on pbs/dw-tv now (this is a non-flammable smoking post)

[RainDog]

just fyi.

I'm not going to argue this. Just noting it.

Germany enacted a no-smoking ban in bars in January. Austria doesn't have such a ban. Business in Bavaria is down 20% and more because Germans are going to bars and restaurants in Austria -- just across the border. Some ppl walk across the border for lunch. The bars and restaurants in Austria on the border have started carrying cigars in humidors and all kinds of smoking accessories.

One barkeep in Germany has his ashtrays stored in his garage. The reporter asked if he wanted to be able to put the ashtrays back in his establishment. The guy said he didn't care one way or the other. he just wanted customers.

prohibition was never been a great success, as far as I know of, throughout history. In Muslim countries with prohibitions against alcohol or tv, because of the harm they cause, don't work either.

[Warpy]

1. Restricting smoking in public facilities is NOT prohibition

and overstating your case is a good way to look silly.

Smoking is illegal in all indoor facilities in this city now except for a few small offices like lawyers, CPAs and insurance agents. That means I'm finally able to exit my shell and do things most people take for granted, like eat in a restaurant or visit a club when a band I like is playing.

Just set fire to those things outdoors and we'll get along fine. No, I will never enjoy the stench of burning tobacco, but if it's outside, it's not concentrated enough to throw me into bronchospasm, make me puke, and give me a migraine.

[RainDog]

2. thank you.

I appreciate your feedback. I don't see any need to insult me, but that's your choice.

Have a great evening!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Nobody insulted you.

And overstating your case is a good way to look silly.

[RainDog]

4. thank you for your input

just fyi, I'm hiding my own thread after this.

if someone cannot open a smokers bar - a place whose sole purpose is to cater to smokers... considering that smoking and tobacco are legal substances... what is it if a person is not allowed to open such an establishment?

discrimination against a "class of people" since any other legal substance may have a bar, etc. for the purpose of consuming the same?

if that's silly to you, then it is.

have a great day!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. "what is it if a person is not allowed to open such an establishment? "

Safety rules.

It's like saying requiring employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom is discrimination against filthy slobs.

[RainDog]

6. no it is not a safety issue

it is discrimination if someone wants to open a business whose sole purpose is to cater to smokers. as I mentioned in the other post. No one would be forced to go there unless they want to be around smoking. No one is forced to work there b/c there is an entire city full of bars and restaurants who cater to non-smokers.

is smoking the only safety issue in this country? surely you cannot try to claim this. is smoking in an establishment whose sole purpose is to cater to smokers a health issue? no it's not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Yes, it is.

Somebody has to work at that bar, and workers are protected too.

[RainDog]

8. jesus christ

no one HAS TO work in that bar. no one can FORCE anyone to work in that business. if smokers wanted to work in that bar, should they be prohibited from doing so? your argument does not hold up, even tho it's the classic argument for non-smokers whenever smokers ask why there can be no choice.

you don't want smokers to have a choice.

on two different posts I outlined the terms. but you ignore them because you cannot make claims about a smokers bar that you make for restaurants, etc. The point is that smokers are prohibited from having an establishment that caters to them.

prohibited. silly me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Ah, but then that would be discrimination against non-smoking employees.

You can't waive safety regulations. You can't have unsafe machinery and say "OK, this factory is for workers who want to work unsafely."

"you don't want smokers to have a choice."

Sure I do. They can choose between putting down the cigarette, or staying outside.

"but you ignore them because you cannot make claims about a smokers bar that you make for restaurants, etc."

I just did.

[RainDog]

11. okay.

you are so right. you are absolutely right that no one chooses to work around hazardous chemicals. how silly of me to assume that safety regulations insure that every industry that deals with hazardous substances no longer exists.

just because you pick and choose how to argue the issue doesn't... nevermind.

you are absolutely right. totally. thank you for looking out for everyone in the entire world to save them from the most important issue in the entire world.

just as an aside... in bars that have live music - musicians who tour because they are well known... those bars have smoking in them. you just don't know about it. the "green room" of these bars caters to the musicians, who puff away in that green room, (I'm talking about cigarettes only) and who have waiters that check on them (tho they generally have a big cooler of iced beers, etc. waiting for them.) I know this b/c of friends who have taken me to those green rooms.

no one says a word about it.

I, frankly, am horrified. No one cares about those musicians or the waiters, apparently. Maybe the non-smokers should form a vigilante squad to make sure no smoking goes on in green rooms.

you will not convince me that your pov is valid and I won't convince you. why don't we just stop now. you can have the last word.

have a great day!

[hyphenate]

10. Thank you for noting this

However, what the Germans and Austrians want to do--or not to do--is likely a different way of looking at the subject.

In the United States, we have been aware for many years, and what the tobacco industry tried for so long to hide, is that smoke from cigarettes is toxic. My dad died from lung cancer at the age of 58 because of smoking cigarettes from the age of 12 or 13. Despite everything he knew about smoking, and about already being diagnosed with cancer, he continued to smoke pretty near up to his death. And other family members continue to smoke to this day, despite the full knowledge that it is going to be their method of death.

Smoking is an addiction, and I would say even now it is more addictive than alcohol, drugs or pretty much anything else, and that's largely because it isn't regulated to some degree. Certainly prohibition didn't work, but that was because banning all liquor was foolish and continues to be foolish. Most drinkers don't have a little switch inside their brain that turns on when they're drinking and keeps them drinking way past the time of being overwhelming. On the other hand, cigarettes have, for years, contained chemicals that specifically target that pleasure zone to make them highly addictive. And all with the knowledge and understanding of the industry that manufactures them.

It's hard to be a non-smoker after years of smoking, and that's why the tobacco industry is as evil as possible: it knew the risks it was creating, but created them just the same.

A dear old friend used to sum it up in a button he used to wear to conventions, meetings and just about any social occasion that came up: "I don't mind you smoking in my face, as long as you don't mind me spitting in yours."