The great e-cig ban begins

[DanieMarie]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

Also, I find the use of the word "Freedom" here to be kind of arrogant. Freedom is incredibly subjective and depends on the collective values in any given society. I would not feel free in good chunks of the US for that reason. To me (and most other people I know in my corners of the world), the concept of freedom includes relatively equal access to healthcare and higher education, solid worker's rights, and that sort of thing. We believe freedom cannot exist without social safety nets and protections. Obviously, to you, "freedom" means something completely different, which is fine, but last time I checked, this debate was not limited to the US. When I talk about smoking bans, I do so in the context of my own country (well, countries, as I'm dual). What you want to do in your own country is your own business. I might not like it, but I don't live or vote there so it doesn't really matter, now, does it.

[DanieMarie]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

I think there's a difference between forcing someone to make or do something they don't normally do and saying they can't refuse service to someone. I wouldn't sing a bunch of violent songs at an event because that's not the kind of material I sing. I don't know any songs like that. I'd have to learn all new material, which is an unreasonable request. Catholic Digest doesn't print pro-atheist material because that's not the kind of writers they have on staff and they are not set up to do that. A better comparison would be that Catholic Digest refuses a subscription to an atheist because that person isn't Catholic. Likewise, that bakery was not asked to make a GAY cake. If they'd been asked to make a cake depicting gay porno or something, that would be one thing. They were just asked to make a basic, run-of-the-mill cake and refused to do it because of the prospect's sexuality.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

Ok, so what if I were to ask you to play some music for my wedding - I'm perfectly willing to pay your rates, but I want every song to be violent cop-killer rap. If the bakery owners have to bake a "gay" cake, that means you should be obligated (legally) to play my wedding, right? Show me where I'm wrong.

Or, possibly, DanieMarie might be hired to sing at at KKK rally. Since she can't turn it down because she objects to the KKK, she'd be legally obligated to do it.

Maybe I could hire her to sing at a pro-life rally, and legally force her to do it. Then, it would seem as if she supports the cause...

Of course, maybe the law could be written in such a way that there are gooberment approved social issues which it is illegal to "discriminate" against, and a list of social issues which the gooberment says it is OK to "discriminate" against.

THAT would be a great way to shut up those voices the... uhm...infallible social specialists in the gooberment say are naughty.

The right to free speech includes the right to NOT give support to those causes one does not agree with as well, or it is useless.

I honestly can not see how anybody who actually looks at this issue can see it as anything other that a gross violation of personal liberties.


Oh! Oh! Catholic Digest should be forced to publish pro-atheist articles, and, maybe, the Pope can force Sinead O'Connor to sing at the next Christmas mass. He could certainly afford it...

[Roknrol]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

Oh please. There are countless regulations that tell businesses how they can run their businesses. Especially in the food and drink sector. This isn't any different.

Really? What was the last restaurant that had to ban peanuts due to legislation because some of their patrons were allergic and could die? I can't think of a one.

Yes, there are regulations to keep the food safe and healthy, but the business owner still gets to decide how it will be presented and the type of clientelle that they will serve. There's a huge difference between Ruth's Chriss Steakhouse and Denny's.

Once again, we tell businesses what they can and can't do al the time. Sometimes, that does affect their earnings and sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure lots of supermarkets would make money if they were open on Sundays, but that doesn't mean that they're allowed to be open on Sundays (here, stores have to be closed on Sundays).

And here businessowners have Freedom and can be open whenever they like. Sometimes liquor laws can get in the way of some portions of sales, but other than that if a store wants to be open 24/7 they are allowed to. They have that Freedom. See, I like that. I like the idea that a person can choose to work a little bit harder to get a little further ahead. When you begin legislating behavior you cut out the profit margins and kill the business. Once upon a time it was possible to make (pardon the pun) a truckload of money by being a long-haul truck driver. Today? They've got it so overregulated (read: restricted so many Freedoms) that it's nearly impossible to make a living wage doing so. Legislation never improves productivity or advances technology. The Internet (and all things computer) have thrived because they have been largely unregulated. Now that they want to regulate it - and tell us what we can and cannot see - what do you think will happen?

But that's fine - you like living in a totalitarian society. I don't. I live in a country that is supposed to represent the very idea of Freedom, and preventing businessowners from their own rights on their own property is wrong.

