mackro wrote:so, what's the news?

Did a ban get passed?

Yes http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1125.story


But in pure and classic Chicago fashion, there is, of course, a loophole

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... i-news-hed

scott wrote:Eating red meat causes colon cancer. Restaurants that serve red meat to their patrons must be shut down!!

When I go to Peter Luger and eat red meat, the waiter doesn't get colon cancer.

vockins wrote:

scott wrote:Eating red meat causes colon cancer. Restaurants that serve red meat to their patrons must be shut down!!

When I go to Peter Luger and eat red meat, the waiter doesn't get colon cancer.

You missed something I've said, this is the third time now that I'm saying it... I own the bar, and I smoke, and I want it to be a smoking bar, and my staff want it to be a smoking bar, and we want patrons that want a smoking bar, a fucking cloud of a room, where your eyes water it's so goddamn full of smoke... that's what we all want... this law makes it illegal. WHY?

Because it's unsafe. So is red meat. Your restaurant can sell me red meat which is known to be linked to colon cancer. My bar is not allowed to let you smoke, because it's known to be linked to lung cancer.

I realize YOU might not want the secondhand smoke, and that's fine, don't come to my goddamn bar.

Y'know what I'm sayin?

scott wrote:

vockins wrote:

scott wrote:Eating red meat causes colon cancer. Restaurants that serve red meat to their patrons must be shut down!!

When I go to Peter Luger and eat red meat, the waiter doesn't get colon cancer.

You missed something I've said, this is the third time now that I'm saying it... I own the bar, and I smoke, and I want it to be a smoking bar, and my staff want it to be a smoking bar, and we want patrons that want a smoking bar, a fucking cloud of a room, where your eyes water it's so goddamn full of smoke... that's what we all want... this law makes it illegal. WHY?

Because it's unsafe. So is red meat. Your restaurant can sell me red meat which is known to be linked to colon cancer. My bar is not allowed to let you smoke, because it's known to be linked to lung cancer.

I realize YOU might not want the secondhand smoke, and that's fine, don't come to my goddamn bar.

Y'know what I'm sayin?

If you pay for your staff's onocological treatment in full and provide them with a life insurance policy that can provide for their families upon their passing, go nuts.

vockins wrote:If you pay for your staff's onocological treatment in full and provide them with a life insurance policy that can provide for their families upon their passing, go nuts.

What about if my staff are smokers and they'd love to sign a waiver that says they realize a bar is a smoky place, and they smoke all the time, while not at work, etc? This law tells us consenting adults that this is not an option. Doesn't it? That's bullshit.

scott wrote:What about if my staff are smokers and they'd love to sign a waiver that says they realize a bar is a smoky place, and they smoke all the time, while not at work, etc? This law tells us consenting adults that this is not an option. Doesn't it? That's bullshit.

scott, my friend, you have dug yourself an oddly shaped hole on this one

have fun in there

tmidgett wrote:
scott, my friend, you have dug yourself an oddly shaped hole on this one

have fun in there

And there it is! That condesending, sarcastic, "we know better than you what's good for you", pro smoking ban attitude!

I'm still wondering what smoking ban campaigners are going after next. No one has told me why it should stop here and not move on to polluting industries, tighter fuel emmisions legislation and universal healthcare. We all have a right to good health afterall, don't we?




DON'T WE!?!?

tmidgett wrote:scott, my friend, you have dug yourself an oddly shaped hole on this one

have fun in there

It is weird, maybe.

How about this... let's say you get together with a bunch of people to hang out at your friend's house. Your friend is a smoker, he likes to smoke, and some of the other people there like to smoke. But others are non-smokers, and they wish they weren't exposed to secondhand smoke. Should this law be extended to protect people hanging out at their friend's house? Nobody can say yes, right?

What is different, other than the employment aspect? Nothing, right? In both cases, nobody is being manually *forced* to be where they are, right? Employment is always at-will, right?

I just think there has to be a much, much better solution, one that relies on employers and employees actually wanting these smoke-free environments. I realize only so many of Chicago's potential bartenders can work at the Charlestons (there have to be other examples of bars that are smoke-free voluntarily, right?). So is this really the best solution? Why is this where the line is drawn? Why aren't cigarettes completely outlawed? Why aren't tobacco companies jailed like Kevorkian, if, after all, they are part of this assisted suicide?

I love the idea of smoke-free bars and restaurants. I don't want to go there, but I want them to exist. I think it's ass that *all* bars would be forced to be smoke-free. I just think it's kinda crazy. That's all.

scott wrote:
What about if my staff are smokers and they'd love to sign a waiver that says they realize a bar is a smoky place, and they smoke all the time, while not at work, etc? This law tells us consenting adults that this is not an option. Doesn't it? That's bullshit.

Let's say I own a slaughterhouse.

If I hire a bunch of Mexican immigrants to slaughter cattle for four dollars an hour, then that's ok, right? It's an outrageously dangerous job, of course, everyone knows this, and my rendering plant has had three fatalities in the last four years, but I'm not rounding up people at gunpoint and forcing them to work at my slaughterhouse. They have come to me as freewilled individuals looking for employment. If they wanted other work they could pick lettuce or work in a kitchen. Right?

Fuck that shit. An employer has a moral obligation to provide the safest work environment they can provide, regardless of what the employees might accept. If the employer doesn't have the constitution to figure this out for themselves, I have no problem with state and local governments figuring it out for them.