Study: Bar workers breathe easier after smoking ban

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06283/728869-100.stm

Bar workers in a Scottish city felt better and could breathe easier just one month after the country outlawed smoking in enclosed public places.

Researchers led by Dr. Daniel Menzies, of the University of Dundee, surveyed waitstaff about their symptoms and measured their lung capacity, airway inflammation and other indicators of respiratory health before and after the implementation of a smoking ban in March 2006.

The new policy led to a "rapid and marked improvement" in the workers' health, the researchers said. Their findings are in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.

"As the evidence mounts, more and more people are beginning to introduce these bans to protect not only the public at large, but also people at work," Dr. Menzies said.

<snip>

Before the bars became smoke-free, 79 percent of workers had respiratory or other symptoms. That number dropped by a quarter after one month and a third after two months of the smoking prohibition.

I posted this because I'm always amazed at the number of DU'ers who take exception to smoking bans and even argue that workers in bars should get another job if they don't want to be exposed to smoke. Besides the patrons, I think it should also be about the workers - not everyone can find another job. Smokers can take their habit outside. Also a local issue in my county since we got a freshly signed smoking ban now but the county executive wants to exempt bars with 30% or less in food sales.

[maxsolomon]

1. business has plummeted in WA state bars

that catered to working class drinkers. my local watering hole, the Wedgewood Broiler in NE Seattle, which was once a crowded, unbearable haze of carcinogens, is empty even on weekend nights nowadays. same complaint from a certain type of bar all over the state.

drinking without smoking is apparently boring.

[kestrel91316]

3. Maybe everybody is drinking at home. Works for me.........

fewer drunks on the road.

[dipsydoodle]

10. I believe the same happened

in Scotland and there are now some healthier unemployed bar staff. Life's a bitch.......

[progressivebydesign]

30. Do the research. It's anectdotal that biz drops. n/t

[progressivebydesign]

28. BS. My husband plays in bars in Wa, and not ONE has closed..

and not ONE has not been more packed since the ban. Not one! They're doing better than ever.

[maxsolomon]

43. that's a bar with MUSIC.

i'm referring to articles in the Sea Times on bars such as the Rimrock Steakhouse on Lake City Way. picture pull tabs, no imports on tap, bad jukebox, caters to alcoholic retirees & borderline homeless. not hipster hangouts, pickup joints, or fern bars.

since i'm a cognac sipping aesthete, it was never a bar i frequented. i'm not saying i have much sympathy for the demise of dives, i'm just saying that's what i read:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=smoking17m&date=20060418&query=rimrock+cafe

Smoke starts to clear on ban's impact

By Sharon Pian Chan

Seattle Times staff reporter

The state's smoking ban forces Pattie Carmack and J.J. Morgan to smoke in the back of the beer garden at White Elephant Bar & Grill in Everett. "This is killing business," said one of the bar's owners.

Readers share their thoughts on state's smoking ban

In the four months since the state banned smoking in public places, this is how the ban has affected local restaurants and bars:

• Forced the owner of a 70-year-old Olympia cafe to put his business up for sale.

• Helped business soar at a Northeast Seattle brew pub by attracting new customers who come for a smoke-free meal.

• Driven away so many regulars at an Everett bar that the owner laid off two bartenders.

The effects of the ban seem to vary widely. In some upscale Seattle bars, the ban has attracted new, nonsmoking customers. But owners of some blue-collar neighborhood joints say their business has fallen by half.

OK? i'm not a freaking smoker.

[Scairp]

52. Smokers will get over it eventually

They will not stay away forever, just for a little while. The urge to go to a bar and drink with one's friends will be too strong to keep them away for very long. Restaurants and bars go out of business all the time and I don't think you can blame it all on smoking bans. What they lose in smokers they will surely make up with non-smokers who come more often and stay longer because they are no longer choking to death in those places.

[maxsolomon]

54. i think these are bars for those WITHOUT friends

considering that its been over 6 months, the dives will go away before they get over it.