Cars DO affect air quality and I'm totally in favour of measures that aim to reduce driving. In some cases (in Paris a few weeks ago, for example) cities HAVE had to ban driving for periods of time. BUT that being said, when people drive cars, they don't do it in an enclosed space.

Horseshit. Parking garages, garages, and tunnels - all over the friggen place. Regardless of how wrong your thinking is, that is just the first step. It will progressively get worse until people can't drive.

Or rather, it would if cars didn't get us to and from work. Because a productive people is an occupied people, and an occupied people tend to not think. Forcing people to work close to home would kill industry, and the Gubmint (any gubmint) doesn't want that. So no, cars won't get "banned". France is pretty progressive, and I expect that kind of thing from them...it fits in line with their representation. That is their choice. I live in the United States. Freedom is kind of our thing, or at least, it used to be.

And I'll say it again. We set regulations that govern how businesses can operate alllll the time.

So give me something comparable - what restaurant is forbidden from serving dairy, wheat, soy, peanuts, or any other allergens for that matter? We all know that there are signs in restaurants that point out that they can't guarantee a nut-free meal - do you know why? Because they expect that if the public is informed, they can make their own decision on whether or not they would like to be a patron. Smoking is the ONLY thing that is in that category that I can think of. Am I wrong? If so, please give me examples...I'm drawing a blank.

Also, I don't know about there, but here very few businesses (save probably large multinational manufacturers) actually own the space they operate in, so it's not really their property, either.

They frequently lease, yes, but at that point it becomes the choice of the property owner so still, someone is losing their rights. And what about the owners that actually own their own property? Why are they still denied their basic freedom and Rights of Ownership?

Oh, right, because smoke bothers you and you can't find anything else to do on a Friday night.

Way to put words in my mouth.

On the contrary, we have had similar discussions about gun control, abortion, and didn't you just make a post regarding the woman that was sueing the family of the kid she hit? "That shouldn't be allowed"? I'd say that's fairly consistent.

Air filtration systems don't work well enough. And if we want to talk about expenses and problems for business owners, installing and maintaining those is VERY expensive. I think most would actually prefer people smoke outside (especially at the rates we pay for electricity in Europe).

If you weren't completely wrong about that, I'd agree with you. http://www.wthr.com/story/21537485/c...is-smoking-ban While I don't disagree that some probably prefer it, MOST is (at best) overreaching. And you know what: Every single one of those bar owners that likes the ban? They could have banned it at any time. That's what Freedom means, after all, being able to make your own decisions. Instead, that decision has been removed from ALL of them.

I'm totally against hookah bars. That's breaking the smoking ban.

I'm not even remotely surprised.

Ok, Old Economy Steve. You keep pretending that you can just pick and choose where you work and that there are enough jobs waiting around that you can be choosy.

That's because yes, that's exactly how it works. When you finish up school you have a world of careers open to you. Based on your own education (which you are also largely responsible for - and which most of us screw up) and your own desire, you have thousands of different directions you can go in. The status of this never changes. You can always change your career.

Now some people make bad decisions - maybe they get pregnant when they can't afford it, or they acquire a drug (or drinking) habit, or maybe they acquire a bunch of kids that they have to pay for and never get to see. But you know - that sucks for them. Those people still have choices to make, whether they are capable of making those decisions or not.

SOME people have zero choice in the matter - some folks are restricted in what they are physically capable of doing, and sometimes those issues are insurmountable. But that still doesn't mean that they're only qualified to do one job.

My brother in law makes poor decisions, but always has a job. 7-11's or flipping burgers, he's always working somewhere. Me? I'm not so good with job interviews so I make damned sure I'm not in the position of changing my job every few months. I work really hard to be in demand, and I study my ass off to stay good at my job. Your average person is no different than me in any respect that legislation will fix.

So yes, I keep saying it because it's true. Unless you live in a 3rd world shithole or a truly oppressive nation, you have choices.

And as I've said many times in this post, we impose rules and regulations on business owners all the time. They also don't have a choice to pay their workers $3 per hour or stay open until 5 am (well, I guess that depends on where we're talking about).

And those minimums are usually exactly what those bartenders and waitresses get, the rest of their income comes from tips. Tips that they don't get when bars are empty, because most of the people drinking like to puff on a cigarette. I'm sure that all of those waitresses are thanking you for monitoring their health. That notwithstanding, people still have a choice of where they work. They still know what to expect when they're employed in a bar.

Again, not really the same thing, until people start driving in enclosed public spaces.

