scott wrote:Let's say I own bar XYZ and want to keep it a smoking bar like it's always been... if I make it into a "private club", it's no longer under the thumb of this law that pertains to public establishments, right? So then the patrons need to be members to get in. And what if the only membership requirement is that you agree that the joint is a smoking joint, and you take no exception to that? Maybe you pay an annual dues of $1 or something.

Could something like that work?

This is how most bars operate in Utah.

Let's say I own bar XYZ and want to keep it a smoking bar like it's always been... if I make it into a "private club", it's no longer under the thumb of this law that pertains to public establishments, right? So then the patrons need to be members to get in. And what if the only membership requirement is that you agree that the joint is a smoking joint, and you take no exception to that? Maybe you pay an annual dues of $1 or something.

Yes, yes.
Except you forgot the monthly $1,000 "dues" to your Alderman and the weekly $100 to the cops on your club's beat to keep the peace, so to speak.
Oh... and don't forget the bail money and lawyer's fees you'll need after Pam Zeckman and the Channel 2 Investigative Unit finds out about your little club and the kickbacks you paid to keep it smoke-filled.

tmidgett Wrote:

some things are no-brainers. and even the government can get those right on occasion. i predict that in ten years, people are scratching their heads over the fact that there was even a debate about this.

Yes, I believe that this will be the case, because I feel this way now. I can buy all of the smoker's right stuff. If I don't want to smell like smoke I can simply stay home or go to a non-smoking bar or restaurant. I can choose to stay home, but a bar employee can't (please don't give the crap that they can go find another job). How would you feel if people went into your office and sprayed dangerous chemicals in your face for eight hours a day? I think that it's reasonable for the government to take necessary measures to protect people in their work environment.

R.F.F. wrote:How would you feel if people went into your office and sprayed dangerous chemicals in your face for eight hours a day?

Then you'd know what it's like to be any number of different types of construction worker. Or a tollbooth operator. Or a factory worker. Or the lady who sprays perfume samples on women at the mall all day. Or any of the people who work doing stuff outdoors on the property of any major airport. Or anywhere that's pretty near one.

Basically, you'd feel like millions of other people who work in any number of different professions.

Basically, being a bartender today is the same as it's been for well over 100 years when it comes to smoke. It's probably quite a bit better now, actually. If you chose to go through all the hassle of learning to be a bartender without knowing this, you are a very, very ignorant person. It would be like a fireman freaking out because he might get burned at work. How could you enter the field and not see it coming?

Basically, being a bartender today is the same as it's been for well over 100 years when it comes to smoke. It's probably quite a bit better now, actually. If you chose to go through all the hassle of learning to be a bartender without knowing this, you are a very, very ignorant person. It would be like a fireman freaking out because he might get burned at work. How could you enter the field and not see it coming?

At least firemen have the common sense to wear masks and have air tanks. I also see many airport workers wearing masks when working around jet exhaust. Construction workers wear protective eyewear and mask when working around chemicals. My point is that most employers take reasonable precautions to protect their employees (or should take) from foreseeable hazards. Tollbooth workers have nothing to fear because their jobs are being phased out soon enough.
Maybe we need robo-bartenders.

vockins wrote:If you have got some music lying around that gives people lung cancer, I'd like to check it out. That's got to be some serious shit.

I could list thousands of bands who, if they don't already cause cancer, sure are a danger to good taste!

R.F.F. wrote:tmidgett Wrote:
[ If I don't want to smell like smoke I can simply stay home or go to a non-smoking bar or restaurant. I can choose to stay home, but a bar employee can't (please don't give the crap that they can go find another job)

Why not? It's true because they can find another job. Starbucks is always hiring and they don't allow smoking and they pay pretty well. Go get a job there. Plenty of retail establishments don't allow smoking. Is that not a valid response just because you say so?

Is that not a valid response just because you say so?

yes.

R.F.F. wrote:

Is that not a valid response just because you say so?

yes.

Then I say it is valid and anything else you say is wrong forever plus infinity plus 1. So there!

so, what's the news?

Did a ban get passed?

(the thread is too long for me to see if anything has happened.. lots of arguments I've already read on similar threads re: WA state voter-approved ban, though... pro and con.)

(and Washington state's no-smoking-inside-public-places-except-tribal-casinos law started today, fyi...)