Restaurant smoking ban in Baton Rouge

You are aware that children are allowed to dine at restaurants, aren't you? There is even a proposition to make it illegal for an adult to smoke in a vehicle that a child is in.

Doesn't matter. It's still dealing with health issues. In most cases, the long-term threat posed by cigarette smoke is far greater than a simple case of food poisoning. And the money that non-smokers spend at restaurants has the same value as that of smokers.

So, you're saying that the free will of a smoker hold more weight than that of a non-smoker? People should have to change their lives (or very large things about them) because of the whims of a few weak souls? I don't agree. Smokers are forcing their 'damn will' on everyone around them. They're the ones that can compromise. Go stand outside, or stay home and eat, if you just have to smoke. Why should the non-smokers be the ones to have to make sacrifices?

 

Re: Restaurant smoking ban in Louisiana

First of all, second-hand smoke has not been proven to be a health hazard to most people. There is a suspicion that it is based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, but it has never actually been proven. Frankly, I'm skeptical. A great deal of the tar and nicotine ends up in the filter and most of the remainder ends up in the lungs of the guy or gal who is stupid enough to smoke. What is left is discipated in the air, so a bystander receives very little. If what little he or she gets is enough to kill them, then I suspect the smoker would not live long enough to finish the cigarette.

Secondly, health risk or not, the owner of the restaurant should be the one who should make the decision whether or not smoking is allowed - not the legislature. He knows his customers and what his customers want. He pays the bills - not the legislature, and he should be the one to determine policy for his establishment.

 

pay closer attention to what i said. the difference is that i dunno what is happening in the kitchen so i need it regulated that they are not secretly filthy. but i can tell if smoke is around and can avoid it.

no, i am saying the guy who owns a business makes the rules. if businesses want to ban smoking, great, i will go there and eat their food, because i do not smoke.

no they arent, they are doing what they are allowed by the owner. when i go to your house, you can force your will on me. if you smoke, and you hire me as your butler, it is not my place to tell you to stop smoking. i am voluntarily employed by you and i can go work somewhere else. i dont tell you what to do.

the ones who make sacrifices should be the ones who are the guests in the place. private property, yunno. the owner makes the rules. i dont go over to your house and make you or your guests stop smoking. you are the one paying the rent at your house, not me, so the decision is yours. busienss owners are the ones who have their own money ties up and invested in their business, so i wont dictate my rules to them.

 

I am sorry to hear that, but there is no proof that the second-hand smoke was the culprit. He might have gotten cancer if he had worked in a hospital. Everyone assumes that any non-smoker who gets cancer got it as a result of second-hand smoke. That is quite an assumption. There are a lot of causes of cancer, including genetic, that have nothing to do with second-hand smoke. This is a good example of using circumstancial evidence to come up with a questionable conclusion.

 

Then why is the state restaurant association and its members against the bill if it levels the playing field? The reason they are against it is because they feel the restaurant owner should be the one making the decision. Not the legislature.

 

Re: Restaurant smoking ban in Louisiana

Sure. Neither has the fact that smoking causes cancer in smokers. In fact, no scientific theory has ever been proven, only disproven. But you do/can use strong correlational data to make logical suppositions. You don't have to believe it, but all of the evidence says you're wrong.

Read the articles that I posted in response to SabanFan. They actually go into some detail about toxin levels within the lungs of non-smokers that are exposed to smoke.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned more than a few times in the thread. But it goes towards basic negligence. Restaurant owners must comply with a number of OSHA regulations to ensure the safety of it's employees. Most discoveries regarding second-hand smoke are rather recent. But, as was the case with first-hand smoke, I imagine that as more time is devoted to it, we'll gain a deeper insight, and thus, further regulations against it:

Link: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

You honestly don't think that a lung cancer specialist bases his diagnosis/assesment on slightly more than 'assumptions' and 'circumstantial evidence?' Again, I must reference you to the links I posted earlier. There is a strong correlation between casino employees and smoke-related health effects.

It's odd that you see it fit to point out that no one likes being told what to do. I think that much goes without saying. It's a natural human tendency. But that doesn't mean it's always right.

 

Again, there are large number of rules that business owners must comply with to ensure employee safety. So no, the guy who owns the business doesn't always makes the rules. And OSHA has proposed limiting the amount of second-hand smoke that others should be exposed to.

Ok, enough with this 'forcing your will on me' drivel. I understand what you're saying, I just don't think it fits here. There often comes a point in an argument where two sides just have fundamental disputes that aren't worth reiterating. I feel that is the case on this particular facet of the debate.

Not quite. When dealing with businesses, you don't take this attitude. That's a basic rule. You need the customers business in order to survive, so it is your job to accomodate them.

 

right, which means you get to choose to either ban smoking if your customers hate smoke, or allow it if they like to smoke. you cant accomodate both at once, so as the owner, you get to choose who you want to not accomodate. this way, both smokers and non-smokers have places they can go, instead of your forcing your will on them no matter where they go.

 

Or the smokers can walk a few feet and step outside for 5 whole minutes.

 

i get it, you want to manipulate everyone. i dont.