Anti smoking zealots killing business in Anchorage

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What gets me is the non smokers could choose to stay out of smoking establishments rather than impose their will upon others. If non smoking establishments were such a big hit you wouldn't see bars closing down due to lack of business. Especially in cold weather climates. Apparently the right to choose isn't in their thought waves. I think it goes right over their head.

When I was living in the Twin Cities and MN passed their smoking ban, Wisconsin was close enough that people would drive across state lines just so they could be in a bar where smoking was still allowed.

It was pretty funny though as well, because theatrical performances were "exempt" from the smoking ban. So bars started putting on weekly/nightly "performances" they'd call "before the ban" in which people were "acting" as if the ban never happened.. It lasted for a few months before the state Nazi regulators got all angry about it...

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Well, you can have a cig. You just can't have someone else breathe your smoke. They have a right to life, too, you know?

so we're good on the constitution issue?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

so we're good on the constitution issue?

Not really. Smoking has not yet been identified as a constitutional right.

[^_^ 5,021]

Not really. Smoking has not yet been identified as a constitutional right.

president romney will stack the scotus with conservatives and then they will find that right in there somewhere... no worries.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Not really. Smoking has not yet been identified as a constitutional right.

i have faith in obama - since he smokes.

[afoyoswa 178]

i have faith in obama - since he smokes.

Wrong.

And bars in MA are doing just fine without smoking. So are entire college campuses, including the one where I work, which is 100% non-smoking indoor and out. And our ban was passed to protect the health of workers, who may or may not have a choice of whether to work in a non-smoking or smoking establishment.

[Dakine10 5,452]

It is amusing isn't it? It's like the idiots who keep slapping themself on the knee with a baseball bat... "ow this hurts" -- Does it again -- "ow this hurts" --- and so on and so on...

Oh yeah, those guys. What a crazy bunch they are.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wrong.

And bars in MA are doing just fine without smoking. So are entire college campuses, including the one where I work, which is 100% non-smoking indoor and out. And our ban was passed to protect the health of workers, who may or may not have a choice of whether to work in a non-smoking or smoking establishment.

Wait, so you're forced to work where you work?

Cmon now. Think about this REALLY hard.

Oh yeah, those guys. What a crazy bunch they are.

would you have preferred battered wives syndrome? That's as good of an example as any.

[afoyoswa 178]

Wait, so you're forced to work where you work?

Cmon now. Think about this REALLY hard.

No one is forced to work anywhere, no. But everyone needs money to live, and if the only or best job option open is one in which there will be exposure to an environmental toxin and no way to protect yourself against it (even workers who deal with asbestos or other occupational hazards have to be protected, by law), should workers really have to choose between their health and their economic survival? Of course not.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No one is forced to work anywhere, no. But everyone needs money to live, and if the only or best job option open is one in which there will be exposure to an environmental toxin and no way to protect yourself against it (even workers who deal with asbestos or other occupational hazards have to be protected, by law), should workers really have to choose between their health and their economic survival? Of course not.

If the only job you can get is in a place you don't want to work, then perhaps you should get better skills.

We all have choices. You CHOOSE your life and how you earn your money.

Smoking might be annoying to you, but there's no guarantee that it's going to impact your health either if you're around. Just as there's no guarantee that it's not going to. There's a lot more to the heath effects of second-hand smoke than just exposure. A lot of it has to do with genetics. We're not far enough long in technology to know who will or will not be harmed by it, but at the same time you make the choice to take risks in your life. You're more likely to be injured on your way home from work in a car accident than you are to be harmed by second hand smoke. Yet, I don't see many people out banning cars. Everyone is nit picky on what THEY don't like. Just because you don't ilke it, doesn't mean it should be banned. You have every capability of avoiding it if you choose to.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Wrong.

And bars in MA are doing just fine without smoking. So are entire college campuses, including the one where I work, which is 100% non-smoking indoor and out. And our ban was passed to protect the health of workers, who may or may not have a choice of whether to work in a non-smoking or smoking establishment.

You mean people are being forced to work in a smoking establishment? With guns or knives?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What is a "smoking establishment"? I thought people went into bars to drink and restaurants to eat. People are still free to open smoking clubs if they want a smoking establishment.

[^_^ 5,021]

What is a "smoking establishment"?

Those smoking lounges at the airports?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

What is a "smoking establishment"? I thought people went into bars to drink and restaurants to eat. People are still free to open smoking clubs if they want a smoking establishment.

Other than Bolshevik Anchorage, people are allowed to smoke in any bar up here. If people don't want to go into one of those bars because they allow smoking then it's their choice.

That would be called a "smoking establishment". Some places in America still respect the right to choose.

[afoyoswa 178]

If the only job you can get is in a place you don't want to work, then perhaps you should get better skills.

We all have choices. You CHOOSE your life and how you earn your money.

Smoking might be annoying to you, but there's no guarantee that it's going to impact your health either if you're around. Just as there's no guarantee that it's not going to. There's a lot more to the heath effects of second-hand smoke than just exposure. A lot of it has to do with genetics. We're not far enough long in technology to know who will or will not be harmed by it, but at the same time you make the choice to take risks in your life. You're more likely to be injured on your way home from work in a car accident than you are to be harmed by second hand smoke. Yet, I don't see many people out banning cars. Everyone is nit picky on what THEY don't like. Just because you don't ilke it, doesn't mean it should be banned. You have every capability of avoiding it if you choose to.

I don't get why people keep drawing the comparison to cars. Cars provide transportation, and so while they may be dangerous, they also have a function, unlike cigarettes which are exclusively recreational. And the potential harm from cars occurs only when you are actually in a car traveling somewhere, rather than insidiously lurking in your cells for years or decades waiting to contribute to another exposure or a genetic predisposition or nothing else at all becoming an actual health problem.

And re: "If the only job you can get is in a place you don't want to work, then perhaps you should get better skills." I just read an article recently (will try to find and link later) about a minority group in Japan that has borne the brunt of the radiation exposure after the recent meltdown due to carrying out much of the cleanup (with minimal or no protection). So, since those people do not have better skills, and thus have no choice of occupation, they do not deserve to have their health protected any more than low-SES American workers whose only employment option is a smoking establishment do?

Also, I never said I find smoking annoying, nor was that the basis for any of my arguments. I find Hummers, hipsters, the college drinking/frat culture, and loads of other things annoying, but I support and would even defend people's right to do/behave however they want. But cigarette smoke is a toxin, which means that it IS harmful: that is not disputed. Whether less harmful, more harmful, harmful earlier, harmful later, contributing to a major illness, or just causing small, subtle, or long-term changes in the way my body should be functioning--it is still harm to MY body from what someone else has decided to do. Not okay.