[BurningDog]

80. If this is true...

why is a smoking ban needed at all? Why wouldn't bars do it voluntarily?

[kath]

31. Please show us some numbers to back that up.

[maxsolomon]

44. see post above

i don't have time to conduct research on an issue i don't particularly care about.

[Fozzledick]

45. Typical time-line of a local smoking ban

Seems like I've watched this happen several times in my area:

Town A government debates banning smoking in restaurants and bars;
local paper prints interviews with bar owners complaining it will put them out of business.

Town A government passes ban on smoking in restaurants and bars;
local paper prints interviews with bar owners in adjoining town B rejoicing at prospect
of increased business from town A smokers.

Three to six months later:
Local paper prints article on how restaurants and bars haven't gone out of business yet;
restaurant and bar owners interviewed say business seems to be up a bit, new customers
include more families with kids and elderly.

One year later:
Local paper prints statistical survey of restaurants and bars showing business in town A increased 10%
since smoking ban went into effect, sidebar notes 10% DROP in town B.

One year and three months later:
Restaurant owners in town B start lobbying town government for smoking ban to try to regain
business lost to town A.

[Zhade]

46. Maybe half the self-poison isn't as attractive?

Maybe to really feel "alive", smokers that enjoyed that bar had to be killing themselves with two deadly substances at once?

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

2. I think what people are saying

is that non-smokers who don't live with smokers can find jobs in non-smoking bars. Smokers, or those who live with smokers, can work in bars that allow smoking.

The researchers don't say everybody's health improved, they say 25-30% of workers' health improved. Those would be the people who don't smoke or live with smokers and can go work in non-smoking bars. The other 60-70% can continue on with their smoking lifestyle, if they choose, and work in smoking bars.

I still think cars is a bigger problem than cigarettes. Lung cancer started rising when men started driving cars, and then started rising for women when we all moved to suburbia and women began driving cars. It simply cannot be healthy for anybody's lungs to be sitting in traffic with windows rolled down for an hour a day, which is how it used to be before air conditioning.

If marijuana smoke doesn't cause cancer, then there's no logical reason to conclude tobacco smoke causes cancer - in and of itself. Chemicals are the problem and they get into our lungs in a variety of ways.

I think this is as big a diversion as the WMD, don't look at the gas fumes and chemicals, blame the dirty cigarettes. And while we're at it, tax them too. Bipartisanship in action.

[RamboLiberal]

7. You sound like a spokesperson for the tobacco companies

Study after study have proven smoking causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema, causes problems for others with breathing and health problems. How many damn studies do you need?

And even if an employee is a smoker it will benefit their health a bit since at least for the time they are at work they will not be breathing for the majority of the time their own or other's smoke.

[sandnsea]

9. The chemicals in the product

I said I think it's the chemicals, in commercial tobacco, fuels, household products, factory emissions, etc. I do not think natural tobacco, specifically, is the biggest cancer boogeyman out there. People have spent the last 20 years on a crusade against cigarettes, meantime the biggest polluters continue to pump their poison into the air and walk away with no accountability at all. Call me stupid if you want, but I think we've been sent on a wild cigarette goose chase while the bigger health dangers go unchecked.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. LOL

:rofl:

[RamboLiberal]

13. There's been quite a bit of improvement in air quality

over the last half century. Could it be better, hell yes. But w/o govt pushing industry rarely cleans up it's act. That's why now we need a strong global alliance to combat global warming and global polluting. Unfortunately with Repukes we've been somewhat stagnant in the last 20+ years.

[sandnsea]

24. Psssht

I was just talking to my daughter about firefalls yesterday. Apparently there's a waterfall in Oregon that dries up in the winter and they use it for a firefall on New Year's Eve. I told her about the firefall they had in Yosemite, but stopped in the 70's because it was an environmental hazard. As I was talking toher, I stopped and laughed out loud, the little firefall is NOTHING compared to the toxins we're pouring into Yosemite and the country today.

