MajorEverettMiller wrote:I am certain will not die of second-hand smoke. I am fairly confident that the first-hand smoke will prevail.

Yeah. Also: second-hand smoke: NOT CRAP when I am the one producing it, CRAP when I am not the one producing it. Indefensible, but that is my truth right now.

Today marks an exact month of not smoking, which has included being in pubs with friends who were smoking around me. I am properly quit this time I think, but this post for some reason just made me miss smoking:

MajorEverettMiller wrote:I am certain will not die of second-hand smoke. I am fairly confident that the first-hand smoke will prevail.

Someone walks into the bar and says, "Stop it! I don't like what you're doing in this bar! That's why I hate coming here! I demand that you stop so I can come in here without being offended by what you are doing!"

This is not a question about the customers. This is a question about the working environment of people working in bars and restaurants. They have less of a "choice" of exposing themselves to smoke than the customers of a bar, and they die of cancer every year.

I see very little difference between banning smoking in bars and banning asbestos in house construction. Someone has to work in that mess, and their health will pay the price.

larsxe wrote:
This is not a question about the customers. This is a question about the working environment of people working in bars and restaurants. They have less of a "choice" of exposing themselves to smoke than the customers of a bar, and they die of cancer every year.

I see very little difference between banning smoking in bars and banning asbestos in house construction. Someone has to work in that mess, and their health will pay the price.

this is a VERY GOOD POINT INDEED. however, I would reckon the salaries of those who work in bars is dependent on having people come in and smoke cancer sticks since it seems so inextricably linked to drinking alcohol in bars. My unscientific guess would be that the workers wouldn't necessarily be into a ban.

Any bar employees out there? Thoughts?

There's this guy I know. He's allergic to pollen and fronds. He'll never be a florist.

fuck secondhand smoke, fuck smoking in the first place, fuck your smoking avatar. bring on the philly smoking-in-bars-et-cetera ban, which goes into effect in jan. 07. if you like vices, pick one that doesn't blow carbon monoxide all over the surrounding area, particularly if you want to do it indoors. hey, my imaginary friend loves revving his motorcycle/ride-on-lawnmower/diesel-beast over and over... but even he knows not to do it inside, except in the privacy of his own home.

why would secondhand smoke NOT be dangerous? how is it different from the shit the smokers are smoking, which has been proved to be lethal? secondhand smoke contains both the unfiltered smoke coming off the end of the cigarette and the filtered smoke coming out of the smoker's lungs. are lungs supposed to magically remove the bad stuff? there are plenty of reasons someone might want to work at a bar beside huffing ashtrays all night, and it's already been proven that bars can do perfectly well after a smoking ban.

why would the surgeon general, the media or the government invent the idea of secondhand smoking being unhealthy? where's the money in it? isn't there a lot more money in killing people with cigarettes? it's kind of like the right-wingers who say global warming is all a hoax -- where's the money in making that shit up? isn't there a lot more money in just doing what we're already doing whether or not it destroys the ozone?

however, I would reckon the salaries of those who work in bars is dependent on having people come in and smoke cancer sticks since it seems so inextricably linked to drinking alcohol in bars. My unscientific guess would be that the workers wouldn't necessarily be into a ban.

In Sweden, the smoking ban was a workers' rights issue. I don't know whether the employees themselves complained, but their union did.

Sales in bars in Sweden have not had any "measurable effect" after the smoking ban was implemented, according to a survey by the restaurant owners' association in Sweden (who was previously opposed to the ban).

You've had a smoking ban in NYC and LA for quite a while, no? I'm sure there are a tons of studies regarding the effect on bar sales.

There's this guy I know. He's allergic to pollen and fronds. He'll never be a florist.

The difference is that almost everyone is "allergic" to tobacco smoke. After long time exposure to tobacco smoke any given human being has a high probability of developing either lung cancer or emphysema.

What you're saying is that anyone who works in a bar should accept the risk of developing a deadly or chronic disease.

I believe all work environments should leave the worker with a reasonable chance of avoiding permanent injury or death through due diligence. The reason this should be legislated (and not just a common understanding) is that there are poor people who will do any job, and employers should not be able to exploit their situation. Rather, the employer should be forced to alter the work environment.

There will of course always be hazardous work environments, but as premised above the worker should always be left with a reasonable chance of avoiding the hazards.

An example of a hazardous environment with avoidable dangers is a meat-cutting factory, where there are machines that when mishandled can cause injury or death. However, through a proper work tempo and observance of routines the meat-cutter can avoid dying or permanently injuring himself with the machines.

Spending the bulk of your time in a tobacco smoke-ridden bar is very different. Here, the worker has no chance of avoiding the health hazard. There are no "routines" to observe, save leaving the work environment completely (and thus not doing your job anymore).

If you agree with the above premise of work environment safety, the only alternative to banning smoking is strictly legislating the work hours of bar workers.