BTW I think China's pollution level is a SERIOUS ISSUE. I think we have to deal with that NOW. I think we -should- stop dealing with Chinese businesses (or foreign owned ones operating in China) that contribute to the problem and I think it would help to bring back duties so that more goods are produced closer to home in the first place. I actually feel very, very strongly about overseas production and the true "cost" that those cheap goods have on our societies in our environment. I think it has to stop. On my end, I don't buy much in the line of Chinese produced goods (which sounds hard, but I just don't buy very many new goods at all).

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that the solution is better science, not legislation or coercion. Make it cheaper to be efficient. You do that by putting money into the sciences, not into passing legislation and adding more layers of governmental bullshit between the public and progress.

1) again, LOL at the idea of choosing jobs.

You keep saying this - where have you been forced to work?

2) Yes, many jobs have hazards, but those jobs always have some level of safety protection and it's mandatory (at least here and back in Canada). If bartenders, servers, etc get to wear gas masks at work, I'll consider your point.

I've been in plenty of bars where the staff were able to wear the small filters - not a full on gas mask. But gain, get a different job. Employable people can find and keep work (usually) and the majority of the unemployed people out there are people who aren't interested in changing jobs and have found other means to get by - it's still a choice. There was nothing preventing me from working at McDonald's other than my unwillingness to work there. *I* was the problem, not some imaginary slaveowner.

Also, yes, a safe workplace IS a right. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where it wasn't.

Cool, then as above - stay in an area that doesn't purport to be Free.

I don't know about all states, but I know that that's not true in all US states. It's certainly not true here or in Canada. If you refuse service to someone, you can get a pretty ugly discrimination charge on your hands.

It entirely depends on the reason why. You can't discriminate based on colour or sex or anything like that, but you can still refuse to sell something to someone just because you don't want to sell it to them. Walk into a car dealership and try to force them to sell you a car while you're being a douchbag - as soon as your obnoxiousness exceeds their tolerance level they will refuse to sell you a car, even if you're not doing anything illegal. You can be refused a room at a hotel because they don't like the way you look (I've had it happen). You can be blacklisted from a casino or a bar (There's a bar, Hoggs and Heffers (a biker place) that won't allow anyone inside that is "flying colours" (ie, wearing their biker patches) and that is 100% legal.). There are men's only clubs and women's only clubs. The bars in Utah won't let you in unless you're a paid member.

Do you need more examples?

Yes.

Ok, so what if I were to ask you to play some music for my wedding - I'm perfectly willing to pay your rates, but I want every song to be violent cop-killer rap. If the bakery owners have to bake a "gay" cake, that means you should be obligated (legally) to play my wedding, right? Show me where I'm wrong.

Once again, yes. I think they should have to cover contraception.

Ok, that's the 2nd thing I've agreed with, but I'm surprised that you actually agree with me on that.

I understand that this argument comes down to a fundamental difference in ideology. I'm not a libertarian by any means and I'm pretty leftist. I have no issues with regulations that govern what people can and can't do, which is probably why I live in Germany (the land of rules...did you know that you need a license to play golf here? Fun with regulations!)

And that is what is supposed to make our planet great - the fact that we can move to a place that already kinda holds our values, and we can live comfortably and in harmony with our neighbors without pissing people off. There are a few problems with this IMO, as I mentioned above, "Land of the Free" and all that. But the other thing is - well shit, we're making all of our countries so similar that nothing is going to be gained by moving to another nation. This means reduced options for everyone. If you happen to live in a place that you like and where the laws are what you want, that's GREAT, but for the other 90% of the people that are dissatisfied, wouldn't it be nice if they had a chance to be happy too?

A lot of people don't know this - this is one of the things that I really like about HIstory - the reason that the United States is called the "United States" was because it was founded by a group of people that knew that their neighbors were different from themselves. This way Massechusettes could have one set of laws, that applied to their citizens and what their citizens find to be important, while Pennsylvania would have different things that they found important and would legislate accordingly. 200 years of fear and a pathological need to trust the Government have made most of the states "the same", and any sort of deviation causes enormous issues (see Colorado and Washington legalizing weed, for example) that really shouldn't be issues. The Federal Government should only be involved with 1) interstate commerce 2) international concerns 3) defending our borders (I typed these as they came to mind, but #3 is really the primary reason our Feds exist in the first place)

As a side note, if the Government were to focus on those three points and not be so f'ing invasive in every other aspect of our lives I wouldn't even worry about the NSA bullshit. The reason it is a problem is because we've already lost so much control over our own Freedoms, that anything the NSA hears "can and will be held against you in a court of law". This in and of itself wouldn't be an issue, except our tax code is so rightously fucked up that literally, there is no way to "do your taxes correctly". That guarantees that the government has something to lord over your head, regardless of what your situation is. If they don't like what you're doing - even if it's not illegal - they can pull the tax-rabbit out of their asses and nail you for tax fraud.