That's because they sent us all on a cigarette hunt.

[LiberalHeart]

71. I see you're an Ann Richard's fan...

From a news account about her death (ABC) from cancer of the esophagus:

...cancer in the upper esophagus (the tube that connects the mouth to the stomach), is linked to alcohol and smoking. Richards admitted to heavy drinking and smoking in her younger years, saying she "smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish.

[Zhade]

47. Marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke are vastly different.

For one thing, pot smoke is a bronchial dilator - cig smoke is not. Your comparison is flawed.

However, I do agree that cars are a huge problem, if not bigger than the tobacco industry (I haven't looked into comparative research on the two).

[Nikia]

57. Cigarettes are actually bronchial constrictors

People who smoke cigarettes also tend to do so habitually, which does not allow the lungs to recover in between smoking sessions.

[Zhade]

65. Indeed - the two types of smoke are polar opposites.

NT!

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Not to mention that tobacco smoke...

has finer particles that are inhaled more deeply.

And then there's the fact that most people who smoke cigarettes tend to do so quite a bit more often than anyone who smokes weed has a joint; between twenty and forty cigarettes a day isn't an uncommon number for the average smoker--and inhaling that much smoke on a daily basis can't be a good thing; I imagine that if one was smoking tea leaves, or coffee grounds, that much smoking would probably be nearly as harmful as smoking tobacco. And I say this as a smoker (5-10 cigarettes a day--not the healthiest thing I could be doing, but statistically not as harmful as a pack a day or more, either).

[sandnsea]

73. Doesn't appear to be accurate

The immediate pulmonary effect of smoking marijuana is bronchodilation, although with long-term use the smoked particles act as an irritant, causing bronchoconstriction and eventual airway obstruction.17-19 The chronic effects are similar to those of smoking tobacco, and there seems to be a relationship between smoking marijuana and neoplastic changes in the lungs.20

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/4/982

[Lance_Boyle]

4. Feh. Nonsmokers can take their drinking habits elsewhere.

This is *still* just a bunch of "for the children" bullshit from a fanatical group of overly-controlling healthnancies who think everyone else should be forced to live like them. This issue should be left to "market forces." You (as a bar owner) want patrons to be able to smoke in your bar? Let 'em. You don't want patrons to be able to smoke in your bar? Don't let 'em. Gubmint has no place sticking its blue-ass nose into this.

[RamboLiberal]

6. That's bullcrap - businesses don't change till forced to by rules

I worked in offices that allowed smoking - and it was damn annoying, smelly and uncomfortable, - from 1972 till 1995. My current employer actually was in a city that barred smoking in offices where more than 50 were employed but they skirted the law since we were alway around 50 employees till we moved to a new building. Worst days was when they held a training class and 50-100 blue collar workers smoked their way through the class. And yeah at the time I could've moved but a lot of employees couldn't w/o starting over at the bottom of the salary scale.

Restaurants didn't change till the laws made them change and add non-smoking sections and even then they didn't adequately separate the areas. Heck I ran in to that problem recently at a packed Red Lobster.

Airlines didn't change till forced to, then they put the non-smokers in front of the smoking section and that was fairly limited seating - if you didn't get there early, too bad you were in smoking. Fat lot of good the sectioning did since the airplanes venilation wasn't separate. What a relief when they went totally non-smoking forced to by law.

I say in the interest of everyone's health ban smoking nationwide in all indoor public venues and outdoor venues like stadiums. Smokers will adjust after a time. And you know what - if you can't run a successful business w/o smokers - well then maybe you shouldn't be in business.

I'm so damned happy that things are changing in favor of those of us who don't smoke and hate having to smell, breathe and go home smelling like an ashtray to simply sit at a bar and enjoy a beer. I just wish I was 21 now instead of having to endure it for all those years. And btw both my parents smoked which is the reason I grew up absolutely hating the filthy habit.

