is not who to put the blame on, nor are the people who choose to use the product. The people who are supposed to HAVE CURES AND VACCINES are who to put the blame on, in that case. Other than that, I kinda agree with that. (And of course I don't like the Tobacco Industry very much either, like I said before...)

"The only thing keeping [tobacco] on the market is the enormous contributions from tobacco industries to politicians." - James X.

That undoubtedly goes on, but I think the reason more along the lines of the fact that PEOPLE CHOOSE to use it. Not to mention that lately more and more people are learning that the ACS, RWJF (ETAL) are the REAL CULPRIT. (Mostly due to my postings all over the Internet.) Which is probably one of the reasons why so many Smoking Bans are getting overturned in recent months, and fewer passing.....

Nonetheless that was a good point to raise!

"It used to drive me crazy when I'd need to go into the Gresham Office Max and their employees would be right in front of the door smoking." - Jenni Simonis

I think keeping it a certain distance from the door is typically good. I'm still trying to decided between 10' and 25'. What do yall think? (BTW, I know the ACS says like 50' but I say that's stupid, LOL!!! Sorry no offense to any ACS-supporters but I sure don't, although my assessment of THIS is indifferent of my feelings about the ACS.) Anyway yeah, I'm not really sure. I had been saying 25' but lately I've been reading 10' often, with reasoning which makes sense...

Anyway whichever one, keeping it a certain distance from the door is probably good.

The only thing is, I think that should be done by the management of the place, not required by the Government. Although I could see requiring that they post any policy they adopt, so that everybody knows the rules.

"The smoking ban will probably help me quit smoking, by helping me avoid the 'smoke when I drink' problem," - Rachael Vorberg-Rugh

I know I'm splitting hairs on this one, but if a person wants to quit smoking, that is something THEY should do for themself. You see what I'm saying? Because not everybody WANTS to. Nor should they be railroaded or pressured into doing so, or having to choose between that and inconvenience.

If a person desires a such place to work or patronize, there are PLENTY to choose from. And is there anybody who really does not think that is fair enough? Please do explain it to me.

"...businesses that really want to cater to smokers should be allowed to purchase exemptions from the government at fairly high fees..." - smoker

That might be A LITTLE BETTER but no, that isn't a real solution. As I described previously, the only way (that I'm aware of) that is RIGHT and FAIR to EVERYBODY (on BOTH SIDES) is my Signage idea.

Anybody who didn't already read that, please do so. If it is not 100% PERFECT FOR EVERYBODY (except MEDDLERS and SELFISH) then PLZ show me SPECIFICALLY WHY NOT!

I am in the process of communicating that idea to certain "people in charge", and if I'm wrong I would rather hear it from somebody on a Internet Forum than from somebody like the Governor of (whichever state). So yes, like I said, if I'm wrong, please do inform me!

"While more bars are now non-smoking, the majority continue to allow smoking....." - Gil Johnson

If many are, that seems fair enough, is it not? Yes some will continue to allow it. And I see nothing wrong with that. (See above...) So that sounds perfect, does it not?

"[smoking] isn't a civil right, unfortunately. Its a chemical addiction." - JJ Ark

I'm not denying that Nicotine is addictive, however, the act itsself is a CHOICE that some people choose to do.

Rights? I just posted this question on another site and still haven't gotten the answer, so I'm gonna try again here. :)

Where do rights come from?

"I wish Americans were as passionate about the choice to smaoke as the choice to have an abortion. Both are, after all, legal (with restrictions)..." - j_luthergoober

Another topic I love to discuss!!! :D (And yes, I am Pro-Choice on that issue also...)

http://forums.greenvilleonline.com/viewtopic.php?p=32774#32774

http://forums.greenvilleonline.com/viewtopic.php?p=32945#32945

("AwesomeDude" is me. It goes strait to my posts...)

"The big cigarette companies continue to add chemicals and spike the nicotine content of their products with the states' blessings." - Jan

Yes, the Tobacco Industry is about as lame as they come! I could go on and on about them, and the things they've done... I'll just point out that they've made deliberate effort to get people (including children) to use the products, who didn't already. That and the MSA. And along with what you said, I'll just leave it at that.

Anyway yes, while I don't like the Anti-Tobacco Industry very much either, that sure does not mean that the Tobacco Industry is decent!!! Like I said, they are about as lame as they come. And you are correct!!!

Anyway I'll do some more later. Sorry if I left anybody off or anything. I was trying to get the best comments that raised something NEW each time (that hadn't already been addressed.....) And I didn't do the "personal experience" ones, because I thought it possible that somebody might see it as a "personal attack", so I didn't. (If anybody asks, I will next time...)

Anyway yeah, there's my piece on this. What do you think? What do yall have to say? I don't mind scrutiny and if I am incorrect I do desire to learn. I will promptly admit it, thank the person(s) who showed me, and then promptly change. (As I always have done and always will do when somebody proves me wrong, or I discover I was wrong.)

Anyway TXH for reading! I guess I'll await your replies...

So tired of bold. But really enjoying the discussion. I am learning. Thanks to all who have made an effort to keep it from becoming just a bunch of angry name-calling.

Here here, Kari!!

Furthermore, If profitability is really an issue, I would say that non-smoking bar employees might have great cases for workers' compensation claims. Hmmm... that might affect their employers' bottom lines?

Again, if ALL bars were non-smoking, it would level the playing field and certainly be more enjoyable for us non-smokers to patronize. I know I avoid bars if smoking is allowed. There are many others like me. So one could make the argument that profits may go up with the smoking ban in place, because it would bring around more customers!