Smoking Ban

If you can't find work in a field where you feel the conditions are safe, then do something else.

There is another option in this country because we are democracy. If the conditions in your place of work are not safe, you can do something to make them safe. OSHA has drastically reduced the number of deaths in coal mines, construction sites, and assembly lines. OSHA was created because the majority of americans wanted it, instead of just doing something else.

OSHA regulates safety on the job to a reasonable level given the conditions inherent to the job. On the subject of smoking in clubs and/or restaurants... that's just a matter of philosophy on which there is only opinion. I don't think smoking is necessary in a restaurant or club, but I can understand where someone might feel that the hospitality industry benefits by allowing customers to engage in a practice that they identify with relaxation and entertainment. Some feel it's part of the business. Some don't. *shrug*

Most civil and workplace rights were garnered in this country by minority groups willing to go to often dangerous extremes, not by a simple majority vote. Blood in the streets was common.

To compare that level of courage and commitment to a local smoking ban, regardless of which side of the debate one is on, is hyperbolic and disrespectful to those that sacrificed.

There is another option in this country because we are democracy. If the conditions in your place of work are not safe, you can do something to make them safe. OSHA has drastically reduced the number of deaths in coal mines, construction sites, and assembly lines. OSHA was created because the majority of americans wanted it, instead of just doing something else.

Kent Amick joined the debate here on the premise "let the market decide". Is there a precedent for employees or customers bringing suit against an establishment or group of establishments that allow smoking claiming personal injury due to secondhand smoke? It would seem to me that would be a legitimate claim. Such lawsuits would tip the balance in Kent's scenario of letting the markets decide. We know from reading here that restaurant margins are extemely tight, and the prospect of defending such a suit (much less losing the case) would cause restaurant owners to ban smoking regardless of a mandated ban.

And, please understand that I am in complete agreement with you - I fully support Metro's smoking ban, the markets (and all the other arguments I have seen here) be damned.

THAT is a very interesting idea. I think you're right Jay... with all the evidence that's been produced re: second hand smoke who would risk that kind of law suit?

There is another option in this country because we are democracy. If the conditions in your place of work are not safe, you can do something to make them safe. OSHA has drastically reduced the number of deaths in coal mines, construction sites, and assembly lines. OSHA was created because the majority of americans wanted it, instead of just doing something else.

Kent Amick joined the debate here on the premise "let the market decide". Is there a precedent for employees or customers bringing suit against an establishment or group of establishments that allow smoking claiming personal injury due to secondhand smoke? It would seem to me that would be a legitimate claim. Such lawsuits would tip the balance in Kent's scenario of letting the markets decide. We know from reading here that restaurant margins are extemely tight, and the prospect of defending such a suit (much less losing the case) would cause restaurant owners to ban smoking regardless of a mandated ban.

And, please understand that I am in complete agreement with you - I fully support Metro's smoking ban, the markets (and all the other arguments I have seen here) be damned.

No, employees cannot sue their employers for personal injuries incurred on the job. That right was abolished when workers compensation was enacted. Now, instead of the right to sue, there is an administrative remedy that provides for very limited relief.

Even if they could sue in tort, the problem with that is that the remedy only occurs AFTER the worker has suffered an injury. The purpose of regulation is prevent the injury in the first place and save everyone a lot of time and money from litigation and extensive medical expense and time off work.

I am not really in the markets be damned camp. I understand that for many things the market is the best force to govern. But, not for health or safety of citizens. Once again, the problem with allowing the market to govern is that you have to wait for the injury to occur. Regulation allows you to prevent it altogether.

So, the standard should be that government should only regulate conduct that I cannot see, but should not regulate conduct I can see? i.e. I can't see how they store their mayo, but I can see if they allow smoking? Is that right? and, the other condition is that the harm must be immediate and not delayed?

I think those should play a part in it, yes. Although the distinction wasn't immediate/delayed, it was an immediate threat versus a possible threat sometime down the road.

If I can protect myself from it in a reasonably easy manner, then I don't need the government to do it for me. And in the meantime, my needs aren't imposed on anyone else's desires. From my perspective, everyone wins.

I don't think that the government is acting unilaterally here. The government is made up of people who we elected to office, and their votes reflect the position of the majority of their constituents. That's how a representative democracy works. The smoking ban has the support of the majority of voters, hence it's enactment.

On that issue I can't make an argument either way. I don't know that the smoking ban was actually part of the platform that the various council members were elected upon.