[SoCalDem]

14. "...Smokers will adjust after a time...."

like the people who had to wear a yellow star?..I guess they adjusted after time :shrug:

In the purest sense , this issue belongs with the employers.. If they smoke and their employees and customers also smoke, they should be allowed to operate that way.

Remember, our booming economy offers TONS of jobs..:eyes: no one HAS to work in a smoky environment.

Out here, even the most adent anti-smokers will snap up a job at a casino (where smoking is rampant)...why??

benefits, and good pay..

In the final analysis, the customers decide.. they decide to quit paying $5 a drink..they buy their own and entertain at home..

and the newly-unemployed at the bars they used to frequent?..well there's always walmart :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yellow star?

:rofl:

Stop it, you're killing me!

[Javaman]

40. Wow, I thought another thread was the popcorn winner, but the yellow star

comment took the cake!

That's the first time I have ever seen genocide compared to smoking. But then in a way, smoking does cause cancer and therefore could be looked upon as a form of consumer genocide.

Dang keep those comments coming, you are cracking me up!

smoker to non-smoker threads are the best!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Zhade]

48. That's an insultingly ludicrous argument.

First off, the Jewish people were born Jewish. No one is born a smoker; it's a choice. Hence, your premise falls apart at the get-go.

[Ms. Toad]

59. Forget bars -

I just want to be able to sit in a restaurant and breath without being nauseated.

And you are right - places don't change until they're forced to.

We had a VERY brief period (a month or so) when a county-wide no-smoking law was implemented a few months ago. It was placed on hold when cities within the county carved out exceptions and businesses in the (no-smoking) township across the street from the (smoking) cities started crying foul.

BUT - what happened was that quite a few restaurants which were forced to go no-smoking for a month discovered their business picked up, and they stayed no smoking after the ban was lifted because it turned out to be a good business decision (even though it was a forced decision to start out with). The market WOULD dictate non-smoking in quite a few more locations than are currently non-smoking - if the businesses would be brave enough to try. Now that there are a few non-smoking restaurants around I'm voting with my money (never had that choice before) - and being vocal about leaving any place where I cannot enjoy a meal without being assaulted by smoke. In one instance, when we left because of cigar smoke, we followed up by sending a copy of the receipt from the non-smoking restaurant where we eventually ate back to the one we left, with a reminder that we were unable to stay in their restaurant because of the smoke. I figure that may make the $ loss more real.

Absent more guts on the part of local businesses, I'm ready for some nudges in the form of laws.

[Demit]

5. It would be interesting to see what the workers think if attendance drops

and their tip income goes down, will they be as appreciative of the ban that keeps their former patrons from coming in. I know that some municipalities claim that bars have just as many patrons as before, and that may be true. But it might not be true everywhere—and this Scottish study doesn't address it. If patronage drops, meaning smokers aren't just taking their habit outside but staying away entirely, then workers might be wanting another job anyway—or be forced to find one anyway. Just sayin'.

[progressivebydesign]

29. Much better to have lung cancer than tips... n/t

[Demit]

32. What? Your post doesn't even make any sense.

You might want to read what you wrote again.

[denverbill]

8. As a former smoker, and former bar-goer, I still oppose the bans.

There are bars and restaurants and barbecues that have wood-fired ovens. The whole place smells like smoke. All smoke contains carcinogens. Should we ban wood-fired ovens too? If not, what about the poor workers who might be subjected to something which could cause them to get sick?

How about construction workers that are forced to work all day outdoors with no protection from UV rays? Shouldn't the employer be forced to provide them with a roof over their heads at all times?

How about coal miners subjected to coal dust? Shouldn't the mine owner be forced to go 'coal free' to protect the health of his employees?

How about poor me sitting in my cube 9 hours a day while my 'never call in sick' cube mate hacks his friggin lungs out all day? It's no fun getting the flu or a cold because I get subjected to germs by people too inconsiderate to call in sick? Shouldn't my employer be forced to give me an office of my own?

