Guest, this issue has nothing to do with smokers or non-smokers. It has to do with the freedom of the PRIVATE property owner.
Listen to you - not once do you mention the person that owns the establishment that you talk about mingling in with smokers. Don't you think they (the owners) have any say in this? Don't you think they (the owners) should have ALL of the say in this? You are acting like you own the place.
Look, assuming you do own property don't let people smoke there. Don't let them cross their eyes there. Don't let them run in the hallways. Whatever you want - it is your property. But don't tell other people what the rules in their house should be.
posted by babbleman at 10:01 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 15, 2004 #
I've heard all the arguments from all sides on this very tired subject.
I'm a non-smoker and I enjoy the fact that bars in Toledo are smokeless. I may be in the minority but I noticed I have been patronizing them more since the ban.
however...
The government does have a responsibility to address public health risks but in the case of smoking they need to be consistent. If they truly deem it a risk to public health it should be illegal everywhere, not just in public places. Selective enforcement is cowardly and unfair and is only being done for political reasons.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 12:40 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 17, 2004 #
As usual, babblemouth attempts to sway opinions with false testimony. Bars and restaurants are WORKPLACES, not private homes. As a workplace, they are covered by OSHA regulations, which can and should prevent injury and illness to employees and patrons.
Furthermore, Guest and Dan are BOTH correct. The vast majority of the public recognizes the dangers of second-hand smoke. Fortunately, smoking regulations are sweeping the nation. This is no fad. In a few years, smoke-free zones will fortunately become the norm. If it goes to the polling place, voters will easily support smoking regulations
Let's save the lives of millions of young people who work in local establishments and let's allow the huge majority of Americans who hate smoke to eat and drink in a pleasant smoke-free environment.
You know, with all of the dangers of second-hand smoke now well understood, you have to be a knuckle-head to support it. And forget the "you can't touch us because we are private property" crap you get from babblemaster. These establishments are NOT someone's home. They are WORKPLACES.
posted by Chaz at 02:24 P.M. EST on Sun Sep 19, 2004 #
"These establishments are NOT someone's home. They are WORKPLACES."
Which is why, as Dan stated, the smoking ban should also include private clubs. What about the health of the workers and the customers at private clubs?
I don't understand the thinking of people who get upset at bar owners who want to be exempt from the ban when private clubs are already exempt. Either more exceptions are allowed, or the ban is universal. The bar owners are not trying to waterdown Toledo's ban, because it's already a half-ass ban.
If the government truly cared about the public's health, they would ban smoking everywhere with no exceptions, and they would ban the sale of tobacco in Toledo. Otherwise, as it stands now, Toledo government is a bunch of hypocrites.
Why are private clubs exempt from the ban? Why are tiny businesses exempt from the ban?
posted by jr at 10:11 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 21, 2004 #
Right on JR!!! You are exactly correct. If people want to damage their own lungs and hearts, let them do it outside or in their own homes (God help their children, if it's done in the home). Thanks JR, for pointing out something so simple that people look past it. The ban should be universal, including "private" clubs.
posted by Chaz at 12:12 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 22, 2004 #
The smoking ban was not about public or employee health, it was about political correctness and trendy ness. Second hand smoke at the best, isn’t helping you or at the worst, poses a minimal health risk. The problem with the smoking ban is the administration never bothered to consider what the burden on the small business owner would be. With public safety and environmental regulations, the government should always do a cost - benefit analysis. This may seem cold hearted, like I’m placing a dollar value on human life, but all of us do it every day. For example, if you are the type that drives to work everyday, your chances of being killed in a traffic accident in the next year are 1 in 7000. There is a 1 in 14000 chance the accident will be the result of a mistake you made. Not only are you putting yourself at risk driving to work, you are putting the general public at risk as well. One solution would be for you to walk to work or ride a bicycle, which doesn’t completely mitigate your risk, you could still get run over, but it does reduce the public’s risk. Now what if the government told you that you had to walk 14 miles to work, because you were endangering the general public and also endangering the lives of police officers, which is prohibited by OSHA. Faced with such a choice, and being that is still a somewhat free country, you might decided to move into a section 8 housing complex and collect welfare. You wouldn’t have to work that way, and the 14-mile trek in the winter would be avoided. In that scenario, everybody loses, you receive a lower standard of living and the government loses all the tax dollars you were paying. The government could avoid losing tax dollars if it just mandated you walk to work everyday, under the threat of fine or imprisonment.