The Government, in my book, is not my friend, and based on mountains of evidence and literally 1000's of years of case studies, only appears to have your interests in mind because it's easier than dealing with internal rebellion.

By the time I retire I intend to live on less money than the gubmint can claim taxes on. While that won't make me "Free", it'll make me feel better about not having any rights (because I at least wouldn't be paying to not have them).

[DanieMarie]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

No, but you're a fan of business owners losing their rights? Besides, non-smokers haven't lost ANY rights - were smoking still allowed in bars you'd still be allowed to go there, whether they allowed smoking or not. You are just not allowed (in the perfect world, of course) to tell anyone else how to run their business. As I said before, your sense of entitlement shouldn't infringe on my rights or on my property.

Oh please. There are countless regulations that tell businesses how they can run their businesses. Especially in the food and drink sector. This isn't any different.

They aren't. They are making choices about what kinds of businesses they support. If this were about "air quality" we'd be outlawing cars, which pump WAY more of that crap into the air (and our lungs) than a little 2nd hand smoke. Of course, that's assuming that someone is forcing you to be around smokers, but your decision to go to a bar or a club is a choice - you are neither coerced nor forced. Of course, if you're upset about the "being forced" thing, how about the business owners that want to allow smoking? They're being forced to change their own policies, sometimes at the detriment of their business.

Once again, we tell businesses what they can and can't do al the time. Sometimes, that does affect their earnings and sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure lots of supermarkets would make money if they were open on Sundays, but that doesn't mean that they're allowed to be open on Sundays (here, stores have to be closed on Sundays).

Cars DO affect air quality and I'm totally in favour of measures that aim to reduce driving. In some cases (in Paris a few weeks ago, for example) cities HAVE had to ban driving for periods of time. BUT that being said, when people drive cars, they don't do it in an enclosed space.

I'm going to say it again: If a business owner on their own property and in their own business chooses to make their establishment smoking or non-smoking I don't have a problem. It's when legislation forces them to change their business model that I have a problem. Those 10% of the people should be allowed to decide what takes place on their own property, should they not?

And I'll say it again. We set regulations that govern how businesses can operate alllll the time.

Also, I don't know about there, but here very few businesses (save probably large multinational manufacturers) actually own the space they operate in, so it's not really their property, either.

Obviously. You seem to want to make a law against everything that you disagree with.

Way to put words in my mouth.

[/Quote]
That isn't a compromise. A compromise would be proper air filtration systems giving both parties what they want. What you're calling a compromise is you saying, "Well, I got my way and I'm happy, so the people standing in 20 degree weather can go stuff it".

What is absolutely LUDICROUS about the anti-smoking laws is that mother flipping HOOKA BARS, where the whole point is to SMOKE cannot allow nicotine to be smoked in their establishment. There's far more that's crazy about the laws, but you're not interested in hearing them.[/Quote]

Air filtration systems don't work well enough. And if we want to talk about expenses and problems for business owners, installing and maintaining those is VERY expensive. I think most would actually prefer people smoke outside (especially at the rates we pay for electricity in Europe).

I'm totally against hookah bars. That's breaking the smoking ban.

And every one of those people makes an active decision to work in a bar. Of course, in this day and age they could expect to be smoke free, largely, but 10 years ago if you worked in a bar you KNEW you were going to be exposed to the smoke. Other people's poor decisions are not my problem (nor are they really the topic).

Ok, Old Economy Steve. You keep pretending that you can just pick and choose where you work and that there are enough jobs waiting around that you can be choosy.

But we aren't talking about polluting the environment -you've said yourself that what we do in our own space and on our own property (or even in open public spaces) isn't the concern. What I've been arguing against is the idea that you (or anyone else) should have the right to dictate what a businessowner allows in their own business. THAT is where I have an issue. It's not that I can't smoke in bars - that's a byproduct that (as I've said) wasn't really a problem for me to CHOOSE to avoid. The owners? They don't have a choice.

