rogozhin wrote:Mazek wrote:

Second-hand cigarrete smoke is overrated.

Why don't they start bitching about second-hand exhaust smoke?

I'm sure they would if people started leaving their cars running in poorly ventilated restaurants and bars.

Second hand smoke = CRAP

try riding your bike down a city thorough fare. it's about the same effect. there you are, trying to avoid being part of the "hydrocarbon society" as well as get some excersize, and a bunch of lazy pricks in cars are fucking up your shit.

i often wish i lived in a time or place where smoking wasn't such a big deal.

smoking>driving

not crap

See, here's the thing: a bar, a restaurant, a live music venue, what-have-you, is not a "public space." It is a private space which is owned by someone who is free to set policy on what goes on within its walls in most regards. It is a private space at which anyone appreciative of what it has to offer in the way of services or goods has the privilege of spending their money on those services or goods. If the environment in which these services or goods are offered is not to the individual consumer's taste, he has the option of spending his money some place where he feels more at home. If there are enough people like him, the owner of the bar, restaurant, live music venue, what-have-you, may get the idea that he should alter some aspect of his private space in order to persuade more people to come into it and spend their money.
The way I see it, the proprietor is the only one with any rights to speak of in this case. One doesn't have the right to walk into a gallery featuring an exhibit of Le Corbusier models and complain about how there were no William Wegman photos. He who would contemplate and admire photos of dogs all day long is free to visit the Wegman exhibit down the road, or to open up a private space of his own where like-minded individuals can indulge their enthusiasm, and fans of Le Corbusier are out of luck.
If he obtains the correct licenses from the city, he is also free to make use of his private space to serve Pabst on tap, host a Lightning Bolt show, or administer colonics. As an added bonus, it is his prerogative to not allow smoking on the premises, if that is his wish, and those who would do so are free to go some place where smoking is tolerated.
Everyone has his choice from a plentitude of private spaces offering accommodation of every proclivity from wife-swapping to pro basketball and nobody is going to be marched one against his will. You don't want to breathe second-hand smoke? More power to you, I hope you live to be a million. Why should it be, though, that your preferences set the standard for what happens on someone else's property?

I've recently changed my tune on this issue.

I fucking HATE second-hand smoke. That doesn't mean, however, that "the man" should stop people from doing it in bars........or at least give them the option to open all-smoking bars.

This is an unfair law that I've enjoyed though.

Cigarette smoke--literally--blows.

If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it also includes a common and proven health hazard that cannot be avoided through one's ordinary and customary actions. That's the crux of this, not simply one's right to do this thing and not another thing.


Art galleries, jeweler's cyanide, etc, are specious analogies.

So far, the only anti-smoking ban argument that holds any water rhetorically, logically, and ethically is that you can create non-smoking bars and allow free market choice to decide rather than mandate of law (ie, if you don't like it, go somewhere else). I think that argument also has its weaknesses, but I'm too goddamn busy at my goddamn job to get into it.

Ford wrote:See, here's the thing: a bar, a restaurant, a live music venue, what-have-you, is not a "public space." It is a private space which is owned by someone who is free to set policy on what goes on within its walls in most regards. It is a private space at which anyone appreciative of what it has to offer in the way of services or goods has the privilege of spending their money on those services or goods. If the environment in which these services or goods are offered is not to the individual consumer's taste, he has the option of spending his money some place where he feels more at home. If there are enough people like him, the owner of the bar, restaurant, live music venue, what-have-you, may get the idea that he should alter some aspect of his private space in order to persuade more people to come into it and spend their money.
The way I see it, the proprietor is the only one with any rights to speak of in this case. One doesn't have the right to walk into a gallery featuring an exhibit of Le Corbusier models and complain about how there were no William Wegman photos. He who would contemplate and admire photos of dogs all day long is free to visit the Wegman exhibit down the road, or to open up a private space of his own where like-minded individuals can indulge their enthusiasm, and fans of Le Corbusier are out of luck.
If he obtains the correct licenses from the city, he is also free to make use of his private space to serve Pabst on tap, host a Lightning Bolt show, or administer colonics. As an added bonus, it is his prerogative to not allow smoking on the premises, if that is his wish, and those who would do so are free to go some place where smoking is tolerated.
Everyone has his choice from a plentitude of private spaces offering accommodation of every proclivity from wife-swapping to pro basketball and nobody is going to be marched one against his will. You don't want to breathe second-hand smoke? More power to you, I hope you live to be a million. Why should it be, though, that your preferences set the standard for what happens on someone else's property?