Every job has it's benefits and drawbacks. If you take a job that involves working in certain conditions (smokey, wood-smokey, outdoors, coal dust, or hacking coworker), you can't expect to force the owner to change your work conditions. You've got choices. You can either:
1) keep the job and live with the conditions that might endanger your health
2) keep the job and look for a similar job without the conditions
3) find a new line of work that might pay less but that doesn't endanger your health

Personally, I favor making tobacco sales illegal in the US. That would give you the de facto ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, plus, it would actually benefit smokers since probably 95% of them would quit almost immediately. It's a helluva lot less hypocritical than keeping it legal and taxing it to death and restricting where you can and can't smoke.

Can you imagine the government treating any other product like it does tobacco? How about I make an addictive candy that kills one of every 1000 children that eat it? And instead of banning it, the government just taxes it $2 per piece so that kids will have less incentive to buy it?

If it's legal to smoke, the government should not be able to tell a businessman that he can't allow it in his establishment. Customer and employees do have other options.

[RamboLiberal]

11. Govt regulations can't cover everything - but w/o them the

workplace of many individuals would be a helluva lot more dangerous and uncomfortable. And it is ironic that under the Repukes many of these regulations are being ignored or rolled back.

People who work in the sun. Govt can force employers to better educate their employees to the danger. Educate them to the use of hats, sunscreens, clothing that offers less exposure. How about when govt and unions mandated the use of hard hats, safety harnesses, steel toe shoes, etc? All born out of industrial accidents.

Coal mines. Much has been done to make the mines safer and to lessen black lung disease. This was done via a combination of govt and the unions battling govt and the mine owners.

How about the education of health and food workers on the importance of washing hands? Govt pushes those ideas and regulations. And isn't if a comfort if you have a good state/county restaurant food inspection agency to keep you the diner safe?

And it's bull you have to keep the conditions that might endanger your health. If employees have some power and the backing of govt you can force employers to give you more comfortable/safe working conditions. Even with your hacking coworker. If it is suggested strongly enough your employer might be encouraged to tell sick employees they are doing no one a favor by bringing their germs to work.

I favor a strong OSHA that does all in its power to keep the worker safe.

[Zhade]

49. IMHO, there should be recourse for employees who take a job...

...at a non-smoking establishment that later turns into a smoking establishment. They didn't sign up for the cancer bonus.

Thankfully, this happens infrequently.

[Thickasabrick]

16. I've always thought that a bar that you paid a small "member"

fee too would be cool. It would kinda be like a private "smokers" club. If you wanted to work there - it would be with the understanding that you would be working in that environment. Then the laws wouldn't effect anyone as it would be "private".

[SoCalDem]

21. "Cigar" clubs here, have just such a dispensation

They can puff away.. I guess the waitresses there are willing to "risk" it for the fat tips from the Schwarzenegger-wannabees

[Thickasabrick]

22. In California???? I thought you couldn't even smoke outside there.

That's cool though, if enough people want to do it - they should be able to have a place to go. I personally love cigar smoke, even though I don't actually smoke them.

[Demobrat]

33. Yes, we have "Cigar Bars" here in SF.

And sure you can smoke outside. People step outside restaurants and bars to smoke all the time. The smoking ban here has worked out very well. My friend who until recently owned a restaurant/bar was terrified that when the ban went into effect his business would tank. As it turned out, his regulars had no problem stepping outside to smoke and he was busier than ever cause people who liked his food but hated cigarette smoke started showing up in droves.

[sandnsea]

26. That's how the drinking clubs are in Utah

You pay a "membership fee" and then can party the night away. I'm surprised more bar owners in California haven't figured it out.

[Pastiche423]

17. I am so glad I quit drinking

[dmallind]

19. Why is it that...

...opponents of smoking bans always cite anecdotal and specific woes?