And as I've said many times in this post, we impose rules and regulations on business owners all the time. They also don't have a choice to pay their workers $3 per hour or stay open until 5 am (well, I guess that depends on where we're talking about).

Cool - so you're on board with banning cars then? How about we ban China entirely? Seriously, if you're focused so much on pollution there are a thousand more productive places to start looking...cigarettes shouldn't even show up on the radar.

Again, not really the same thing, until people start driving in enclosed public spaces.

BTW I think China's pollution level is a SERIOUS ISSUE. I think we have to deal with that NOW. I think we -should- stop dealing with Chinese businesses (or foreign owned ones operating in China) that contribute to the problem and I think it would help to bring back duties so that more goods are produced closer to home in the first place. I actually feel very, very strongly about overseas production and the true "cost" that those cheap goods have on our societies in our environment. I think it has to stop. On my end, I don't buy much in the line of Chinese produced goods (which sounds hard, but I just don't buy very many new goods at all).


The trend to ban smoking started in real PUBLIC places - places run by the State or by the Government in some capacity. And I agree with that, wholeheartedly - if you have to go and pay a parking ticket, you shouldn't have to be breathing that crap. Office buildings more or less just picked that up when the Government started doing it. Bars, on the other hand, were the last refuge for the smokers to get out of the weather, have a drink, and relax. By banning smoking in bars wholesale, not only have you damaged the businessowners' ability to turn a profit, but you've pushed the smokers outside in the cold from the ONE PLACE that they could go and be reasonably assured that they wouldn't be harassed. IMO, that was the real compromise: We'll stop smoking almost everywhere, but we'll cut the smokers a little bit of slack. We'll give them ONE type of business that they're allowed to smoke in. Apparently giving non-smokers every other business, every plane, every form of public transportation, and half of the time even sidewalks wasn't quite enough.

Because it's not a RIGHT, primarily. Different jobs have different hazards, and if people weren't willing to tolerate some absolutely shitty conditions for shittier pay then nothing would ever get done - no farming, no fishing, no mining, no drilling, no engineering, no more buildings, etc. If those bartenders, servers, and bouncers want to work away from the smoke, there are 1000's of jobs out there waiting for them. They chose their career arc.

1) again, LOL at the idea of choosing jobs. 2) Yes, many jobs have hazards, but those jobs always have some level of safety protection and it's mandatory (at least here and back in Canada). If bartenders, servers, etc get to wear gas masks at work, I'll consider your point.

Also, yes, a safe workplace IS a right. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where it wasn't.

Actually, yes it is - at least, up until recent years. See, I don't know how it is in Germany or in Canada, but in the United States ownership means something. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a pretty commonly seen sign in most businesses.

I don't know about all states, but I know that that's not true in all US states. It's certainly not true here or in Canada. If you refuse service to someone, you can get a pretty ugly discrimination charge on your hands.

So here's an honest question for you, it kind of touches on the topic (I mentioned it above, but I'm asking a question this time) : There is a bakery in Oregon that came under fire a couple of years ago because they refused to make a wedding cake with two grooms on it. They actually refused to do any of the work at all when they realized it was for a gay couple. Should these bakers be forced to bake the cake because they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate?

Yes.

This also plays into the contraception thing with the Catholic Church - what's your stance on that?

Once again, yes. I think they should have to cover contraception.



I understand that this argument comes down to a fundamental difference in ideology. I'm not a libertarian by any means and I'm pretty leftist. I have no issues with regulations that govern what people can and can't do, which is probably why I live in Germany (the land of rules...did you know that you need a license to play golf here? Fun with regulations!)

[Luce]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

I can...its sort of what I do for a living. I'm not saying that I think its necessairrly worse (except perhaps for persons that already have lung issues or some chemical sensitivities, I'd guess that it at least marginally better), I'm just saying there are problems that havent been looked at (especially with the lack of labeling and testing and quality control) and there is an unknown factor here with regart to the possibility of sensitization or long term cumulative affects. Look at asbestos or polyisocyanates or popcorn flavoring & what those chemicals can do to lung function...

I stick with the unflavored stuff, so I'm not unduly worried. If polypropylene glycol had serious risks, we'd know about it from 30+ years of rescue inhalers. The balance is vegetable oil, water, and nicotine.