I am sorry, you are flat out incorrect on this matter. I agree it WOULD BE GREAT if that were the case, but no, bars and restaurants are not private places. Yes, they are owned by private individuals (or can be) but no, they are not private places. They are open to the public and therefore open themselves up to certain laws and codes.... which may extend to proper drinking age, capacity, handicap access, and many other safety issues, etc, etc, etc....things you do not have to be in compliance with if you are a private club or home.

(EDIT: I am speaking for US law.. I am not familiar with Canada.)

I would comment on the rest of your post but since it is mostly either based on this fallacy or busy trying to equate safety concerns with aesthetic choices, I will save server space...

Ty Webb wrote:
So far, the only anti-smoking ban argument that holds any water rhetorically, logically, and ethically is that you can create non-smoking bars and allow free market choice to decide rather than mandate of law (ie, if you don't like it, go somewhere else). I think that argument also has its weaknesses, but I'm too goddamn busy at my goddamn job to get into it.

No, I disagree. Separate but equal does not work in most cases. I couldn't open a bar and say no blacks or gays or jews or handicap people since there are places for those folks to go instead of my place.

Mayfair wrote:I am sorry, you are flat out incorrect on this matter. I agree it WOULD BE GREAT if that were the case, but no, bars and restaurants are not private places. Yes, they are owned by private individuals (or can be) but no, they are not private places. They are open to the public and therefore open themselves up to certain laws and codes.... which may extend to proper drinking age, capacity, handicap access, and many other safety issues, etc, etc, etc....things you do not have to be in compliance with if you are a private club or home.

(EDIT: I am speaking for US law.. I am not familiar with Canada.)

I wonder what really are the drawbacks then to being a private club vs. being a public bar... I remember just outside of Fort Hood, Texas in Copperas Cove, it was a 'dry county' (at least it was back in 1995). So you didn't have package liquor stores or public bars... but there were places that were private clubs... which the only difference was that when you went to the door, instead of paying a $5 cover, you paid $5 for a 'membership card' and then you could drink in your private club... and if you had $5 in your hand you were always accepted as a new member (I don't think they ever turned anyone away).

So... if you wanted to have smoking in your establishment, couldn't you just set it up that way?

Arson Smith wrote:I wonder what really are the drawbacks then to being a private club vs. being a public bar... I remember just outside of Fort Hood, Texas in Copperas Cove, it was a 'dry county' (at least it was back in 1995). So you didn't have package liquor stores or public bars... but there were places that were private clubs... which the only difference was that when you went to the door, instead of paying a $5 cover, you paid $5 for a 'membership card' and then you could drink in your private club... and if you had $5 in your hand you were always accepted as a new member (I don't think they ever turned anyone away).

So... if you wanted to have smoking in your establishment, couldn't you just set it up that way?

Yes. That is the age old loop hole places without liquor licences have used. I don't know why it wouldn't work for places that want to have smoking.