Easy - because on the aggregate, bar and restaurant revenues go up after smoking bans as those of us who prefer not to be wreathed in acrid stenches of carcinogens and irritants while we eat and drink go out more.

Do individual bars suffer? Sure - but others by definition prosper. If smoking was all your bar offered patrons, you may need to consider a new angle.

The Wikipedia article on smoking bans cites only one (again misleading) downward stat, that of bar closures in my old home town of Mpls.

However the people just went to other bars and restaurants as this study shows.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/20060320SmokingRevenue.asp

Same thing happened in NYC, and Ireland - both places with greater smoking rates than Mpls. Overall revenue is up in every case I checked.

Fear not for the workers in those bars who did suffer - no doubt the place across the road is hiring.

Cry not for the owners - because they showed themselves poor businespeople unable to adapt to a changing market - even when given tons of notice that the regulatory environment was going to change.

[Pastiche423]

20. Why did you respond to my post?

I said none of the crap that you did in your post.

[dmallind]

34. MY GOD HORROR!!

I responded to the last post at the time I posted my own thoughts in a general discussion!!!


My GOD I am so sorry that I dared attach it to yours!

Mea Maxima Culpa!!!!

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

39. So far you two are winning for the best popcorn moment!

:popcorn:

[Robb]

51. "On the aggregate"?

"Cry not for the owners - because they showed themselves poor businespeople unable to adapt to a changing market - even when given tons of notice that the regulatory environment was going to change."

You know, I was trying to remember when I heard a comment like this before, then it struck me. It was a developer talking about the "gentrification" of a largely poor community.

[anotherdrew]

18. I won't go to a bar that won't let me smoke, period. n/t

[RamboLiberal]

23. I think within the next 5-10 years you won't have a bar to go to

Guess you have to stay home.

[Thickasabrick]

25. Or go to a "private" bar that only smoking patrons go to. I really think

that's the solution to this.

[progressivebydesign]

27. Heart attacks are also down in cities with bans.. it's a good thing! n/t

[medeak]

36. elderly Dad has emphysema from conducting in Vegas

in the old days the show rooms were smoke filled...after so many entertainers complaining of "Vegas throat" it was banned

[flamingpie2500]

37. People should be given choices--

smoking flights, non smoking flights
smoking movie theaters, non smoking theaters
smoking bars, non smoking bars.

So now how do we battle breast cancer?

[Javaman]

41. White bathrooms, black bathrooms...

worked wonders in the south.

heavy heavy :sarcasm:

[William Bloode]

68. That argument does not work.

Blacks were forced to use other service outlets, there was no choice in the matter.

[Javaman]

79. Sorry but your argument doesn't work either...

segregation under any other name is still segregation.

Once you start segregating a population based upon something that the whole of the population can not enjoy, than it becomes segregation.

People who smoke also have the option of not smoking, people who don't like, want to or are allergic to smoke don't have the option of smoking. It obviously doesn't work both ways, so therefore it's segregation.

Besides the point, smoking is not a right nor is it a mandated freedom. It's something that has become so ingrained into our society, that because of it's history, people deem it a right.

History doesn't make laws, legislation and voting does. And in this case, the majority, they being non-smokers have spoken by voting these laws in.

If smoker wish to change the laws, then they should do something about it.

[Javaman]

38. This is so much fun!

:popcorn:

I love it when smokers and non-smokers go at it.

:popcorn:

[Dulcinea]

42. Why not let the individual business owners decide?

In Georgia, smoking is allowed if the business doesn't hire or allow anyone in who's under 18, a sensible solution. I think there's room in the world for smokers & anti-smokers alike.

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? If you detest smoke, go to smoke-free places. If you want to smoke, find an establishment that allows it. People can vote with their feet!

Smoking is a terrible habit, but demonizing smokers isn't the way to go. What's next? Alcohol? Bad food? Do you really think the bans "for your own good" will stop here?

