New smoking ban in Madison..

[FrostGiant]

Yep. Madison voted 15-5 to ban smoking in all bars. This from a group of people who don't like the crowds that gather outside the bars. Oh yeah, they also banned the pledge of allegiance for a couple days too. And if you ever went out in madison you'd notice that at least 50% of the bar patrons smoke so that's why I'm not thinking this is such a hot idea. It takes effect July 2005. At least they were smart enough not to start it during classes. That would never have worked. But this should bring up some quality debate in the next few months anyway.

 

[xfer]

see, the thing there is, the pledge of allegiance SHOULD be banned. smoking should only be banned if your Chancellor only has one ball.

 

[FrostGiant]

The main problem I have with it is that I think this should have been a referendum rather than the decision of 20 wacked out liberals (nothing against liberals but the liberals in Madison tend to take power trips) making the decision. But that's how they run things down there.

 

[xfer]

that's how it is in MA, too, and i think most other states--the authority for smoking bans falls under the sphere of "public health" and public health decisions are (thankfully) not made by elected officials.

i just don't think it should be allowed to fall under "public health". riding bicycles increases the risk of dying in an accident, too, but that shit's not a public health issue.

 

[mindspell]

that's how it is in MA, too, and i think most other states--the authority for smoking bans falls under the sphere of "public health" and public health decisions are (thankfully) not made by elected officials.

i just don't think it should be allowed to fall under "public health". riding bicycles increases the risk of dying in an accident, too, but that shit's not a public health issue.

That's a terrible analogy. You don't give cancer to the guy next to you, the one not willing to take the risks, by riding a bike.

The problem is that what is a matter of public health should be made by elected officials in the first place.

 

[xfer]

that's NOT a terrible analogy, or, rather, it's not because of the reason you cited. pedestrians are more likely to be hit by bicyclists if bicyclists exist than if they don't. pedestrian risk is increased by choices not their own.

the core issue is that LOTS of things increase peoples' risks around you and they're okay. the new designation of smoking as an "unacceptable" increase in risk is ridiculous and political and cultural.

 

[xfer]

and public health matters should NEVER be handled by elected officials. political wrangling, compromise, and competition should have NO part in deciding what's healthy for people.

 

[NAD]

I don't understand why individual establishments can't decide whether they want smoking in their business or not. The few bars that still allow smoking out here get hefty fines, which is bullshit.

Smoking has been banned in California since 1998 (or '99, don't remember), and it was accomplished via referendum. "When will you people learn, democracy doesn't work."

 

[mindspell]

that's NOT a terrible analogy, or, rather, it's not because of the reason you cited. pedestrians are more likely to be hit by bicyclists if bicyclists exist than if they don't. pedestrian risk is increased by choices not their own.

the core issue is that LOTS of things increase peoples' risks around you and they're okay. the new designation of smoking as an "unacceptable" increase in risk is ridiculous and political and cultural.

Smoking is unacceptable for people that are around it all day, without having an option: Barkeeps, service people in bars in restaurants that don't have a choice but to live in an envirronment where they will probably die of cancer after a while. Note that these people are amongst the ones that don't have alternatives, without much education. It is NOT a matter of choice for these people, and they don't get compensated for having a dangerous jobs, they get the lowest salary around.

It is true that the minute you step outside in the morning risks increase, most fo them however you choose to take them or are aware of them. Smoking in bars and restaurants means that if you don't want to take the risk you are limited in your range of socialisation, which doesn't make any sense to me how you could wish that to people.

NEVER be handled by elected officials. political wrangling, compromise, and competition

What compromise and competition has to do with elected officials? Not every government is as corrupted by the corporate world as yours...

Who should decide then?

 

[avi]

while I respect people's own decision to smoke, it's undefensible to force it upon others.

 

[xfer]

They do so have an option: they can work in a non-smoking field. I don't complain because I get paper cuts all day; that's one of the hazards of my profession. Smoking is PART of working in a BAR. It's not part of working in a hospital or a church.

If you were to pass a law saying that bartenders and waitresses should get comparable hazard pay, then I can't argue with that on an ideological level, because it would not be wrong. But you're not arguing that. A mandatory and universal smoking ban is wrong. (Even though it does make going to bars much more pleasant, speaking as a non-chain-smoker)

Truly democratic and free governments invariably reflect the evil of humanity, so yes, most real democracies DO have the political problems we have.

If a Ph.D in Public Health says, "to stop the spread of AIDS, you must institute needle exchange," then you fucking institute needle exchange. You don't leave it up to a group of elected officials who have to fret about their constituency and their chances in the next election. That is universal to real democracies, not just Americas corrupt/corporate democracy.

 

[xfer]

it is unacceptable to force a bar owner to allow smoking.

it is unacceptable to force a bar owner to prohibit smoking.

go to a fucking non-smoking bar.

 

[FalseTodd]

"go to a fucking non-smoking bar."

Yeah totally just go to one of those bars that likes to turn away 1/2 their potential customers. Can't someone just link to the last time this was discussed here?

 

[avi]

until it was law, there was no such thing as a "non-smoking bar" in CA. I'm much much happier going to shows/bars now that I don't have to be subjected to smoke. smart venues provide smoking patios or whatever and will have them heated if necessary. I smoked for 10 years before quitting - I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to not have to deal with smoke if I want to enjoy the nightlife.

 

[mindspell]

They do so have an option: they can work in a non-smoking field. I don't complain because I get paper cuts all day; that's one of the hazards of my profession. Smoking is PART of working in a BAR. It's not part of working in a hospital or a church.

There are not many options for bartenders and waitresses. Go ask any of them what they would do if they lost their job, probably say:"I would probably find another bar/restaurant to work at". Waitressing is the single uneducated mother job par excellence.

Truly democratic and free governments invariably reflect the evil of humanity, so yes, most real democracies DO have the political problems we have.

Note that I said "as corrupted".

If a Ph.D in Public Health says, "to stop the spread of AIDS, you must institute needle exchange," then you fucking institute needle exchange. You don't leave it up to a group of elected officials who have to fret about their constituency and their chances in the next election. That is universal to real democracies, not just Americas corrupt/corporate democracy.

A group of Ph.D maybe, one... nope. Around here ministry make recommendations and elected officials pass a law based on that. Works, as far as I know. Besides, you go up the ladder of the ministry and everything you see are med. doctors.

 

[Autumn Falls]

I'm all for banning smoking in bars. Smoking is one of the few things I strongly dislike.

Brandon

 

[xfer]

my roommates would rather patronize a non-smoking bar than a smoking bar and at various times i would, too. the solution to a problem is not to create an even worse problem. i would even support a degree of tax breaks for non-smoking bars so they have to make less to turn an equal profit.

mindspell you still haven't addressed the core of my point that their CAREER CHOICE is THEIR CHOICE. a machinist cannot complain that he has dangerous machines all around him and remove them, please, before he works. he CAN demand hazard pay and a degree of safety maintenance on those machines.

Either a group of Ph.Ds or one who holds the relevant position would be fine. I can't see it working properly any other way.

 

[xfer]

also keep in mind that mindspell has defended the Canadian government's anti-free-speech laws.

 

[xfer]

man why did you guys all decide to become nationalist nazis when it comes to smoking and no one wants to join me in banning the pledge of allegiance?!

 

[mindspell]

mindspell you still haven't addressed the core of my point that their CAREER CHOICE is THEIR CHOICE.

Jesus you are slow. I have been saying that THEIR CHOICE, is not much of a choice because the alternatives are minimal, when the are there. MEANING: Work at the diner or stay at home and starve.