My point is that you don't have to enter any bar or restaurant you don't want to, and for the same reason you'd avoid a seafood joint if you had an allergy, you could steer clear of any place where smoking was allowed, were it up to the owner to say whether it was or not, which it should be, seeing as its his place that he paid for. The fact that a customer is welcome to spend his money there, should he desire, does not make it in any way his, and a place isn't a public one just because it's subject to laws and codes. Your privately owned office canteen can't serve liquor to a minor, you can't snort cocaine in the bathroom of your privately owned club, and you can't have a gas line running perpendicular to the joists in the basement of your privately owned house.
Public places are roads, sidewalks, parks, schools, government buildings, beaches, etc. Places which belong to the public. Places that are maintained with monies collected from the public in the form of taxes. These are places where someone might expect his opinions or desires to carry some weight, as they are places that he has paid directly into. They're also places where somebody might expect to be told he has to modify his behaviour, because it's not appreciated by the majority of his fellow citizens, each of whom has an equal say in the overall tenor of the area.
A private place would be my favourite bar in my neighbourhood which had, as its principal clientele, a gaggle of elderly Polish chess players who are going to be smoking two packs a day forever. Nothing will change that. All the municipal ban did for this bar was to reduce its revenue by thousands of dollars a week at the behest of nosy parkers who will never darken its door anyway. Who does this help? No lives are being saved. The same amount of second-hand (let alone "first-hand") smoke is being generated - somewhere, possibly in an apartment building where children live. And the woman who owns the place is out of pocket.
As for health risks or safety concerns, people make personal choices to endanger themselves in privately owned and operated environments all the time: climbing gyms, go-cart tracks, amusement parks, game fishing boats... there's the chance of harm in all of these. Anybody who doesn't want to run the risk of getting struck in the side of the head is welcome to avoid the batting cages. I'm almost certain nobody will try to force you inside.
Likewise, nobody is going to make you go into a smoky bar.

Ford wrote:My point is that you don't have to enter any bar or restaurant you don't want to, and for the same reason you'd avoid a seafood joint if you had an allergy, you could steer clear of any place where smoking was allowed, were it up to the owner to say whether it was or not, which it should be, seeing as its his place that he paid for. The fact that a customer is welcome to spend his money there, should he desire, does not make it in any way his, and a place isn't a public one just because it's subject to laws and codes. Your privately owned office canteen can't serve liquor to a minor, you can't snort cocaine in the bathroom of your privately owned club, and you can't have a gas line running perpendicular to the joists in the basement of your privately owned house.
Public places are roads, sidewalks, parks, schools, government buildings, beaches, etc. Places which belong to the public. Places that are maintained with monies collected from the public in the form of taxes. These are places where someone might expect his opinions or desires to carry some weight, as they are places that he has paid directly into. They're also places where somebody might expect to be told he has to modify his behaviour, because it's not appreciated by the majority of his fellow citizens, each of whom has an equal say in the overall tenor of the area.
A private place would be my favourite bar in my neighbourhood which had, as its principal clientele, a gaggle of elderly Polish chess players who are going to be smoking two packs a day forever. Nothing will change that. All the municipal ban did for this bar was to reduce its revenue by thousands of dollars a week at the behest of nosy parkers who will never darken its door anyway. Who does this help? No lives are being saved. The same amount of second-hand (let alone "first-hand") smoke is being generated - somewhere, possibly in an apartment building where children live. And the woman who owns the place is out of pocket.
As for health risks or safety concerns, people make personal choices to endanger themselves in privately owned and operated environments all the time: climbing gyms, go-cart tracks, amusement parks, game fishing boats... there's the chance of harm in all of these. Anybody who doesn't want to run the risk of getting struck in the side of the head is welcome to avoid the batting cages. I'm almost certain nobody will try to force you inside.
Likewise, nobody is going to make you go into a smoky bar.

Ford, you are incorrect. I am sorry, but it is not a difference of opinion here. Your version of what bars and restaurant are is not correct. I know it may SEEM like your way should be the way things should go but sadly it is not the way things actually are. You should look into it a bit more. I don't mean to be a jerk about it but you are incorrect of your understanding of the rolls of bars and restaurants. What you describe is a private club, something mentioned here before. There is a big difference.

And as far as the dangers of batting cages compared to the dangers of second hand smoke in public spaces, I think your analogy is a bit limp.

I don't smoke though I do go see bands. Nobody is forcing me into a bar to see a band, no. But I should not have to breath in YOUR smoke to do so. If smoking was just something that harmed the smoker, this would be a very different discussion (like that of red meat or high fat diets). Remember, these laws do not stop SMOKERS from attending the show or bar, they just limit the SMOKING done there. It would be illegal for me to light off fireworks inside a bar for the same reasons... probably harm to others. It would infringe on their rights of safety.