banning smoking in a bar is ridiculous. they should ban air too...

que Nocal comment.

lol

I can see drunken, smoking norkies doing improv theater,maybe sing-a-longing.
It would be worth seeing at least once.

Having seperate smoking areas appears to be fair, but banning does work in some cities.

Why can't people that aren't bothered by smoke work in the bar and leave it the way it is/was ? If you don't want to work around smoke then work somewhere else... I can understand a smoke ban in a restaurant, but in a bar it's ridiculous.

SMOKE

banning smoking in a bar is ridiculous. they should ban air too...

something is bad for you that some people do

everyone breathes air

coknurmowth somehow thinks these two sentences are equivalent

queue coknurmowth

If you want to smoke go outside and shiver, or stay home and smoke in your own home. If I go to a bar, why should I have to endure the disgusting habits of smokers?

i like the fact that i can go to a bar and come home and not have to throw all my clothes away because of the reek.

Smoking bans are fucking stupid.

Bar owners should decide whether or not to allow smoking, not the government. The public can decide whether or not to be subjected to the smoke - be it for work or pleasure.

Bars offer many dangerous things in the hands of other patrons - alcohol, pool cues, partially cooked beef, herpes. Some jobs are dangerous, like working offshore, fighting fires, or being a stuntman. If you decide you want to work in a place that offers up danger in the form of second-hand smoke, then what's the big deal?

This is like banning bungee jumping or hang-gliding or high-school football, or forcing people to wear helmets and seat belts. Life is dangerous. Choose wisely. If you go to a bar that allows smoking, you know what you are getting into.

People should be allowed to willingly be subjected to dangers outside of their control.

i like the fact that i can go to a bar and come home and not have to throw all my clothes away because of the reek.

Just perform an anal douche before you go out and you won't have to worry about the just-got-laid santorum odor after backroom sex.

cue people who know the difference between cue, queue, and que

Bars offer many dangerous things in the hands of other patrons - alcohol, pool cues, partially cooked beef, herpes. Some jobs are dangerous, like working offshore, fighting fires, or being a stuntman. If you decide you want to work in a place that offers up danger in the form of second-hand smoke, then what's the big deal?

smoking outside a bar minimizes risk for employees and provides a small inconvenience to smokers. i've smoked in bars in new jersey and california, and if you can't step outside momentarily...then you're kind of a pussy.

i do see the hypocrisy of people body slamming their livers and crying over smoke. but people can be at a bar and not drink alcohol, whereas if there are smokers, they don't really have the option of not breathing.

Additionally drinking and smoking are complimentarily addictive behaviors, which is why bar owners complain to some extent. Drinking makes you want to smoke and vice versa (assuming you drink and smoke) for whatever associated reason. Addictions like these control people to an extent, and both alcohol and cigarettes have a ridiculous profit margin because of it.
To me it feels like a bunch of whining from a morally dubious service.

OSHA says Employers muse provide a safe and hazard free working environment for their employees. Second hand smoke is a hazard. bartenders have the right to not breath that crap

How does OSHA deal with fire fighters?

If you don't like smoke, don't work or drink or step inside a bar that allows it. If you don't like carbon monoxide fumes, don't go to the race track. If you don't like being impaled by horns, don't run with the bulls.

If there was a big enough market for a non-smoking bar someone would have opened it before any bans were even thought of.

If you don't like smoke, don't work or drink or step inside a bar that allows it. If you don't like carbon monoxide fumes, don't go to the race track. If you don't like being impaled by horns, don't run with the bulls.

that's dumb, because there are necessary risks -- if you're a firefighter, you need to risk your life -- and then there are unnecessary risks. why does a waitress need to risk her life to come to work when all it takes is stepping outside for about 2 minutes?

honestly, it's closer to how the government requires you to buckle your seatbelt. it's a slight hassle, and it's my car after all. then again, it's very easy to buckle the seatbelt and it significantly decreases an unnecessary risk.

If there was a big enough market for a non-smoking bar someone would have opened it before any bans were even thought of.

i know the 'free market solution' is all the rage on the internet, but do you honestly think that there were zero non smoking bars before the ban?

Concerning seatbelts - if people want to risk their lives by not wearing them, they should be allowed to, even if it is only a minor inconvenience to buckle up or wear a helmet.

Concerning the waitress and the firefighter - The risk begins when you decide to take on either profession. Before that moment, before you choose, the risks involved in both choices are unnecessary. I understand the idea that second-hand smoke is like asbestos or something similar, and it makes for a dangerous workplace - I just think bars should be chambers of debauchery where seedy individuals slink through the shadows and stand watch behind pool cues and plumes of smoke. You might get hit by a flying beer bottle, but that doesn't mean all the bottles should be plastic.

Concerning seatbelts

speed limits, then? turn signals? both minor inconveniences

Concerning the waitress and the firefighter

they're just not the same, no matter how you try to make it fit that way.

what does a firefighter do? he or she attempts to stop fires. inherently risky activity.

what does a waitress do? takes an order, delivers a food or drink. about as much risk as any other job that involves walking.

why introduce the risk of smoking when it's really no big fucking deal for a smoker to take it outside? we don't ask that retail salespeople inhale smoke, or college professors. because smoking outside is no big deal

why would you ask that people risk their lives for what amounts to a very minor inconvenience (unless you're a libertarian, in which case, that is internally consistent)?

Speed limits and turn signals help keep people from harming others. Seat belts and helmets help keep people from harming themselves.

I agree, taking it outside is no big deal.

But, if you decide to go to work at a college, or a shoe store, or a bar where people can smoke inside - then you know what you're getting into ahead of time in the same way a person looking into becoming a firefighter does.

If you don't want to die from lung cancer, don't work in a bar where people can smoke. If you don't want to die in a fire with a baby clutched under your arm, don't become a firefighter.

Speed limits and turn signals help keep people from harming others. Seat belts and helmets help keep people from harming themselves.

speed limits help when someone runs into a barrier or tree, which is very common. seat belts and helmets also prevent someone from killing you in what would otherwise be a non fatal accident.

If you don't want to die from lung cancer, don't work in a bar where people can smoke. If you don't want to die in a fire with a baby clutched under your arm, don't become a firefighter.

if you work as a firefighter there is a risk of dying from smoke or fire. if you work on a ship, there is the danger of drowning. if you work as a pilot or a driver, you might crash.

if you work as a waiter or waitress, you might die from inhaling smoke.

these aren't the same.

unless, of course, you're arguing that a bar is expressly for smoking, rather than expressly for drinking and -- usually -- eating. i mean, isn't this why movie theaters, stores, and offices don't allow smoking anymore? because these are places that exist for a reason, a reason which isn't smoking? and working in a building shouldn't mean that you have to breathe in cigarette smoke?

i just don't see the point in risking lives for the sake of a slight convenience.

although if people insist on working in a bar where smoking is allowed, whatever, i guess.