quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, to eleborate on my stance, I have several concerns with the ban. One is the infrigement on civil liberties I believe it imposes. As said before, a patron has the right to decide whether to give their patronage to an establishment. Simply put, if they do not want to expose themselves to second hand smoke, no matter how convoluted the meta-science is behind the dangers of it, they have the ability to choose to go to a non-smoking establishment. I am a non-smoker and I have done that many times. Sometimes I have no problem going to a smoky bar, although I usually prefer to go someplace non-smoking. I would much rather let the public decide, through their dollars and patronage of whether or not an establishment should be non-smoking. Put the decision into the hands of the customers, not a wide-sweeping city council imposed ban. Secondly, as I have stated before is the faulty science behind the effects of second hand smoke. I am not saying that second hand smoke can be health risk, however if you look at second hand smoke in bars and restaraunts the idea that it can be harmful is very contested. OHSAA has actually set standards on air quality and at what level particulate matter can be harmful. That level is about 8000 ppm over an eight hour period. Numerous goverment labs have tested bars and restaruants and have found that even "heavy smoking" facilites only fall into the 25-50 ppm range! A "smoggy" day in LA has particulate matter levels 100 times this high. On a purely statistical/scientific level it would be impossible to do anything but associate second hand smoke with disease. However, what I believe to be the heart of the issue is the removal of the right to choose. The right of a business to decide if they wish to allow people to smoke on their private property. The right of an individual to decide if they wish to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. The right of an individual to perform a legal activity in a private place. I realize the government is trying to pass this legislation in order to "protect" us from second hand smoke. However, it is not the government's responsiblity to protect us from ourselves. As adults we have the right to decide how we will protect and endanger our own lives, and it is an overstep of power for the goverment to "force" me into making that decision. As I said I am a non-smoker, but if someone wishes to smoke, so be it, just as I have the decision not to and just as I have the right not to go someplace where I may come in contact with their smoke. After all, if we are really trying to "protect" ourselves, ban automobiles, far bigger polluters and killers, alochol, unsaturated fatty acids, caffeine, carcinogens, etc. I for one am much more worried about being hit by a car then hurt by second hand smoke.

Well, since the government is elected by the people, it is people who indirectly decide on what they do and don't want to have banned.
Besides, it is rediculous that a selfish minority dictates living conditions of a minority. I have no problem with people drinking alcohol, whether they do it in a bar or on the street, simply because they're not affecting me in any way. One person who smokes is polluting the air of 20 people sitting next to him. It is rediculous that those 20 people will suffer because that one person's lack of manners.

But let's move the issue to a higher level now. What's your stance on pollution from factories? Do you think that government should force them to lower down their emissions or do you think that the public will sanction those more polluting factories by avoiding their goods?

___________________
1+1=10

I think that factories should be monitored. We all know that they can be monitored more tightly and that there is probably some technology to reduce emissions greatly.

As for how much shutting down emissions from factories have an effect just read this article on how much pollution dropped during the great blackout of 2003 in the USA.

quote:

Study of 2003 blackout shows level of pollution from power plants A study by researchers at the University of Maryland shows that skies were dramatically clearer and the air cleaner during the August 2003 blackouts that hit the north-eastern United States and south-eastern Canada. The findings reveal the high levels of pollution emitted from power stations, say the researchers. Atmospheric measurements, taken by the scientists 24 hours after a lot of the power plants had shut down, found a 90% reduction in sulphur dioxide, and a 50% reduction in ground level ozone or smog. The Maryland scientists also found that the amount of light scattering particles in the air dropped by 70% and visibility increased by 20 miles. "The improvement in air quality provides evidence that transported emission from power plants hundreds of kilometres upwind play a dominant role in regional haze and smog," the study says. "What surprised us was not so much the observation of improved air quality during the blackout, but the magnitude of the observed improvement," said research scientist and lead author Lackson Mrufu. "The improvement in air quality was so great that you could not only measure it, but could actually see it as a much clearer less hazy sky." Fossil fuel burning power plants account for more than half of electrical energy production in the United States, but also about 22% of nitrogen oxides and about 69% of the sulphur dioxide emissions. In lower levels of the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides combine with volatile organic compounds to produce ground level ozone, which is the main ingredient of smog. For the study, airborne measurements were made over Maryland and Virginia, outside the blackout area, and Pennsylvania, in the centre of the blackout area, on August 15 2003, approximately 24 hours into the blackout. The results were compared to measurements taken the previous summer in the same locations and under similar meteorological conditions when upwind power plants were operating normally. The full results of this study, The 2003 North American Blackout: An accidental experiment in atmospheric chemistry, will be published in the July issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