While it's possible that there might be some ill effects, they can't possibly be as bad as cigarettes.

[Roknrol]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

Well guess what....when you smoke, everyone who doesn't smoke loses their rights.

No, but you're a fan of business owners losing their rights? Besides, non-smokers haven't lost ANY rights - were smoking still allowed in bars you'd still be allowed to go there, whether they allowed smoking or not. You are just not allowed (in the perfect world, of course) to tell anyone else how to run their business. As I said before, your sense of entitlement shouldn't infringe on my rights or on my property.

I don't see why 30% of the population gets to make choices about air quality for the other 70% of people.

They aren't. They are making choices about what kinds of businesses they support. If this were about "air quality" we'd be outlawing cars, which pump WAY more of that crap into the air (and our lungs) than a little 2nd hand smoke. Of course, that's assuming that someone is forcing you to be around smokers, but your decision to go to a bar or a club is a choice - you are neither coerced nor forced. Of course, if you're upset about the "being forced" thing, how about the business owners that want to allow smoking? They're being forced to change their own policies, sometimes at the detriment of their business.

In places where smoking bans have been in place, that number is even less. In BC, 10% of the adult population smokes...should those 10% of people get to clog up the air for the other 90%? Nope.

I'm going to say it again: If a business owner on their own property and in their own business chooses to make their establishment smoking or non-smoking I don't have a problem. It's when legislation forces them to change their business model that I have a problem. Those 10% of the people should be allowed to decide what takes place on their own property, should they not?

The world isn't "do whatever you want." We do not live in a lawless society, and I for one wouldn't want to.

Obviously. You seem to want to make a law against everything that you disagree with.

The laws and regulations we have are usually about making compromises so that the least amount of people are affected. In the case of smoking, that usually means smoking outside.

That isn't a compromise. A compromise would be proper air filtration systems giving both parties what they want. What you're calling a compromise is you saying, "Well, I got my way and I'm happy, so the people standing in 20 degree weather can go stuff it".

What is absolutely LUDICROUS about the anti-smoking laws is that mother flipping HOOKA BARS, where the whole point is to SMOKE cannot allow nicotine to be smoked in their establishment. There's far more that's crazy about the laws, but you're not interested in hearing them.

I DO oppose BC's bans on smoking near doorways or on restaurant patios (come on, guys...calm down) for that reason...the compromise was good there.

Obviously there are people that hate smoking so much that they're willing to screw smokers even more. I'm not surprised...people don't seem to get very upset when they aren't the ones getting singled out.

It's not just about me singing...I used myself as an example. It's everyone who works in a bar environment.

And every one of those people makes an active decision to work in a bar. Of course, in this day and age they could expect to be smoke free, largely, but 10 years ago if you worked in a bar you KNEW you were going to be exposed to the smoke. Other people's poor decisions are not my problem (nor are they really the topic).

And we're also talking about a situation where we have public health care, so affecting the health of those employees also costs everyone more money.

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with. Yes, if you're in a country with Socialized Medicine the rules are probably different. Obamacare isn't quite to that point yet, and I think there will be a lot of blowback if we get that far. But we aren't there yet - at least, not in the States.

I'll accept that smokers come with costs, because they pay extra taxes on their cigarettes anyway, so they pay for their vice, so to speak, and we all have unhealthy habits that cost the system money, but when you start adding people into the mix because you horribly pollute their work environment, I think that's a problem.

But we aren't talking about polluting the environment -you've said yourself that what we do in our own space and on our own property (or even in open public spaces) isn't the concern. What I've been arguing against is the idea that you (or anyone else) should have the right to dictate what a businessowner allows in their own business. THAT is where I have an issue. It's not that I can't smoke in bars - that's a byproduct that (as I've said) wasn't really a problem for me to CHOOSE to avoid. The owners? They don't have a choice.

Not to mention the fact that everyone should have the right to have a safe and healthy work environment and when you allow smoking indoors, you compromise that.

Cool - so you're on board with banning cars then? How about we ban China entirely? Seriously, if you're focused so much on pollution there are a thousand more productive places to start looking...cigarettes shouldn't even show up on the radar.

Most people accept that you can't smoke in offices, because other employees should have a right to a safe and healthy work environment.

