Michigan bar owner fighting smoking ban.

[Pappa]

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.

That was the reasoning when the ban was introduced here. I expect most people would regard cars as more essential than cigars.

[laklak]

Working in a smoking bar is a different situation. Bottom line is they do not have to work there, and if they do then they are consciously accepting the health risks. They should have to sign a waiver of some sort before taking the job. A more logical comparison would be a soldier suing the government because he got wounded in battle. Wounds (or death) are a known risk for soldiers, they understand this when they sign on.

The government has an obligation to provide them with the equipment necessary to fulfill their duties, if they do not do so then they are negligent. Soldiers have no choice but to follow orders, once they sign on they're stuck. This isn't the case in private employment, you have a right to quit any time you choose. You can walk out without giving any notice. So the comparison isn't valid.

[Pappa]

I don't really think most smokers care about having to go outside in the UK. All pubs have nice covered beer gardens for them to use, and pubs are nicer places without the smoke.

[Geoff]

I don't really think most smokers care about having to go outside in the UK. All pubs have nice covered beer gardens for them to use, and pubs are nicer places without the smoke.

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make. The "loss" (if any) to us smokers is insignificant compared to the gain for the non-smokers.

Also, as Mille pointed out, a large number of smokers go outside when smoking at home, too, so it's no big deal for us.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

What's Libby hellworld? And, many work environments have safety risks.

What would be "trying to reduce the risk" in the case of cigar bar? Installing rapid aeration and filtration devices to clear the air? I've been to them and often the level of smoke is quite low.

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

That sounds stupid.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't really think most smokers care about having to go outside in the UK. All pubs have nice covered beer gardens for them to use, and pubs are nicer places without the smoke.

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make. The "loss" (if any) to us smokers is insignificant compared to the gain for the non-smokers.

Says you. Does everyone have to live like that? I mean - ought not Joe be able to open Joe's bar and put a sign on it "smoking allowed in here" and allow the non- smokers to go where they think bars are better?

Also, as Mille pointed out, a large number of smokers go outside when smoking at home, too, so it's no big deal for us.

So, no cigar bars allowed, then? Some Arab guys want to open a houka lounge, not allowed?

[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.

That was the reasoning when the ban was introduced here. I expect most people would regard cars as more essential than cigars.

Why can't, however, people just be left alone? I mean - must all bars be the same?

[pErvinalia]

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.

The ban on smoking and the points raised here is just a reflection of the tricky situation society is in with smoking and drinking. In any sane society, these things would be banned as they have such negative social effects (drinking - obvious; smoking - second hand smoke, and health care costs if your society has UHC). But as they are well and truly ingrained in our culture, we have to create these rules that, as Coito points out, can tend to be inconsistent. It's just a case of making the best out of a baddish situation.

[Geoff]

I don't really think most smokers care about having to go outside in the UK. All pubs have nice covered beer gardens for them to use, and pubs are nicer places without the smoke.

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make. The "loss" (if any) to us smokers is insignificant compared to the gain for the non-smokers.

Says you. Does everyone have to live like that? I mean - ought not Joe be able to open Joe's bar and put a sign on it "smoking allowed in here" and allow the non- smokers to go where they think bars are better?

As I understand it, the law relates to "places to which the general public has access", and can be avoided by making it a private membership bar or club.

Also, as Mille pointed out, a large number of smokers go outside when smoking at home, too, so it's no big deal for us.

So, no cigar bars allowed, then? Some Arab guys want to open a houka lounge, not allowed?

Cigar bars, nope, nor pipes. A houka lounge might be different, if it was a private club. Hotels are still allowed to have smoking bedrooms, though few now do, in my experience.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

The ban on smoking and the points raised here is just a reflection of the tricky situation society is in with smoking and drinking. In any sane society, these things would be banned as they have such negative social effects (drinking - obvious; smoking - second hand smoke, and health care costs if your society has UHC). But as they are well and truly ingrained in our culture, we have to create these rules that, as Coito points out, can tend to be inconsistent. It's just a case of making the best out of a baddish situation.

Wow....

...frankly...I would reverse it. In any insane society, these things would be banned. We have had dry towns in the US where alcohol is banned, and we even had Prohibition in the 1920's. That wasn't "sane" at all.

[Pappa]

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

That sounds stupid.

No it isn't. They can sue because the Government has a duty of care to its soldiers. If they aren't providing enough body armour to their troops, they're unnecessarily putting their lives at risk.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cigar bars, nope, nor pipes. A houka lounge might be different, if it was a private club. Hotels are still allowed to have smoking bedrooms, though few now do, in my experience.

Ah, well, the Puritans always manage to rear their heads every now and again, as do the teetotallers and the Prohibitionists. It seems we can never be done fighting the autocrats...

[pErvinalia]

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.

The ban on smoking and the points raised here is just a reflection of the tricky situation society is in with smoking and drinking. In any sane society, these things would be banned as they have such negative social effects (drinking - obvious; smoking - second hand smoke, and health care costs if your society has UHC). But as they are well and truly ingrained in our culture, we have to create these rules that, as Coito points out, can tend to be inconsistent. It's just a case of making the best out of a baddish situation.

Wow....

...frankly...I would reverse it. In any insane society, these things would be banned. We have had dry towns in the US where alcohol is banned, and we even had Prohibition in the 1920's. That wasn't "sane" at all.

It would only be (presumably) insane, as everyone would be getting the irrits and having withdrawal symptoms. What I am saying is that if alcohol and smoking weren't ingrained in our societies so much, then they would be banned due to the great negatives they impart on society. Surely you'll agree that having alcohol and cigarettes legal and pot illegal is not sane (regardless of which one's status you consider correct or incorrect)?

[laklak]

...frankly...I would reverse it. In any insane society, these things would be banned. We have had dry towns in the US where alcohol is banned, and we even had Prohibition in the 1920's. That wasn't "sane" at all.

Yeppers. I just spent 9 months in a dry county in North Carolina, had to drive 45 miles to get to the nearest liquor store. What a fucking palaver. The county had a far higher rate of DUI and highway fatalities than the surrounding wet counties. This is because people were driving home drunk on twisting mountain roads because they couldn't go to a pub. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The reason it stays dry, Mrs. Lak was reliably informed by residents of the nursing home where she worked, was the Sheriff and County Commissioners controlled the moonshine, gambling, prostitution and drug trade in the county. Legalizing alcohol sales would have significantly cut into their profit margins. There were two places that allowed alcohol sales, both were resort type hotels in the mountains and both were owned by local politicians.

[Geoff]

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.

The ban on smoking and the points raised here is just a reflection of the tricky situation society is in with smoking and drinking. In any sane society, these things would be banned as they have such negative social effects (drinking - obvious; smoking - second hand smoke, and health care costs if your society has UHC). But as they are well and truly ingrained in our culture, we have to create these rules that, as Coito points out, can tend to be inconsistent. It's just a case of making the best out of a baddish situation.

Wow....

...frankly...I would reverse it. In any insane society, these things would be banned. We have had dry towns in the US where alcohol is banned, and we even had Prohibition in the 1920's. That wasn't "sane" at all.

Again, you're not comparing like with like. Alcohol only directly harms or inconveniences the drinker (though I accept indirect harm that the affected drinker may cause), wheres smoking directly affect those in the vicinity, both from the health issues of passive smoking and from the aesthetic issues.