Well over here there is a law that says that every restaurant should have a place for nonsmokers that is seperated from the smoking section, however to actualy find a place that abides by this law is wery rare. Why? Its bad for bussines. And this is why i dont think that individual bussines owners should decide if they would force the smoking ban or not, becouse nobody would. I dont know how it is elsewhere, but over here there are simply to many smokers that a non smoking place only would have profit so we wont be seeing any of those if its up to an owner of a place to decide to ban smoking or not. Either its banned everywhere so no places would be favored over another (lets face it if its a group of friend are going out if any of them smokes whey will eventualy wind up in a place that allowes smoking even if they walk by dozen of nonsmoking places
my friends get wery nervous in the half hour it takes for them to get their food if the poor souls are forced to sit in the nonsmoking section of the restaurant with me ) or leave it as it is (smokers still get their fun and the rest of us are just waiting for lung cancer to kick in)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Well over here there is a law that says that every restaurant should have a place for nonsmokers that is seperated from the smoking section, however to actualy find a place that abides by this law is wery rare. Why? Its bad for bussines. And this is why i dont think that individual bussines owners should decide if they would force the smoking ban or not, becouse nobody would. I dont know how it is elsewhere, but over here there are simply to many smokers that a non smoking place only would have profit so we wont be seeing any of those if its up to an owner of a place to decide to ban smoking or not. Either its banned everywhere so no places would be favored over another (lets face it if its a group of friend are going out if any of them smokes whey will eventualy wind up in a place that allowes smoking even if they walk by dozen of nonsmoking places my friends get wery nervous in the half hour it takes for them to get their food if the poor souls are forced to sit in the nonsmoking section of the restaurant with me ) or leave it as it is (smokers still get their fun and the rest of us are just waiting for lung cancer to kick in)

Love your sig pic, she's hot!

If people want to smoke then by all means smoke away, just dont do it on my patch

___________________
Live for today - Plan for tommorrow - Party tonight!

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil well with Alcohol, Caffeine, and food no one is shoving it down your mouth and making you drink it or eat it.

And no one is forcing you to go to a smoky bar or other establishment. Again, you have the right to choose which place you will give your patronage. If you don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke, don't go somewhere where they allow smoking. I don't see how that is so difficult. I don't like bikers, so I don't go to biker bars, I don't like S&M so I don't go to S&M bars, if you don't like smoking don't go where they smoke.

quote:

Autombiles don't cause accidents, stupid people driving them do. Maybe if we ban stupid people. I dont believe the pollution from an auto has a similar effect because of the proximity we have from autos, plus we are in a closed car. Maybe if the tail pipes were 5 feet from our faces...

Well, then alcohol makes people stupid. Perfectly "smart" people under the influence of alcohol DO cause car accidents. Are you saying it is okay to drink and drive as long as you're "smart?"

And from Penn & Teller's excellent series "Bullshit," the polution from CARS in LA has gotten so bad that jogging one mile downtown causes you to inhale the equivalent of 1/2 pack of cigarettes in particulate matter. I do think that is a problem.

quote:

Are we gonna fight for drinking alcohol in public places next just because this is a free country and we should do anything anywhere?

Again, we're talking about PRIVATE establishments...private restaraunts, bars, clubs etc. We're not talking about libraries, the courts or other PUBLIC places. This is the right of the private individual to establish a private location where patrons can smoke.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, since the government is elected by the people, it is people who indirectly decide on what they do and don't want to have banned. Besides, it is rediculous that a selfish minority dictates living conditions of a minority. I have no problem with people drinking alcohol, whether they do it in a bar or on the street, simply because they're not affecting me in any way. One person who smokes is polluting the air of 20 people sitting next to him. It is rediculous that those 20 people will suffer because that one person's lack of manners.

To me the idea of direct representation as you state it is not how things work in the US. If that were the case, many locations would have legalized drugs by now, and in many places gay marriages would also be legal, and that is obviously not the case. You have majority rule without a hint of minority representation. Democracy is based on compromise, as the Constituion was signed by many men, not one. It was a colaboration and compromise of ideas that we no longer see today.

What to me is ridiculous is that the majority can impose their will on a minority. I think we have dealt with this before when dealing with slavery, the civil rights movement, gays and now this...and yes I am equating the lot. The majority should not be able to impose its beliefs, in this case that smoking is bad, on a minority, especially in a private arena. And especially when there are alternatives to such ordinances, such as letting the customer decide where they will go, enforcing stricter ventilation regulations or designating smoking areas. I'm assuming that if you believe in banning smoking "for the common good," you also have no problem with the rash of censorship by the FCC. After all, they're protecting us from the filth of the airwaves that could harm us or our children, even though we have the ability to simply change the station on things we find detrimental. Why don't we censor the internet as well while we're at it? Save us from choice!

quote:

But let's move the issue to a higher level now. What's your stance on pollution from factories? Do you think that government should force them to lower down their emissions or do you think that the public will sanction those more polluting factories by avoiding their goods?

