Smoking ban in Philadelphia approved

[rjs246]

The option of losing weight and removing one's self from that category is always available... of course we DO love you jolly. Tough to know what to root for here.

[Sgt PSN]

If a business owner wishes to allow smoking inside an establishment that he/she has paid for and you as a non-smoker walk into that establishment then you are willingly putting yourself at risk.  

This is the whole reason why I said this was an OH&S issue.  The ban is not for smoking in private establishments - the MD law allows this.  The ban is for smoking in establishments where people are working.  It falls under the other OH&S measures I described already, along with the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, workplace hazardous materials safety management, etc.

There's a difference between not allowing smoking in a more traditional working environment (office) and in a bar/resturant.  An office is a place of business where work is to be done.  A bar/resturant is a business that is in the business of creating and catering to a social atmosphere.

Office environments are completely different because in many cases, the office space is leased, not owned.  So it may be the property owner's policy to not allow smoking (because of the insurance rates that would probably go with it) where as a bar owner is prepared to absorb any additional costs in insurance or additional ventalation/equipment that would be required in order to cater to smokers.  

There's a saying in any customer service type industry:  The customer is always right.

By telling a bar owner that he can't allow people to smoke inside his establishment is taking away that person's ability to fully satisfy his customers.  

And if you as a non-smoking bartender/waiter/busboy/bathroom attendant choose to work in a place that allows smoking then shame on you for putting yourself at risk. 

[SunMo]

The option of losing weight and removing one's self from that category is always available... of course we DO love you jolly. Tough to know what to root for here.

i'm going to die young no matter what...i'm convinced of that.  i'm 97% sure i'm living my own personal Final Destination

[rjs246]

You should be WAY drunker if that's the case.

[SunMo]

there's always the 3%

[rjs246]

Celebratory drinks?

[Sgt PSN]

youre talking about property...im talking about the business itself...you can smoke in the local kiwanis club all you want...in private clubs you can drink 24 hrs a day...this is not the case in public restaurants or workplaces

I think the real problem is that the definition of public place has seriously become skewed over the years.
City Park = Public Place

Resturant/bar/club that is open to the general public = Private Place

Resturant/bar/club that is not open to the general public = Private Place

What is so hard to understand about the actual difference between public and private?  

Valley Forge National Park = PUBLIC

Dorney Park = PRIVATE park that is open to the public (with cost of admission, or "cover charge")

Knoebles Amusement Park = PRIVATE park that is open to the public (no admission, pay for individual rides)

The gov't can regulate anything it wants to inside of VF Park.  So if they want no smoking in the entire park, so be it.  It's their property.  

The gov't should not be able to tell Dorney Park or Knoeble's that they can't allow smoking.  Not when the government has nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of either place.

It's the exact same thing with a bar or resturant.  It doesn't matter whether or not the place requires paid membership or if it's open to the general public.  It's still PRIVATE PROPERTY.  My house is my own domain.  It's my property and the minute you walk through my front door you have waived your right to breathe smoke-free air.  Same thing goes if I own a bar.  My business, my property, my rules.  Don't like it then get out.  

[phattymatty]

who the farg goes to knoebles?

[Sgt PSN]

You do if you know what it is. 

[ice grillin you]

sorry the private property argument doesnt fly...your home is your home and is considered private...other people cannot enter without your expressed permission...restaurants and bars are privately owned but do not require expressed permission to enter...instead its assumed since it is open to the public and used by the public and regulated by the government that anyone can enter...im pretty sure ive never had to ask permission to go into any restaurant... thus restaurants and bars are subject to governmental regulations that your home or even private business is not

[Sgt PSN]

restaurants and bars are privately owned but do not require expressed permission to enter

You're right.  And it doesn't take a court order for you to decide not to stay in there either if they allow smoking.  So if you don't like the O₂ levels in there, you are free to leave. 

instead its assumed since it is open to the public and used by the public and regulated by the government that anyone can enter

Even if it's not regulated by the government, anyone can still enter (unless it's members only of course).  Also, the owner of any business reserves the right to refuse service.  So even though the place may be open to the public and used by the public, it's still not public farging propertay.  Ownership/management still has the final say on who gets in and who doesn't.  Maybe the place has a dress code.  Should the government regulate that too? 

[Cerevant]

might as well post this here..

I've been saying this forever, and now some scientists are on my side:  smokers health care burden on society less than that of non smokers.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.story05feb05,0,4148359.story

Well farg, an abortion is cheaper than delivery...why wait until they are old enough to smoke?

[Sgt PSN]

might as well post this here..

I've been saying this forever, and now some scientists are on my side:  smokers health care burden on society less than that of non smokers.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.story05feb05,0,4148359.story

Well farg, an abortion is cheaper than delivery...why wait until they are old enough to smoke?

lol if you think Dio is going to oppose this argument. 

[Cerevant]

I realize that Dio is anti-rugrat, but the logic of this hurts my brain.  All hail the .45 caliber in the mouth universal health care plan.

Oh, and there is something wrong with that article:

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the highest health costs. But, because the smokers and the obese people died earlier than those of the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

Ultimately, health costs of the thin and healthy group were highest, about $417,000 from age 20 to 56.  The cost of care was $371,000 for obese people and about $326,000 for smokers.

[Sgt PSN]

All hail the .45 caliber in the mouth universal health care plan.

Now you're appealing to Rusty.