Benjamin Franklin “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”
Mike “Sooner or later, your sacred oxen will have to be sacrificed at the alter of political correctness.”
posted by Guest at 06:09 A.M. EST on Tue Sep 28, 2004 #
Bars and restaurants are...not private homes.
I never said that they were private homes. I said they were private property. The problem is, liberals and the politically correct cannot distinguish between private and public, have no faith in the free market and do not value personal responsibility. This is the bottom line and the issue in this perspective is far bigger to me than any argument the mainstream opposition to the ban has raised.
posted by babbleman at 08:04 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 29, 2004 #
The best ally the smoking ban has is its opposition in Toledo. The opponent's incredibly politically inept message is that the ban will hurt business. By focusing on this, and not facing the supporter’s accusation, they effectively admit that there is a public health issue. Therefore, the position becomes "sure there is a public health issue, but business is more important". Who in the world do they think is going to vote for that?
The opposition needs to paint a picture that will attract votes, not repel them.
The message needs to first expose the ruse of the public health issue argument for what it is: people are dying of secondhand smoke because they choose to eat or work in places that are filled with the stuff. The health hazard is not caused by smoke – it is caused by the actions of the people who expose themselves to it.
The message then needs to drive home the idea that the ban supporters think that you (the people of Toledo) are stupid and that you can’t think for yourself. They are elitists that will steal your freedom because they don’t think that you know right from wrong.
The message needs to appeal to the public’s strong feelings about freedom, free enterprise, personal responsibility and what it is to be an American – and how the smoking ban flies in the face of all that.
I think this would get a lot of traction because many people that I’ve talked to support the ban based only on the surface effects: smoke is bad, the law makes it go away, so that’s good. With the opponent’s current tact, these people are not exposed to or compelled to think about the underlying implications about us as a society, the purpose of government or what makes America unique. This is what liberalism thrives on – hiding the fundamentals. But people understand those fundamentals and, if the picture is painted well, will react strongly to anything that tries to take them away.
posted by babbleman at 09:42 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 29, 2004 #
Babblemouth says, "The health hazard is not caused by smoke – it is caused by the actions of the people who expose themselves to it."
What a load of steaming horseshit! That's like saying to the people who died on the Titanic, "it's not the Captain's fault, it's your fault for being on the ship."
Second-hand smoke is a danger in the WORKPLACE, which in this case is a bar or establishment. Public, private... that's not the issue. Nor is free enterprise the issue. Within a few years all public places and WORKPLACES will be smoke free - here and abroad. Why fight it? It's like saying, "Let's make it legal to use asbestos again."
posted by Chaz at 08:04 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 30, 2004 #
For years, the dangers of secondhand smoke have been reported from every media outlet. Yet people make reservations days ahead of time, they hire babysitters, they get in their car and navigate it across town and then walk into a small enclosed space full of smoke and sit there for two hours eating. If that isn't the most willful, pre-meditated, free-choice-driven exposure to a known health hazard, I don't know what is.
Yet to you, Chaz, the thought of these patrons having any responsibility for the consequences of their actions is a load of steaming horseshit!.
This, people, is EXACTLY what liberalism is about - a complete and utterly vacant sense of responsibility for one’s own actions. I don’t know how these people got this way, but it’s not how I raise my children. And it sure as hell is not the kind of leadership I want shaping the world that my grand children will inherit.
Nor is free enterprise the issue
It isn’t? What would happen if people stopped patronizing and working for establishments that allowed smoking because it makes them sick?
Making laws to skirt and insulate us from the consequences of our actions is the weak way out. Liberals like Chaz have no idea what it means to be strong – and because of it, they weaken us all with every new law they write.
posted by babbleman at 09:27 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 30, 2004 #
First of all, can Guest please tell me the definition of the word "ness?"
Babblemouth is amazingly consistent in terms of his/her lack of perspective. To babblebreath, every law since the Bill of Rights is a liberal conspiracy to remove the people's lawful freedom. Boy, you must really despise the Patriot Act! Yes, babblestupid sees a conspiracy around every corner. Well, we know that today there are excellent new medications for the clinically paranoid.