Factories, and cars for that matter are a different story. They pollute public places. When I walk through a park, I don't have to worry about second hand smoke except maybe for the brief moment I pass a smoker, but I do have to worry about the factory down the street or the cars on the busy road nearby. Second hand smoke does not even come close to the pollution spewed forth by industry into our "fresh," outside air. And as I have said before, OHSAA itself has dictated what constitutes harmful levels of particulate matter that even smoky bars do not come close to meeting.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Jun-17-2004 at 23:29

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I think that it's irrelevant if a public place is privately owned or not. There are regulations regarding the safety of guests that the owners of restaurants and clubs must follow if they want to open a club, like having enough parking space, or providing fire escape exists, so it is only fair that they be forced to have at least a part of their compound dedicated to non-smokers.

Fair to whom? To you? To non-smokers? What about the owner of the restaurant? He owns the property and everything under the roof--if people want to go there shouldn't they abide by the house rules? I find it much more unfair to invade the physical property rights of the owner of the establishment. Rights anyone? Supply and demand will dictate the atmosphere in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The rash of smoking bans in private establishments sweeping the US has finally arrived at my doorstep. Columbus, Ohio is now considering a smoking ban that would encompass all private establishments, any outdoor space they may have and a halo of 20 feet around their property. As many of you know, I am a libertarian and the thought of this becoming a reality saddens and distrubs me. There are just so many levels where this strikes me as absurd and as wrong. What are your thoughts on this issue? I'm guessing most of us would be against this type of ban, but maybe those for it could share their rationale. Even though I am a non-smoker I intend to do all that I can to stop this from happening.

I smoke, duh. I think smokers will be eternally banned to outdoors, but a lot of establishments now realize the loss of business and are establishing outdoor areas where customers can order drinks, food, etc. while smoking to make up for lost revenue. Go figure, the action is outdoors....


[[[smoke]]]

I am a bit confused, I thought this regarded all areas including Public areas in which the government was also trying to stop smoking or so i believed.

In private areas I believe it is the right of the private establishment to set the rules on who they wish to do what.

quote:

And no one is forcing you to go to a smoky bar or other establishment. Again, you have the right to choose which place you will give your patronage. If you don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke, don't go somewhere where they allow smoking. I don't see how that is so difficult. I don't like bikers, so I don't go to biker bars, I don't like S&M so I don't go to S&M bars, if you don't like smoking don't go where they smoke.

The point of going to a bar isn't necessarily to drink or smoke, it could be the music or to be with friends or to pick up a date. When you step in the bar the drinks are behind the bar and you can either drink or not drink. But when you go in you have no choice of whether to smoke or not if other people are smoking. And I know no bar that is smoke free, so there are no other options. Biker bars are a specific type of bar so that is different. Much like I dont frequent gay bars because im not gay, that is an easy choice. That is a subcategory of a bar. Smoking and nonsmoking aren't categories as of yet because they don't exist to a high enough extent. But you are right that this should be determined by the owners. They have the right to say what they want.

quote:

Well, then alcohol makes people stupid. Perfectly "smart" people under the influence of alcohol DO cause car accidents. Are you saying it is okay to drink and drive as long as you're "smart?" And from Penn & Teller's excellent series "Bullshit," the polution from CARS in LA has gotten so bad that jogging one mile downtown causes you to inhale the equivalent of 1/2 pack of cigarettes in particulate matter. I do think that is a problem.

I didn't even mean under the influence. There are a lot of stupid people out there driving who under the influence of nothing. I nearly got killed the other day by a man who decided that red = go, even 5 seconds after the light changed. Also drinking and driving in my mind defines the stupid person for it takes someone stupid to drink too much and then try to drive afterwards.

The problem in L.A isn't due to cars totally, its due to the location. They are between low laying land and a mountain range which prevents the pollution from clearing and causing horrible smog levels. Maybe the people in LA can take your advice you gave earlier. If they don't like smog and pollution don't live in an area known to have the worst smog levels in our country. Cars do cause pollution, im not debating that but I'm saying that cars and cigarettes are totally different things in that cigarettes are an intentional choice to kill yourself with no regard to other people and driving a car is a choice that many people have to make for there is no other transportation available.

I smoke and it would be an absolute nightmare for me if I was banned from smoking in pubs and clubs!

However, in no way do I think what I am doing is not bad for me. It is bad for your health and if these measures stop young people from starting smoking in the first place (most of us I'm sure first tried fags while we were in that one pub you knew when you were 14 that the bar staff thought you looked 18 but in reality they just couldn't give two shits who they served!) then I cannot let my personal needs stand in the way of that...

There's a smoking ban in operation throughout most of Ireland. It's working fine, despite claims by the publicans, hoteliers, etc. before it was enforced about how their businesses would be damaged because of it. The ban applies to all places of work. It's not a problem for most people for most places of work, but a pub is a place of work for some people, so it's banned in pubs too (that's where the main problem with it lay). Anyone wanting to smoke just has to leave the building for five minutes, and come back when they're finished. It works fine and people are no longer forced to consume the drugs of other people.
I'm surprised it worked so well to be honest. People who are drinking can be really thick about things (such as being prevented from smoking you would think), but it's excellent the way it has gone!

___________________
"Níl saoirse gan saoirse lucht oibre."