The trend to ban smoking started in real PUBLIC places - places run by the State or by the Government in some capacity. And I agree with that, wholeheartedly - if you have to go and pay a parking ticket, you shouldn't have to be breathing that crap. Office buildings more or less just picked that up when the Government started doing it. Bars, on the other hand, were the last refuge for the smokers to get out of the weather, have a drink, and relax. By banning smoking in bars wholesale, not only have you damaged the businessowners' ability to turn a profit, but you've pushed the smokers outside in the cold from the ONE PLACE that they could go and be reasonably assured that they wouldn't be harassed. IMO, that was the real compromise: We'll stop smoking almost everywhere, but we'll cut the smokers a little bit of slack. We'll give them ONE type of business that they're allowed to smoke in. Apparently giving non-smokers every other business, every plane, every form of public transportation, and half of the time even sidewalks wasn't quite enough.

Why is it so unreasonable to extend that right to servers, bartenders, bouncers, musicians, DJs, etc?

Because it's not a RIGHT, primarily. Different jobs have different hazards, and if people weren't willing to tolerate some absolutely shitty conditions for shittier pay then nothing would ever get done - no farming, no fishing, no mining, no drilling, no engineering, no more buildings, etc. If those bartenders, servers, and bouncers want to work away from the smoke, there are 1000's of jobs out there waiting for them. They chose their career arc.

If you own an office, allowing smoking in your place of business isn't one of your rights as a business owner. It shouldn't be different if you own a bar.

Actually, yes it is - at least, up until recent years. See, I don't know how it is in Germany or in Canada, but in the United States ownership means something. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a pretty commonly seen sign in most businesses.

So here's an honest question for you, it kind of touches on the topic (I mentioned it above, but I'm asking a question this time) : There is a bakery in Oregon that came under fire a couple of years ago because they refused to make a wedding cake with two grooms on it. They actually refused to do any of the work at all when they realized it was for a gay couple. Should these bakers be forced to bake the cake because they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate?

This also plays into the contraception thing with the Catholic Church - what's your stance on that?

- - - Updated - - -

This business owners rights gets blown way out of proportion. Business owners used to not serve people based on their skin, looks and appearance. Long hair males during the 1960s were denied service in many places. This idea that a business can choose who to serve is wrong and the notion that people will just go somewhere else is a fallacy. They might be the only place in town for miles and we want them to be able to decide if they want to operate their business for you.

I'm sorry, did you just equate "We allow smokers and non-smokers in our establishment, but you'll have to deal with some smoke" with "No niggers allowed"? NOBODY was removing any rights from non-smokers - they still had the right to come or go, their choice. Regarding "people will just go somewhere else", well, that's certainly their choice as well - I utilize my choice to go or not go based on various policies with various businesses so I'm not sure why you think it's a fallacy.

These vapors are liquid nicotine the its just water argument is undetermined. It can be just as addicting as tobacco and the vapors look like toys combined with flavors can lure kids to want to use them.

Um, no. These are not a pitch to sell to kids...you've been watching way too much 70's propaganda videos. I will grant that the effects aren't known yet - I've tried an e-cig and it worked ok, but wasn't the same as a real cigarette from the 'habit' side of things so didn't help me quit. The reason it can be "just as addictive" is because it contains many of the addictive chemicals (like nicotine, of course).

[thalassa]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

I'm trying to imagine any effects that would be worse than those pumped down into them by actual cigarette smoke.

I can...its sort of what I do for a living. I'm not saying that I think its necessairrly worse (except perhaps for persons that already have lung issues or some chemical sensitivities, I'd guess that it at least marginally better), I'm just saying there are problems that havent been looked at (especially with the lack of labeling and testing and quality control) and there is an unknown factor here with regart to the possibility of sensitization or long term cumulative affects. Look at asbestos or polyisocyanates or popcorn flavoring & what those chemicals can do to lung function...

[Historyforall]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

This business owners rights gets blown way out of proportion. Business owners used to not serve people based on their skin, looks and appearance. Long hair males during the 1960s were denied service in many places. This idea that a business can choose who to serve is wrong and the notion that people will just go somewhere else is a fallacy. They might be the only place in town for miles and we want them to be able to decide if they want to operate their business for you.

These vapors are liquid nicotine the its just water argument is undetermined. It can be just as addicting as tobacco and the vapors look like toys combined with flavors can lure kids to want to use them.

[Luce]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

This.



I think that one is still open to investigation, depending on what all is actually in them, and how they affect the aveoli in the lungs over the long term.