Is the standard for the these council members to campaign on this issue, or for the citizens to find out what their position is? I wonder how many who oppose the smoking ban even bothered to vote in the last election for city council, or even knew what their council member's position on the issue?

and to your other point, are you willing to admit that there are things that you may be able to protect yourself from that others with less sophistication or education cannot? Many people need to work in restaurants, and restaurants need people to work in them. I'm not sure that the "go get another job if you don't like a smokey workplace" is really the best solution to the problem.

I can remember 30 years ago when MADD came about and all the drinkers got their panties in a bunch because the laws were infringing on their right to drink and drive while intoxicated. I thought that was a poo too. There is little reasoning with addicts.

a very shrewd analogy. Bar and restaurant owners and patrons who liked to get tanked and then drive home were more furious over the enforcement of tougher DUI laws than the smokers are about this, and it didn't result in the end of bars and restaurants or even alcohol.

The sky is not falling now either.

Is the standard for the these council members to campaign on this issue, or for the citizens to find out what their position is? I wonder how many who oppose the smoking ban even bothered to vote in the last election for city council, or even knew what their council member's position on the issue?

No, it's probably not the standard. I would guess (read: hope) that the council members' votes reflected comments from the community on the issue, but that's a tough line to go by as well. Anyone from any district can make their voice heard to any and all councilmen, not just the one they voted for. It's not a topic that I have complete faith in the public opinion being adequately represented.

and to your other point, are you willing to admit that there are things that you may be able to protect yourself from that others with less sophistication or education cannot? Many people need to work in restaurants, and restaurants need people to work in them. I'm not sure that the "go get another job if you don't like a smokey workplace" is really the best solution to the problem.

Sure, there are, but I don't think smoking is one of them. The public awareness machine has been in full effect for what, twenty years? Thirty? Everyone knows the dangers of smoking at this point.

I just don't think EVERY bar / restaurant needs to be completely smoke free. There's a significant enough anti-smoking segment of the population to support and sustain many non-smoking restaurants - for both patrons and workers.

Hey Aaron, I'm glad you found smoke free work in college. However, I was over 30, never held any job but music and had a mortgage. In my boat were several older students who couldn't survive at Dairy Queen or minimum wage!

Smoke up kids....
18 days and counting.....

I just don't think EVERY bar / restaurant needs to be completely smoke free. There's a significant enough anti-smoking segment of the population to support and sustain many non-smoking restaurants - for both patrons and workers.

So the employees that want to die early can work at the smoking restaurants and the others at the non-smoking ones? You're creating two social classes with this idea. Since nonsmokers can't (won't) go to smoking restaurants they're basically being discriminated against. One class (smokers) have free rein of all restaurants but the others don't, kind of sounds like the fifties and sixties to me!

I just don't think EVERY bar / restaurant needs to be completely smoke free. There's a significant enough anti-smoking segment of the population to support and sustain many non-smoking restaurants - for both patrons and workers.

So the employees that want to die early can work at the smoking restaurants and the others at the non-smoking ones? You're creating two social classes with this idea. Since nonsmokers can't (won't) go to smoking restaurants they're basically being discriminated against. One class (smokers) have free rein of all restaurants but the others don't, kind of sounds like the fifties and sixties to me!

There is a BIG difference between "can't" and "won't". And I fail to see how smokers would have free rein of a non-smoking establishment if you can't smoke anyway? Your comparison between smoking & non-smoking establishments to the civil rights movement is down right disgusting.

I wish people would get this fired up about people not washing their hands.

Hi, everybody,

I've been trying to find out which bars & restaurants have chosen to remain smoke-free. Does anyone know if there is such a list?

Thanks!

(if not, can you recommend a fun, laid-back, locally-owned bar in Germantown, Highlands or Downtown that's smoke-free?)

I just don't think EVERY bar / restaurant needs to be completely smoke free. There's a significant enough anti-smoking segment of the population to support and sustain many non-smoking restaurants - for both patrons and workers.

So the employees that want to die early can work at the smoking restaurants and the others at the non-smoking ones? You're creating two social classes with this idea. Since nonsmokers can't (won't) go to smoking restaurants they're basically being discriminated against. One class (smokers) have free rein of all restaurants but the others don't, kind of sounds like the fifties and sixties to me!

Haha, what? Two social classes? Is that anything like the social classes created by people who won't, oh I'm sorry, can't go to strip clubs? Or like the social classes who won't, OOPS DID IT AGAIN, can't ride airplanes because it might crash?

Sorry for the absurd response, but looks like absurd is the only territory left in this debate. I just can't believe anyone would liken such a situation to discrimination.