Michigan bar owner fighting smoking ban.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28163929/index.html

She makes some good points.

[Geoff]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28163929/index.html

She makes some good points.

Such as?

We've had a smoking ban in pubs for 4 years now, and despite being a smoker, I agree with it. There are arguments from ASH and the like that it's hurt trade, but most surveys show a neutral effect because of compensating increased trade from non-smokers.

If someone refuses to put out their ciggy, call the cops (and refuse to serve him any more, of course). Even if the cops do nothing about it, the fact of the call should be enough to avoid prosecution.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think that if someone wants to open up a bar that caters to smokers, they should be able to. We have cigar bars around town, and they allow smoking. What's really weird, though, is there is a cigar bar near me that serves alcohol and allows cigar smoking inside, but does not allow cigarette smoking. So, a cigarette smoker who comes to the cigar bar to have a drink with a cigar smoker has to sit there without smoking.

I don't know why one can have a cigar bar, but not a cigarette bar.

And, I really don't know why a person can't operate a local pub that either allows, or does not allow, smoking of various legal substances. Nobody is forced to patronize a particular bar, and we had smokeless bars and restaurants around before there was a complete ban. Nothing stopped anyone from going to those smokeless establishments.

[Pappa]

I think that if someone wants to open up a bar that caters to smokers, they should be able to. We have cigar bars around town, and they allow smoking. What's really weird, though, is there is a cigar bar near me that serves alcohol and allows cigar smoking inside, but does not allow cigarette smoking. So, a cigarette smoker who comes to the cigar bar to have a drink with a cigar smoker has to sit there without smoking.

I don't know why one can have a cigar bar, but not a cigarette bar.

And, I really don't know why a person can't operate a local pub that either allows, or does not allow, smoking of various legal substances. Nobody is forced to patronize a particular bar, and we had smokeless bars and restaurants around before there was a complete ban. Nothing stopped anyone from going to those smokeless establishments.

A member of staff may not have the same choice. They might have to choose between a job in a smoke filled environment and no job at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, no cigar bars, then, because the staff who apply for jobs at a cigar bar might not readily get a job somewhere else?

Staff at a parking garage have no choice but to breathe the exhaust fumes, so under that logic we ought not allow internal combustion engines in parking garages.

[Millefleur]

Smoking bans are great, instead of annoying non-smokers by smoking indoors I can bring my children inside and annoy EVERYBODY

Seriously though.. I've never had a problem with going outside to smoke. I have to do it at home anyway

[laklak]

Then let them choose. No one is forcing them to work there and they know it's a smoking bar when they apply for the job. Let them wear a respirator if they insist on working there.

We have a smoking bar here that allows both cigars and cigarettes, both inside and out. I can't go there, the smell on my clothes the next day makes me nauseous. But I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to operate, it isn't like anyone is being forced to either work or drink there.

[Coito ergo sum]

Smoking bans are great, instead of annoying non-smokers by smoking indoors I can bring my children inside and annoy EVERYBODY

Seriously though.. I've never had a problem with going outside to smoke. I have to do it at home anyway

I realize many individuals may not have a problem doing a lot of things. The question really becomes whether Joe Blow, who opens up The Corner Pub, and wants to sell drinks and smokes to local drinkers and smokers, ought not be allowed to provide them with a place to drink and smoke as part of his business.

I mean - I don't have a problem not smoking marijuana, but I am all for its legalization.

[Geoff]

I think that if someone wants to open up a bar that caters to smokers, they should be able to. We have cigar bars around town, and they allow smoking. What's really weird, though, is there is a cigar bar near me that serves alcohol and allows cigar smoking inside, but does not allow cigarette smoking. So, a cigarette smoker who comes to the cigar bar to have a drink with a cigar smoker has to sit there without smoking.

I don't know why one can have a cigar bar, but not a cigarette bar.

That is bizarre. Here, all smoking is treated the same.

And, I really don't know why a person can't operate a local pub that either allows, or does not allow, smoking of various legal substances. Nobody is forced to patronize a particular bar, and we had smokeless bars and restaurants around before there was a complete ban. Nothing stopped anyone from going to those smokeless establishments.

It's not quite the same thing, though. Non-smoking places don't really upset smokers (though they're slightly inconvenienced), whereas the opposite is certainly true.

[Thinking Aloud]

It's irrelevant as to whether someone chooses to work in a smoke-filled environment. They can still sue the employer for resultant health problems later.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think that if someone wants to open up a bar that caters to smokers, they should be able to. We have cigar bars around town, and they allow smoking. What's really weird, though, is there is a cigar bar near me that serves alcohol and allows cigar smoking inside, but does not allow cigarette smoking. So, a cigarette smoker who comes to the cigar bar to have a drink with a cigar smoker has to sit there without smoking.

I don't know why one can have a cigar bar, but not a cigarette bar.

That is bizarre. Here, all smoking is treated the same.

You don't have houka or cigar bars?

I bet houka bars are exempted due to "multicultural sensitivities..." lol

And, I really don't know why a person can't operate a local pub that either allows, or does not allow, smoking of various legal substances. Nobody is forced to patronize a particular bar, and we had smokeless bars and restaurants around before there was a complete ban. Nothing stopped anyone from going to those smokeless establishments.

It's not quite the same thing, though. Non-smoking places don't really upset smokers (though they're slightly inconvenienced), whereas the opposite is certainly true.

Sure, but since when does the fact that one is upset by something someone else does mean that that that other person can't do it?

[laklak]

It's irrelevant as to whether someone chooses to work in a smoke-filled environment. They can still sue the employer for resultant health problems later.

Then they shouldn't be allowed to sue. They knew the risks going in and chose to take them.

[Thinking Aloud]

It's irrelevant as to whether someone chooses to work in a smoke-filled environment. They can still sue the employer for resultant health problems later.

Then they shouldn't be allowed to sue. They knew the risks going in and chose to take them.

Get rid of the litigious society we live in, and I'm sure that'll be a viable proposition.

[Coito ergo sum]

Suing a bar over health effects of exposure to smoke would be a very expensive, and very low probability lawsuit.

You would need to claim that the bar caused whatever health effects you have, and that the person you're suing was negligent AND that no defense applies like contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff or "assumption of the risk." The mere allegation "I got lung cancer and worked in a place that allowed smoking" is not nearly enough to win that case. One needs to establish with competent evidence "proximate cause" of the damages.

In such a suit the defendant would be able to parse out the plaintiff's entire medical and social history - every cigarette or other thing smoked would then be offered as evidence of another "cause" of the complained illnesses. Every OTHER exposure to smoke would be explored.

The plaintiff would have to hire medical and scientific expert witnesses to testify on his or her behalf that the exposure at the bar was sufficient to cause the complained results and that ailments suffered were because of some other exposure.

I doubt there is a lawsuit anywhere, ever, where an employee sued an employer over health effects of exposure to smoking. I could be wrong, of course, and if someone has a citation to such a case, I would love to see it and I would admit that my doubts are unfounded.

[MrJonno]

Asking employees to work in unsafe environments (at least those where the employer hasnt tried to reduce the risk) may be ok in Libby hellworld but most civilized countries no longer allow it.

We even have the military in the UK sueing the government on health and safety grounds for not supply proper equipment in a war zone now