[Zhade]

50. This brings up an interesting question about universal health care.

To be universal, we have to cover everyone from the self-poisoning smokers to the self-poisoning fast food fans.

Now, I fully endorse covering everyone. But I've heard the argument from rightwingers that UHC would allow for wild, unchecked indulging in bad habits like these.

How would we handle this? Would there be a "three strikes" rule? How do we ensure people wouldn't abuse the availability of UHC while not dictating how they live their lives? How do countries with UHC handle this?

Anyone?

[rinsd]

53. This is something I also wonder about

In a single payer system, would the justification of taxpayer money be used to ban or heavily tax other unhealthy habits?

I don't think Europe necessarily operates under that kind of logic(though I did see that France is considering a wide ban on smoking...France!) but that logic was the major underpinning of the tobacoo lawsuits and various bans in public places here in the US.

[Nevernose]

61. Strikes for what? And why?

That's a slippery slope fallacy, so screw the right wingers. Is there anything to suggest, in the plethora of evidence available in UHC countries, that UHC allows for "wild, unchecked indulging in bad habits like these?" They handle it by treating everyone who needs any legitimate medical treatment, and make cosmetic surgery purely a private venture.

And what's a "strike?" A fat woman who keeps eating too much, or a physically active woman who keeps tearing her ACL and other physical damage? Anecdotally, I know more people who've had knee surgery because of athleticism than obesity.

Treat everyone who medically needs it. Period. It'll be good for the economy, it'll be good for America.

[Zhade]

63. I agree with you. I feel that UHC should not have strings attached.

The whole point of UHC is to cover everyone, all the time, period.

Thanks for giving me some ammo to throw at those fools!

[hedgehog]

77. Just to add to the fireworks;

Did you know that NYC is talking about banning the sale of any food made with hydrogenated vegetable oils from its restaurants? What about the freedom of people who want to poison themselves and clog their arteries with trans-fats?!?

[Ms. Toad]

74. And where might those smoke free places be?

Until recently there were no restaurants in the area (other than fast food restaurants) which were smoke free. Outside the borders of our county, there are still virtually no smoke-free options.

The difference? A non-smoking county ordinance was briefly in effect. Even though it was only in effect a month, I am not aware of any restaurant that was forced to go smoke free that has returned to generally permitting smoking. The vast majority of restaurants are still completely smoke free, and a few have modified "smoke free" to adjust to their market - like permitting smoking after a certain hour, for example.

For whatever reason, this appears not to be an issue that the market is capable of dictating until it is forced to try it. Businesses are apparently truly unaware that the business they are losing from customers like me who will not tolerate being exposed to second hand smoke equals or outweighs the business they might lose from customers who want to smoke. If it takes a ban to help them realize this, I'm all for it. (Even if ban doesn't last, based on the experience in our county it will make a dramatic change in the availability of market driven non-smoking venues.)

[KansDem]

55. My take: The smoke was there when you applied for the job...

...either work with it or find another line of work.

I worked in a bar for two years during the 1990's. I worked around smokers. I knew I would and took the job anyway. If I had not wanted to work around smokers, I would have found another job.

Simple as that...

[RamboLiberal]

56. Oh wait for the employee lawsuits - bet they happen

After all flight attendants sued for cancers and health problems they got when working airlines that allowed smoking back in the day.

I have heard some rumblings of casino employees thinking of lawsuits.

Or if you insure employees - be a perfect excuse for the insurance providers to jack or deny you as an employer health insurance.

Face it smokers - these bans are coming.

One I will give you guys is IMHO employers should not be able to ban you from smoking when you are off the job.

[lindisfarne]

60. No employer has the right to expose their employees to dangerous

chemicals. 2ndhand smoke's health risks are well documented. Unfortunately, in too many industries, the government is too busy backing the rights of corporations over the rights of workers and the communities the industries are located in.