I'm trying to imagine any effects that would be worse than those pumped down into them by actual cigarette smoke.

[DanieMarie]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

DanieMarie: Of course you see it as "everyone wins", because you aren't losing any of your rights. Of course, "everyone" in your scenario means "everyone but the filthy smokers." You are gaining privilege at the expense of someone else's rights. That is where there's a problem. (I'm specifically referring, not to the right of the smoker to smoke, but the right of the business owner to run their business as they see fit. To put this into perspective, I'm fairly certain that you'd have a problem with someone telling you that you can perform music in Berlin all you like, but you are only allowed to play Polka's (because other music can be offensive to the patrons, of course!). Would you consider that a violation of your rights?)

You know, for all of the non-smokers bitching about how they can't go to bars if there's smoke in there, ever since they've enacted the bans I haven't been to a single bar. Not one. Gee...I've made a choice to not go to a bar...I wonder why the non-smokers can't make the same decision?

Well guess what....when you smoke, everyone who doesn't smoke loses their rights. I don't see why 30% of the population gets to make choices about air quality for the other 70% of people. In places where smoking bans have been in place, that number is even less. In BC, 10% of the adult population smokes...should those 10% of people get to clog up the air for the other 90%? Nope.

The world isn't "do whatever you want." We do not live in a lawless society, and I for one wouldn't want to. The laws and regulations we have are usually about making compromises so that the least amount of people are affected. In the case of smoking, that usually means smoking outside. I DO oppose BC's bans on smoking near doorways or on restaurant patios (come on, guys...calm down) for that reason...the compromise was good there. It's not just about me singing...I used myself as an example. It's everyone who works in a bar environment. And we're also talking about a situation where we have public health care, so affecting the health of those employees also costs everyone more money. I'll accept that smokers come with costs, because they pay extra taxes on their cigarettes anyway, so they pay for their vice, so to speak, and we all have unhealthy habits that cost the system money, but when you start adding people into the mix because you horribly pollute their work environment, I think that's a problem. Not to mention the fact that everyone should have the right to have a safe and healthy work environment and when you allow smoking indoors, you compromise that.

- - - Updated - - -

Most people accept that you can't smoke in offices, because other employees should have a right to a safe and healthy work environment. Why is it so unreasonable to extend that right to servers, bartenders, bouncers, musicians, DJs, etc? If you own an office, allowing smoking in your place of business isn't one of your rights as a business owner. It shouldn't be different if you own a bar.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

Businesses will do as they will, but my preferences and rights take precedence on my property, and that's the issue with airborne things.

[Roknrol]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

DanieMarie: Of course you see it as "everyone wins", because you aren't losing any of your rights. Of course, "everyone" in your scenario means "everyone but the filthy smokers." You are gaining privilege at the expense of someone else's rights. That is where there's a problem. (I'm specifically referring, not to the right of the smoker to smoke, but the right of the business owner to run their business as they see fit. To put this into perspective, I'm fairly certain that you'd have a problem with someone telling you that you can perform music in Berlin all you like, but you are only allowed to play Polka's (because other music can be offensive to the patrons, of course!). Would you consider that a violation of your rights?)

You know, for all of the non-smokers bitching about how they can't go to bars if there's smoke in there, ever since they've enacted the bans I haven't been to a single bar. Not one. Gee...I've made a choice to not go to a bar...I wonder why the non-smokers can't make the same decision?

[DanieMarie]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

I think that one is still open to investigation, depending on what all is actually in them, and how they affect the aveoli in the lungs over the long term.

I see what you mean. I just sort of feel at the end of my rope here in Berlin and am desperate for anything to replace the clouds of smoke I encounter everywhere I go. Preferably, people wouldn't smoke at all, but they're really reluctant to that idea. My boyfriend won't even let go of the idea that smoking and bars/pubs/clubs/music venues go together. We've had many a fight about it. He's seen me have an asthma attack, but he just can't let it go.

[thalassa]

Re: The great e-cig ban begins

It's not just a matter of patron choice either. The staff has to work in those conditions as well. And as I mentioned in another thread, recently, the idea of employees "choosing" where to work is laughable in a lot of places.

This.

I think e-cigs are a good compromise though. I mean, they may have negative health effects, but they aren't as bad as cigarettes, and in places like Berlin, I think they could be a good transition device.

I think that one is still open to investigation, depending on what all is actually in them, and how they affect the aveoli in the lungs over the long term.