"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
Nearly 70% of the Earth is covered by water...the rest is covered by Gerod Holliman.
It should be up to the bar and restaurant owners and not the government.
I'd let the people decide with their dollars.
This is a really interesting topic.
On one hand, this law almost single-handedly killed a lot of pool-halls, whom I'm sure would like the ABILITY to be allowed to smoke there. On the other, man do I feel bad for the wait-staff. They're the only people that spend enough time in the establishment to actually see any negative effects from the second hand smoke. If your going to a place for 2 or so hours to eat a meal, you're not going to get cancer, you sissy. Now you could say that the workers have a right not to work there, but I guarantee you that with the scarcity of jobs right now, some people would begrudgingly take it, and day-in and day-out exposure to second hand smoke eventually will have detrimental effects on health.
Can we consciously submit our workers to conditions that will have detrimental effects on health, even if they are aware of risks, & still choose to work there? It's an interesting discussion. Many people still play football with the knowledge that there is a strong possibility they could get hurt physically, or suffer from brain-damage from repeated concussions, albeit their salary is much higher (for the NFL anyway, for some of these indoor & arena leagues, not so much). So maybe there's a scenario, where you have a wait staff, who they themselves smoke, so they don't mind the smoke, much like the football players who are aware of, and accept, the dangers of playing football. & You have a Pool-Hall owner, who he, and the vast majority of his clientele would like the ability to smoke, should they not be able to smoke? Should we not have SOME places where smoking is acceptable?
The libretarian in me kinda agrees that it should be up to property owners, because I think the majority of bars, & resteraunts would still uphold the no-smoking policy, but there are always going to be a FEW spots where the majority of the people would prefer to smoke, like pool-halls and biker bars. & Who are we to try and protect them from themselves?
Great comment..I wonder where you copied and pasted this from...HAHAHA...
Honestly I dont smoke....often.. I have not smoked in a few months..but I would once in a while when I was drinking or just felt like having one... I pretty much did it for the look...It looks cool...Sucks that this is law in NYS..I wanted so bad to able to smoke in a diner like in Pulp Fiction and ****...Also smoking in a bar would be pretty cool too..Now you gotta go outside in the dead of winter and freeze to have a smoke....
As for your last sentence, the law isn't in place to protect the smoker. It's in place to protect the non-smokers in the vicinity who get the worst of the smoke. The smokers themselves have a filter that removes a chunk of the toxins, the second-hand smoke does not. The law is protecting those of us who don't smoke and don't want our children subjected to second-hand smoke. Most people are courteous and smoke out of the way so that they don't effect anyone else. However, there are the few douchemunchers who don't give a **** and smoke wherever they damn please, which is why this law is necessary...
I understand that the majority of the people want to be in smoke-free zones, which is why I think a majority of the restaurants, bars, or what have you, would retain the no-smoking policy, you wouldn't necessarily need it to be law. Times have changed, this isn't the 80's or 90's. More people are aware of the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, and MOST people would prefer to be in area's where no one smoked, so I think a large majority of the restaurants would carry out the no-smoking policy whether it's law or not.Originally Posted by Locke
But for those select few places, like I mentioned above, where both the wait staff, and clientele, both are aware of, and choose to be in, and work at, a place with inherent dangers, than I don't see why you make it illegal for them to do so. They're all consenting to be in there, despite the risks. If you don't want to be in those type of establishments, it's your right to not be there, but to make it illegal? I don't know that that's how you handle it. I think there's a small niche for indoor smoking places, like pool-halls and such, where indoor smoking is popular and makes sense. All you can do is educate the staff and the customers of the ramifications, and they, as legal adults, can make their own decision from there. Just like there are inherent risks in other fields, like football, construction, police, fire-fighter, other sports, etc. I wouldn't do it, but a waiter who's already a smoker might not mind.
This is kind of like seat-belt laws to me. Yes, it's very wise to wear seat-belts, but I don't think it should be illegal for you to NOT wear one. It's also very wise to not get involved with dangerous drugs, but I don't think it should be illegal.
The only place I'd agree with the smoking laws, is places where minors are allowed. So maybe if you have a pool-hall, or bar, where you check id's at the door, and all consent to be in a place where smoking is allowed, then so be it.