You know, we all thought that smoking is the EVIL, along with workplace (see "bar") owners who permit their staff to inhale that smoke. Yet, babblestupid finally convinces us poor dumb public that it's the PATRONS WHO ARE EVIL! Yes, the fault lies in US... US stupid indiotic PUBLIC because after all, we go in! Damn, I wish I knew that a long time ago, so I wouldn't have wasted my time thinking that it's really the smokers and owners of WORKPLACES who are the real evil parties. What a dummy I've been to think that it's the WORKPLACE owners who should bear responsibility for providing a dangerous place for people to work and enter.
All praise babblebumble for helping us finally understand that WE are the real evil party for allowing our teenage children to work in such a dangerous environment. Yes, it's OUR FAULT for going in or allowing our kids to work there. IT's not the responsibility of the owners of the workplace! Golly! Let's send all us stupid hungry people where we belong - to jail!
I only wish I could have found a way to have every law since the Bill of Rights eliminated, so that babblesimple would be able to sleep at night, instead of seeing liberal ghosts in every shadow.
Hey babblebutt... BOO!
posted by Chaz at 07:15 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 03, 2004 #
You know, we all thought that smoking is the EVIL… Yet, babblestupid finally convinces us…that it's the PATRONS WHO ARE EVIL!
Now you’ve got it Chaz. Ideally, people have a well grounded sense of responsibility by the time they leave puberty. Looks like you came around a bit later.
But don’t worry, you are not alone. There are legions of others out there that came of age in the 60’s and somehow got it totally backwards. Ever since, in complete futility, they try to manage problems by socially engineering the symptoms.
posted by babbleman at 08:18 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 04, 2004 #
Yeah, babblemouth. I say, let's round up all of those idiotic patrons of establishments and put them in... in... CAMPS! Yes, we can make them do menial labor and then we can send all of those migrants who are doing menial labor now back to Mexico, where they belong. Right babblemuther? All of those people who go to bars should be put out of their misery, since only a total idiot would deliberately expose him or herself to second-hand smoke. Right? Am I getting it now?
Wow, for all these years I thought that government existed to protect citizens. But now, thanks to babblebutt, my eyes have been opened to the truth. Yes, the truth is that CITIZENS are evil because they can't be trusted to do anything right. So, government exists to put all of those people stupid enough to go to a bar out of their misery.
Thanks for showing me the way, babblebarf. I don't know where I'd be without you!
posted by Chaz at 10:23 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 04, 2004 #
A tavern owner pays rent or mortgage payments every month to maintain control of the property. The property is not a public place, it is a private enterprise. Free enterprise rewards business owners who provide their paying customers with an environment they want.
Chaz is a fool. He claims these small businesses should be controled by workplace safety laws as proscribed by OSHA, but never stopped to notice that OSHA has yet to regulate air purity. Maybe he sould try to get that done.
That would have been a more fair way to regulate indoor air -- to set maximum levels for particulates. Chaz and his ultra liberal ilk would prefer to engage in social engineering by doing away with smoke as much as possible.
Who liked the ban as it was: JFo as it was the sole accomplishment of 3 years as mayor; the antismokers because, after all, they are antismokers; The Blade, because they consider themselves to be social engineers; and finally Chaz, because he falls into one or more of the aforementioned categories.
Who didn't like it: Every owner, employee and customer of the hundreds of adult-destination businesses affected by the law; The TPPA; AFSCME Toledo and fair-minded people everywhere.
And now people have voted and more than 50% of them agree with me.
Please allow me to comment on the title of this chatter, the amended law being unfair to nonsmokers. How can anyone think it's fair to force a business to conform to a policy that will make it lose money simply because they had the misfortune of locating in Toledo and not one of the suburbs years ago when the playing field was level?
If any reader of this thinks taverns should be nosmoking, why don't they pony-up their $150,000 to $500,000 and open one up? They can make whatever decisions they want and will win or lose based on their own plan. That would be fair, wouldn't it?
In addition to certain inalienable rights, everyone is completely entitled to everything his or her money can buy. Why should an antismokers persuit of happiness trump that of tavern patrons who enjoy smoking? I don't think it should.
posted by jimavolt at 08:11 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 07, 2004 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