[Nevernose]

62. The health risks aren't hidden

If you get a job as a fisherman or steelworker, for instance, you know the risks when you take the job. We're not talking about corporations poisoning people w/o their consent or knowledge -- we're talking about adults who said, "Hey look! Maybe I can get a job there! Sure, I'll suffer from all kinds of diseases, but I'll do it anyway."

We're not talking about people who were inadvertantly harmed; we're talking about people who knew the risks and took them anyway.

While we're looking out for people's best interests, why don't we mandate abortions for teeange mothers, since it's statistically in their best interest? Because people have a CHOICE. They have a choice where to work, and a choice where to patronize.

[RamboLiberal]

67. Some of you sound like Henry Frick or Andrew Carnegie

Read some labor history and find out how these guys and the railroads and mine owners had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give their workers safer working conditions and safety gear. Yeah the steelworkers, railroaders, mine workers knew the job was dangerous but that didn't mean their unions and the government and they themselves shouldn't have did all they could to ensure safer working conditions.

Henry Frick and Andrew Carnegie and owners then and now still try to trot out the same tired excuses, workers know and no one forces them to work here.

I heard the stories of the kin I never got to meet who died in the early 20th century in steel mill and railroad accidents, like being crushed or losing a leg between two cars because of the lack of safety couplers or safe braking devices.

I had an uncle who in the 60's lost both arms in a steel mill.

Yeah, he knew the job was dangerous. Adequate safeguards weren't in place to make sure the electricity stayed off on the equipment he was working on.

[Zhade]

64. And if it wasn't?

NT!

[jseankil]

75. Hell, let's just roll back worker rights!

That way businesses can have unsafe conditions to cut the bottom line and say "we'll the unsafe conditions were there when you were hired you" to anyone new who is hired. Brilliant! Fuck the little man, it's all about the Biz'nass!

[Nikia]

58. Never understood why people have to engage in an unhealhty habit in public

They are not only endangering themselves but others who don't engage in the habit. There are many activites that people are not permitted to engage in public. Is it really so bad that smoking is one of them in a public building if it causes harm to others?

[Zhade]

66. Selfishness fueled by addiction.

Otherwise, many smokers I know are the farthest thing from selfish. Ironically, if I were to, say, desire to hit my bong in front of them, OH NO, get it away!

(For the record, neither of us should be exposed against our will to the other's smoke - even considering that mine doesn't give you cancer, and theirs does, no one should have to ingest chemicals they don't consent to.)

Something I'm wondering: as smokers KNOW their addiction is killing them - and it's unlikely they don't - why don't I see more smokers rolling their own? At least then it wouldn't have things like ammonia to boost the addiction.

Is it a lot more expensive? Can't be too cumbersome, they have simple rollers to do all the work for you.

[Invidious]

69. Wow

It is threads like this that make me think maybe I need to just stay home and NOT vote...I can't stand what the Republicans do and say, but watching this thread makes it hard to vote for Dems either. I wonder how the libertarians are doing these days? If we replaced smoking with same sex marriage or abortion, you'd be Republicans.

[lakercub]

70. bullshit

same-sex marriage only has an imaginary effect on others. Its real effects are nil on any but those getting married. Second-hand smoke is a known danger to everyone around it, and no amount of typical republican scientific ignorance can change that.

It is not right, and should not be legal, to harm others, whether they know they are entering a harmful situation or not.

I compare it to a guy going into a rough neighborhood. If a person gets their ass kicked in a neighborhood they knew was dangerous certainly some fault falls on them. However, someone else still committed assault and needs to be brought to justice.

A person may know they are entering a smoke-filled environment, and some responsibility certainly falls on them, but the establishment still knows they are allowing a potentially harmful action to take place, and they need to be held accountable as well.

[jseankil]

76. You think you have a right to kill workers?

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SECOND HAND SMOKE DOES!

[hedgehog]

78. How about this: someone invent a special hood for smokers to use

so that they can smoke away all they want without making the rest of us smell and inhale their smoke?