This is the thread for the Fox News "Daily Show for conservatives" thing

GZeus, do you know that modern anti-smoking legislation - in every municipality and country where it's been adopted - has its foundation and justification in workplace health and safety? The "door" that was left open for this legislation to walk through was won over the last century in a disparate, gruelling set of battles to secure the right of workers to not be driven to an early grave simply because of the place they work.

What kind of door does it open, what kind of PRECEDENT does it set, to say that some lines of work are simply not deserving of workplace health safeguards? Because they are "dives", or unsavoury, or whatever other reason, big or small?

Republican=insult right there.
denial=lieing to oneself. I don't take well to being called a liar.

/\that's a list. They should be seperated by enter keys. Would you like me to add the HTML code to put bullet points? Wait, I suck at HTML...

Name other regularions that prevent people in a private establishment from doing something legal just because other people don't like it.
It gives a little wiggle room for crazy people to argue things like no gay kissing in public(this was argued somewhere in the USA a few years ago, I think). Such things wouldn't pass in the current political environment, but it would caus more mudslinging, erbal battles, and trench digging on both sides.
In the future that sort of thing might pass in some city, on the grounds it's bad for these good christian children as it;s against their relgion, and it impedes on their rights to live in a sin-free environment.

I'm going a bit far, but it's intentional and done to make a point.

Have you seen the filtration systems in current restaraunts? The distance between smoking and non? The fact the cigars and 'aromatic'(fucking vague enough to include about anything strong) cigarettes were already banned by the restaraunts and bars themselves?

And yeah, the audience a dive bar caters to smokes.
If you don't want to be around smoke don't work in a place that caters to smokers. That's basic logic, that.
People are also more prone to smoke when the drink(many theories as to why, I'm sure) so ...repeat.

Don't get in a boxing ring if you don't want to get hit.
This is not legislation of employees/workers in a workplace, it's legislation of CUSTOMERS.
Of THE PUBLIC.
There is a difference, though not enough for me to back the anti workplace smoking laws. Why not repeal them? What company's workers would allow their company to go back? What company would be crazy enough?

Basically the motivation I see is that anti-smokers got impatient and couldn't wait for the eventuality of restaraunts doing this themselves and decided to force the issue.

Um you don't think it has more to do with established health risks of second hand smoke more than "just not liking it"?

To be fair some people may think that watching same-sex kisses causes cancer though.

Read the legislation. It has nothing to do with customers. It has to do with workers and their right to have a full career in their place of employment without going to an early grave. It's that simple and yes, there is a difference between that and legislating what customers can or can't do with their own bodies. Because that's not the point. Note that cigarettes remain legal.

Don't get in a boxing ring if you don't want to get hit.

And don't smoke in a New York restaurant, bar or club if you don't want to get thrown out. When in Rome...

^^ whats your take on workers comp for employees who get cancer which couldve been easily prevented with a regulation of cancer-causing substances in their place of employment?

Futhermore: auto shop. Tell me how to get the work needed to get done there done in the winter without getting even more carcinogen exposure.
Workplace hazard. Goes with the territory.

I've already said this isn't a slippery slope argument.

The boxing RING analogy is an exageration to make a point.

In Japan there are no smoking bans, to my knowledge, other than on the trains. The shinkansen has a few smoking cars, though.
Thing is, more and more places have either no smoking at all, or a seperate room.
Still more smoking there than here, but it's not in style any more, and is just fading out.

Ya couldn't wait?

wow

Not if you work there! Unless you're ready to get fired. And then go work at one of those non-smoking bars that you have already said don't exist.

-- and what (an...), Today. (later)

lol

The anger gets redirected towards the people making a living wage, not at the companies lowballing the pay rates(and supporting politicos and pundits who go on about how the min.wage will destroy business, bring on communism, violate your daughters, etc)

xp

Know why non-smoking bars didn't exist? people didn't want them.
However, non-smoking restaraunts that sevre liqour did.

Oh, and yes, I do just want the last word at this point. I can agree to disagree, but not to people calling me stupid because they disagree.
63k is actually a barely managable wage for people who actually want to retire, and I think the fact that people somehow still think 30k a year will cut is really sad.
No one saves money ay more, we're all in debt up to our eyeballs, and we still can't see something that simple...

I know some people who are bartenders and like it.
They knew the industry they were getting into, and half of them already smoked. The other half were annoyed at the drop in cigarettes sales and number of customers.

I call bullshit.

I would totally be in favor of places being able to apply for hugely expensive smoking licenses, in the same way dance clubs or carnivals have to get extra permits. And the establishment would be obligated to pay for really good health-care (the same way other high-risk workplaces do). You could have these, like, smoking EMPORIA.

I would have been fine with tax breaks for non-smoking bars.

-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...)

this is otm

Could we get back to talking about this toilet of a TV show? I think both sides have said their peice.

I would be surprised if that's the case. If so, it shows how pathetic the demand from bartenders themselves is to keep smoking going in most places. (I would be very interested in the mechanics of the "vote" at a bar run by Philip Morris).

I suspect that instead it's like NYC, where as long as at least 10% of the establishment's receipts are from tobacco you can smoke to your heart's content. i.e. you are a CUSTOMER for the product, rather than bringing it in with you.

I wonder how GZeus feels about the longstanding smoking ban in cinemas. Those places used to be a smoker's paradise.

more here. Includes a 2nd YT vid, "where the show's producers discuss who might be offended at it."

It is the case. Or at least according to the owner of Amber (in SF), it's the case. There is one other place that is run the same way, I think (the Phonebooth maybe?)